San Onofre Cancer Study Cancelled?

#NRC cancels health study around nuclear plants, including #SanOnofre - The Orange County Register http://t.co/QhVMFNKlRv

— AA Clearinghouse (@AAClearinghouse) September 18, 2015

San Onofre Operators Exposed on #NBC: Massive Contamination at Pristine Beach http://t.co/TcxQu7J2dB #nonukes #climate #security #sec #law

— Cecalli Helper (@Cecalli_Helper) September 22, 2015

Report: San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station very very sloppy, very very careless in handling radioactive material.

The most common wind direction for most of the year was North (Orange County) except in the spring (April-June) when it was to the south (San Diego County).

In 2012, there were 29 incidents of effluent monitoring instruments being out of service for more than 30 days. In 2013 there were 22 such incidents.

It is interesting to examine NRC documents on batch releases after the reactors were shut down (Jan., 2012) compared to when they were in full operation.  There were 3 batch releases of gaseous effluents in when Units 2 and 3 were in operation in 2011 (total 44.2 hours).  In 2012 (after it was shut down) there were 6 such releases totaling 43.1 hours.

Liquid radioactive batch releases in 2011 totaled 518 hours at 740,000 gal per minute.  In 2012 after operation ceased, releases went on for 335 hours at 612,000 gal per minute.

The NRC claims that it cannot afford the $8 million to carry out the cancer study proposed by the National Academy of Sciences.  For 2016, the NRC has requested $1.032  billion of which 90% will be paid for by the nuclear industry it is supposed to be regulating.  The NRC spends $25 million/year on travel expenses.  In 2015, the nuclear industry gave the NRC $43 million for "outreach" and "policy support."  

Ask your local representative to tell the NRC, 
BRING BACK THE CANCER STUDY! 
&

"NO effluent releases at any time in cases of effluent monitoring instrument failure"

Join The San Onofre Cancer Study

Calling All San Onofre Surfers

          While many of us have been busy focusing on the host of problems we face because of San Onofre,  there is one very important issue we are neglecting: the immanent pending decision of the NRC on whether to fund the Natioinal Academy of Sciences (NAS) cancer streak study in this area.  The NAS sent their Phase 2 proposal to the NRC back in January and the NRC is dragging its feet on whether to approve it.  Many think that the NRC does not want this study done because of the possibility of revealing that the radioactive releases Edison has been doing into the ocean and into our atmosphere for the last half century may have a significant toll on our health.

          The NAS study will focus particularly on women and children who are the most vulnerable.  If you have lived within 31 miles (50 km) of the plant and had children since the 1980s, you will be part of the study.  As you know, nuclear power plants are known emitters of beta and gamma radiation which can easily penetrate your home and your body and rearrange cell DNA which might result in cancer after years or decades of exposure.

          There is Congressional oversight on this,  but the NRC has played down this investigation and more public pressure is needed to get this study funded.  Even though San Onofre is “closed,” we know that considerable emissions will continue to take place during the coming decades of decommissioning.  They will continue to be discharging up to 36 radionuclides into the giant 18 ft pipes into the ocean (at a rate up to a million gallons per minutes with some discharges lasting 25 hours).  Since 1990, the NRC has relied totally on an old and now discredited study by the National Cancer Institute which performed a heavily flawed study that failed to find a cancer effect.  The NRC and the nuclear industry like this study and they routinely (and mistakenly) say it proves that radiation is harmless to people living near NPP.

          There are two key people in Congress who are actively concerned about this. They are in a position to put pressure on the NRC to fund the study.  They are our own Sen. Boxer and Massachusetts Senator Markey.  Please write to both of them, perhaps both a written letter and an email (and call them).  It is not necessary to sound like a nuclear physicist and cite the details.  Just express your concern as a resident, and ask them to please contact the NRC and help get this study funded.

Many thanks!

Roger Johnson

Senator Barbara Boxer

312 N. Spring St., Suite #1748

Los Angeles, CA  90012    213-894-5000

 

Senator Barbara Boxer

112 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, DC  20510    202-224-3553

senator@boxer.senate.gov

copy:   caridad_sanchez@boxer.senate.gov   and      tony_cruz@boxer.senate.gov

 

Senator Edward Markey

255 Dirksen Senate Office Building   

Washington, D.C. 20510  202-224-2742

 

Senator Edward Markey

975 JFK Federal Building

15 New Sudbury Street

Boston, MA 02203   Phone: 617-565-8519

Edward.markey@markey.senate.gov

Also copy:    sarah_butler@markey.senate.gov and Michal_Freedhoff@market.senate.gov (she is a director of policy)

 

Link to Analysis of Cancer Risks Among Populations Near Nuclear Facilities Jan. 2015:

http://dels.nas.edu/Report/Analysis-Cancer-Risks-Populations/18968?bname=nrsb

 

 

Health Effects Of Living Near A Nuclear Reactor

Nuclear Reactors, On Fault Lines In Tsunami Hazard Zones Equal Fukushimas
Decommission Diablo Canyon 

The two Diablo Canyon nuclear power reactors (Diablo Canyon) in San Luis Obispo (SLO) County are aging. They began operation in 1984 and 1985, respectively.

