PO Box 531  •  Durham,NC 27702  •  Telephone: (919) 419-8311  •  Fax: (919) 419-8315

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Report details rise in radiation pollution, cancer deaths near Ga. nuclear plant

Georgia Power and Southern Nuclear have proposed adding two new reactors to the existing two at the Alvin Vogtle nuclear power plant on the Savannah River near Waynesboro, Ga. But environmental health advocates warn that the plan could worsen existing radiation pollution from the facility -- as well as possibly related public health problems.

A new report written by Joseph Mangano of the nonprofit Radiation and Public Health Project and released by the North Carolina-based Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League has documented a significant rise in radioactivity levels in drinking water, river water and sediment at or downstream from the Vogtle plant. From 1987-1990, when the plant began operating, to 1991-2003, during full operation, beta radiation rose by 37.1 percent in raw drinking water and 17.8 percent in treated drinking water. In sediment, radioactive beryllium-7 increased by 39.5 percent and cesium-137 by 37.4 percent. And in river water, levels of tritium -- a radioactive isotope of hydrogen -- increased by 44.6 percent.

During that same period, the national cancer death rate for children and adolescents declined by 14.1 percent. But in Georgia's Burke County, where the plant is located, the death rate for all cancers rose sharply -- especially for young people. For Burke residents ages 0 to 24 years, the cancer death rate rose by 55.5 percent, while for residents ages 25 to 54 it rose by 55.1 percent. The report states:
The findings suggest that some factor(s) introduced since the late 1980s has raised cancer risk in the area, particularly in Burke County. Because radioactive chemicals are known to cause cancer, the startup of Vogtle 1 and 2 should be considered as one contributing factor.
Lou Zeller, BREDL's clean air campaign coordinator, received a rebuttal from Georgia Power that accuses Mangano of resorting to a "scare tactic" even while acknowledging company officials "have not had an opportunity to review the ... study in detail." It continues:
Both Georgia Power and Southern Nuclear Operating Company are confident that Plant Vogtle is operated safely and does not pose a health risk to the people living in the vicinity of the plant. The NRC's licensing requirements ensure that two additional units would also not pose a risk to public health and safety.
So how then do they account for the rise in radiation pollution and cancer deaths in the area since the plant began operating? The company's rebuttal offers no alternative explanation.

Labels: , , ,

posted by Sue Sturgis at 12:36 PM | Email this post | Post a Comment
1 Comments:
Blogger Christina Macpherson said...

I have yet to learn of any proper monitoring of the health risks to people in areas where there is any part of the nuclear cycle. From uranium mining and milling, through conversion, enrichment, fuel fabrication, the nuclear reactor itself and so on through to nuclear waste "management" and dumping. The whole industry is so shrouded insecrecy and so intrinsically connected to the nuclear weapons industry. Why do Americans put up with this?

6/27/2007 11:18 PM  

Post a Comment

Return to Facing South's main page

Southern News Update

Who Are These Folks?

CHRIS KROMM blogs three days a week for Facing South. Chris is Executive Director of the Institute for Southern Studies and publisher of the Institute’s award-winning magazine, Southern Exposure.

SUE STURGIS blogs four days a week for Facing South. Sue is the Institute’s Editorial Director and a former reporter for The Independent Weekly and The Raleigh News & Observer.

DESIREE EVANS blogs four days a week for Facing South. Desiree is a Research Associate at the Institute and former policy analyst for TransAfrica.

The views expressed on Facing South are those of the authors and not necessarily represent the views of the Institute for Southern Studies. The editors reserve the right to reject comments that are abusive, offensive, misleading, or that promote commercial goods and services.

Previous Posts