Fukishima a year later.

satansbed wrote:

i found this which from the department of health of pennsylvania which says other that cancer rates in the pottstown area are no different than the pennsylvania average

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=& ... C5ZSjqFgjw (its a PDF)

The overall incidence rate or cancer risk in the area was the same as
Pennsylvania (SIR=0.98). The ratio for several types was larger than 1.00.These include
stomach, pancreas, malignant-melanoma of the skin, cervix, kidney, brain/nervous system,
thyroid, Hodgkin’s disease, and leukemia. Ratios were sufficiently large for pancreas, malignant
melanoma, cervix, thyroid and leukemia to consider each statistically significant. Several ratios
were less than 1.0, however, breast cancer was the only one found to be statistically significant.

Table 3 shows major types diagnosed in this age group. There were fifty-four (54) new primary
cancers reported during the eighteen-year period. These included leukemia (14), brain-nervous
system (9), Hodgkin’s disease (2), non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (4), kidney – renal pelvis (8), and
thyroid cancer (1). These percentages are based on very few cases making comparisons to the
state figures difficult.

Standardized Incidence Ratios – Children
While the crude cancer incidence rate is about 40 times greater in adults compared to children
(620 per 100,00 versus 15.4 per 100,000), children are more susceptible to several specific
types.8 These include acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL), certain lymphomas including Burkitt’s
lymphoma, Wilm’s tumor of the kidney, connective tissue cancers, and bone cancer. To
determine if there is a pediatric cancer problem in this area, the types and risks were compared to
children statewide. Table 4 shows incidence ratios, based on statewide age-specific rates to
calculate the expected numbers. The incidence rate for “All Cancers” appeared to be 35 percent greater than the state (SIR=1.35), and Wilm’s tumor was over four times greater (SIR=4.32)

.....This prevented the calculation of site-specific rates. Rates for All Cancers were presented
only, and precluded any discussion of individual types of cancer.
The types of cancer, their relative frequencies, and incidence rates or risks in the community
have been described. When compared to the state, the distribution of cancers was not different,
and the overall incidence rate was the same as Pennsylvania (SIR=0.98), though some individual
types exceeded the state’s rate. These included pancreatic cancer, malignant melanoma of the
skin, cervical cancer, thyroid cancer and leukemia. The PADOH looked at twenty-two (22)
cancer types, the Montgomery County Health Department the major types. Though the
observation periods were different (10 versus 18 years), the findings are similar. Higher cervical
cancer and leukemia rates were observed in the PADOH and MCHD studies. In both, the
cervical cancer rates appear to be two- to three-times larger in the Pottstown area, and leukemia
rates between 30 and 100 percent higher than the comparison areas. The rate for All Cancers was
not different from the tri-county area (1985-1994) or Pennsylvania (1985 - 2002). But unlike the
MCHD study, lung cancer rates were not elevated.

unsung wrote:

An I scared about nuclear? No.

If you are saying Limerick (is that the station?) has caused cancer rates to soar out of control like Chernobyl (even that area is returning to pre accident levels) I would have to see the study.

However I believe I remember seeing a study about estimated life expectancy reduction due to certain environmental issues and being an employee in the industry reduces your life by about a week. I assure you I get much higher radiation dose than probably everyone else on this forum, and I'm not worried in the least bit.

Do you smoke by chance?

haffajappa wrote:

I guess the issue is, no matter how 'small' the risk is of something like Chernobyl or Fukushima Daiichi happening, if something does it can have the potential to be catastrophic.

Kel Varnsen wrote:

haffajappa wrote:

I guess the issue is, no matter how 'small' the risk is of something like Chernobyl or Fukushima Daiichi happening, if something does it can have the potential to be catastrophic.

You could say that about most large scale methods of power generation though. I mean if Hoover Dam were to fail the damage would also be catastrophic, so why don't we get rid of all hydro-electric dams? Sure the failure of a coal fired plant might not be catastrophic but the pollution and acid rain it causes, plus the resparitory diseases (and coal miners deaths) seems like a higher price to pay for power, than the small chance of a nuclear plant failing leading to a increased (but still small) chance of people getting cancer.

satansbed wrote:

brianlux wrote:

What is your point and why have you posted it here? I put up this thread with the intent of honoring those who suffered and still suffered a great tragedy and as a reminder that there are great dangers involved with nuclear power.

and im saying the dangers arent as great as you are saying.

infact nuclear energy is possibly the best way to allow us to remove our dependency on fossil fuels.