They are the only California nuclear power reactors still operating to produce electricity, after the San Onofre reactors were closed in June 2013. In 2010, 465,521 people lived within 50 miles of the plant.

As of 2010, the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant held 1126 metric tons of high-level radioactive waste, containing more radioactivity than that released during the Chernobyl disaster of 1986. Diablo Canyon emitted more highly-toxic liquid tritium into the environment than any U.S. plant during the late 2000s.

A 2013 study by the Union of Concerned Scientists concluded that the discovery of “a previously unknown earthquake fault line running as close as 2,000 feet from Diablo Canyon’s two reactors…could cause more ground motion during an earthquake than the plant was designed to withstand. Since this new fault was discovered, the NRC [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] has not demonstrated that the reactors meet agency safety standards.”

Average radioactive Strontium-90 (Sr-90) levels in baby teeth from San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara counties were 30.8% greater than the Sr-90 levels in all California baby teeth tested. In the state of California, Sr-90 levels in baby teeth rose steadily, increasing 50.2% in children born in the late 1990s vs. the late 1980s. Nuclear power plants are the only current source of Sr-90 emissions into the environment.

Major findings about local health patterns around the Diablo Nukes include:

1. Since the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant opened in the mid-1980s, San Luis Obispo County has changed from a relatively low-cancer to a high-cancer county.

2. Due to increases in the San Luis Obispo County cancer rate during 2001-2010, an additional 738 people were diagnosed with cancer.

3. Cancer incidence in San Luis Obispo County rose from 0.4% below to 6.9% above the average for the state of California during the time period of 1988-1990 to 2003-2010. The current cancer rate is the highest of all 20 counties in southern California.

4. After Diablo Canyon began operating, significant rapid increases occurred for the incidence of thyroid and female breast cancer in San Luis Obispo County, both highly radiosensitive cancers.

5. After Diablo Canyon began operating, infant mortality in San Luis Obispo County rose significantly.

6. After Diablo Canyon began operating, child/adolescent cancer mortality in the county rose rapidly.

7. Melanoma incidence in San Luis Obispo County soared from 3.6% above to 130.2% above the state incidence rate during the period from 1988-1990 to 2003-2010, and is now the highest of all California counties.

8. Cancer mortality for people of all ages in San Luis Obispo County rose from 5.1% below to 1.4% above California from 1988-1990 to 2008-2010, making SLO the 25thhighest county in the state (up from 43rd highest).

9. The ratio of babies born at very low-weight (below 3 pounds, 4 ounces) rose 45.0% higher in the 9 San Luis Obispo County zip codes closest to Diablo Canyon, versus the other more distant 10 county zip codes.

10. The ratio of all-cause mortality rose 47.9% higher in the 9 San Luis Obispo County zip codes closest to Diablo Canyon, versus the other more distant 10 county zip codes.

11. In the 10 zip code areas in Santa Barbara County closest to Diablo Canyon, there was a greater rise in the rates of infant mortality (61.7%), low weight births (40.2%) and total mortality (19.1%), than in the 5 zip codes areas in the city of Santa Barbara, located approximately 90 miles from the reactors.

12. The major findings of this report show increases in various rates of disease and death in San Luis Obispo County, as compared to the state of California, since the 1980s (before plant startup and during its early years of operation). This includes increases in infant mortality, child/adolescent cancer mortality, cancer incidence for all ages (especially thyroid, female breast, and melanoma), and cancer mortality for all ages.

Click here to read more 

Related articles

• High cancer rates near Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant
• - High cancer rates near Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant
• PG&E decision on Diablo relicensing could hinge on seismic retrofit
• Researchers consider: How risky is that radiation?
• Supervisors decide to plan ahead in case of Diablo Canyon shutdown

San Onofre Cancer Report by Joe Mangano Published

Joe Mangano The Radiation and Public Health Project  
P.O. Box 1260 Ocean City NJ 08226 

Click here for the RADIOACTIVE EMISSIONS AND HEALTH HAZARDS FROM THE SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR REACTORS IN CALIFORNIA PDF 

Everyone and especially those with small children should consider making a donation to Joe Mangano's* The Radiation and Public Health Project for publishing his San Onofre Cancer Report at no cost, as a public service.

Note: This study comes long before similar studies being done by the NRC which will take years to complete, yet the nuclear industry group already claims that they "won't provide any meaningful data" (see below).

After reading Joe Mangano's study, you can decide for yourself.

* Joseph J. Mangano, MPH, MBA, is Director, Secretary, and the Executive Director of the Radiation and Public Health Project.

Mr. Mangano is a public health administrator and researcher who has studied the connection between low-dose radiation exposure and subsequent risk of diseases such as cancer and damage to newborns.

He has published numerous articles and letters in medical and other journals in addition to books, including Low Level Radiation and Immune System Disorders: An Atomic Era Legacy. There he examines the connection between radiation exposure and current widespread health problems.

For comparison:

CANCER RISKS STUDIED NEAR 7 US NUCLEAR SITES

By STEPHEN SINGER

— Oct. 24 2:03 PM EDT

You are here

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/cancer-risks-studied-near-7-us-nuclear-sites

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — Federal regulators say a pilot study of cancer risks posed to residents near seven nuclear power sites in the United States will update 22-year-old data, but an industry group says the study won't come up with anything new.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission says it will study cancer types in infants and the general population near six nuclear power plants and a nuclear-fuel plant for the Navy. The $2 million study is expected to begin in the next three months and continue at least into 2014.

The Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry group, opposes the study, saying it won't likely provide any meaningful data.

The sites are in California, Connecticut, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey and Tennessee.

Related articles

• NRC Public Meeting On the Process To Decommission San Onofre
• San Diego Gas & Electric wants to recover San Onofre investment
• Group links Palisades to death rates; company disputes report
• Decades later, Baby Tooth Survey legacy lives on
• Calls for US seafood testing after revelations of Fukushima radiation leaks
• How to support the "Nuclear Waste Symposium"

Is San Clemente a Safe Place?

On March 29, the National Academy of Sciences released a 460-page report about cancer risks associated with living near a nuclear power plant. They recommended six areas in the United States for intensive studies of possible cancer links. Our area was one of the chosen six: They want epidemiological studies done for towns within 30 miles of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. Is south Orange County becoming the poster child for a place where it is dangerous to live, work or bring up a family?

While many are concerned about accidental radiation leaks such as those in January, the dirty little secret is that reactors routinely release radiation without announcement. Air ejectors release radioactivity into the atmosphere and pumps discharge radionuclides into the ocean. Regulations on the deliberate release of radioactivity are specified in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s federal code in which reference is made to ALARA or “As Low As Reasonably Achievable.” Knowing that nuclear power plants cannot operate without regularly releasing low-level radiation, government agencies allow them to do so. Without monitoring, we have no idea what is released or when. Edison is not required to announce either the dates or concentrations of these secret releases. They do post yearly averages, but we have no way of knowing if the numbers are the result of possibly dangerous levels on some days averaged with no releases on other days. The industry claims that these doses are low for adult males, but to have radiation released year after year, decade after decade is problematic, especially for children.

If you want to know what San Onofre released two years ago, study Edison’s own reports to the NRC. In 2010, the list included 34 radionuclides, including some of the most toxic substances on the planet. There were 44 hours of atmospheric batch releases and 550 hours of liquid radioactive releases into the ocean. How many surfers are aware of this? In addition, Edison trucked 27 flatbed trailers of radioactive solid waste to Utah, through San Clemente and lots of other towns.

Many have difficulty fearing invisible microscopic radioactive particles. We do know that radiation causes cancer, but some disregard health threats that take years to develop. Individual doses are made to sound insignificant, but the effects are cumulative. Children are 15 to 20 times more vulnerable to radiation, and the fetus is 30 to 50 times more sensitive. Recent studies published in the International Journal of Cancer, reported that children living near nuclear power plants in Germany and France are twice as likely to get childhood leukemia. In California alone, there were 56,030 cancer deaths in 2011 and 163,480 new cases of cancer. No one knows the exact cause of most cases, but experts tell us that the vast majority of cancer has environmental origins.

If San Clemente wants to be a safe place to live and work, shouldn’t we have radiation monitoring of air and water plus epidemiological studies to learn if we are being harmed? This was the main issue at a recent City Council meeting where droves of citizens lined up to request radiation monitoring. When City Councilwoman Lori Donchak courageously made a motion to ask for independent publicly accessible radiation monitoring in town, the other four councilmen refused even to second the motion. The council ignored the warnings of City Manager George Scarborough who pointed out that the current real time monitoring near the plant is not available to the public. Council members said that everyone should trust the authorities and that those who favored increased safety for San Clemente were engaging in fear mongering.

Perhaps the main lesson learned from Fukushima is the collusion between government and industry. The government and the nuclear industry in Japan lied about radiation dangers before, during and after the meltdown. The tab for Fukushima is already $300 billion and still rising. It seems reasonable that anyone living in the shadow of San Onofre should be skeptical of those who are willing to risk our future. We should trust scientists long before we trust those who profit. In 2006, former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev remarked that it was Chernobyl that really caused the downfall of the former Soviet Union. One serious accident here might do the same thing to our country.

Roger Johnson, San Clemente

Cancer Epidemic in San Clemente

Is cancer an epidemic in America? by Ace Hoffman

A friend and I were looking back at 2011. She remarked about all the cancer she's seen this year. Last month she lost a close friend -- a woman in her 30s. Another friend, 40, has bladder cancer for the second time.

My step-mother recently made a similar remark about cancer in my own family. She lives on the other side of the country and the family is scattered all over the globe. One brother-in-law has stomach cancer which has metastasized, and many of us are cancer survivors (including me (bladder, 2007)). And on my own newsletter list I know of a number of ongoing cancer cases as well.

It feels like an epidemic, but of course, the epidemiologists who work for the state or the federal government would undoubtedly tell us they can't discern anything "statistically significant" (they love that phrase!) from our "data" -- it's just a few random points, it doesn't show a trend. That's true of course -- but we're talking about real lives of our friends and families, not raw, impersonal numbers. We're looking for answers.

Click here to read more