By Steven Milloy
How can Alec Baldwin and Christie Brinkley try, in good conscience, to scare
us about both carbon-free nuclear power and global warming?
In a Feb. 12 media release about the relicensing process for Westchester
County, New York’s Indian Point nuclear power plant, two anti-nuclear
activist groups claimed that they were “not convinced” by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission’s preliminary determination of the plant’s safety.
The Radiation and Public Health Project and the Hudson River Sloop
Clearwater pointed to data indicating that thyroid cancer rates in three
nearby counties were higher than the national average and that strontium-90
was detected in breast milk samples taken from within 50 miles of Indian
Point, with the highest results occurring in samples taken closest to the
power plant. Not surprisingly, the activists concluded that, “This
suggests that emissions from Indian Point may be compromising the health of
local residents.”
Also not surprisingly, that’s not the entire story.
First, Indian Point’s radiation emissions are well within long-established
safety levels. According to stringent standards set long ago by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, the maximum allowable amount of radiation
from Indian Point that could be absorbed by someone is 25 millirem per year.
But according to the NRC, the hypothetical maximum dose that anyone could
possibly have absorbed from Indian Point is only about 7 millirem per year
-- a dose dwarfed by what is typically absorbed from unavoidable natural and
other manmade radiation sources.
The average person in the U.S. receives a dose of about 360 millirem per
year, according
to the EPA. About 80 percent of this dose comes from rocks and soils, mostly
in the form of radon, and cosmic radiation from space. These natural doses
can vary greatly depending on where you live. People who live in Denver, for
example, receive an extra 50 millirem per year of cosmic radiation simply
because of the city’s mile-high altitude.
The other 20 percent of the typical annual radiation dose comes from manmade
sources -- mostly mammograms and diagnostic x-rays.
Living near a nuclear power plant typically adds less than 1 millirem to
annual radiation doses, according to the EPA. The 7 millirem figure
calculated by the NRC for Indian Point doesn’t represent an actual dose
received by anyone. It is calculated as a maximum possible absorbed dose if
someone were to be exposed to maximum emissions at the plant’s boundary
line for a year. Such exposures are obviously unlikely ever to occur.
Further, the 25 millirem regulatory level set by the EPA is more of an
arbitrary standard than a true safety level. There is great debate in the
scientific community as to whether such low-level doses of radiation are at
all dangerous. Kerala, India, for example, has a relatively high-level of
natural background radiation and many residents absorb as much of 2,000
millirem of radiation annually with no reports of increased cancer
incidence.
JunkScience.com once measured
the radiation emanating from granite statues in the U.S. Capitol Building
and discovered that a person standing in statuary hall near the Senate
Chamber would absorb 5 times more radiation than would be absorbed by
standing at the fence line of a nuclear power plant.
So the radiation that someone could be hypothetically exposed to from Indian
Point isn’t worrisome. So what’s the explanation for the higher thyroid
cancer rates in the counties surrounding Indian Point? There isn’t one.
First, the three counties (Rockland, Orange and Putnam) are actually upwind
of Indian Point. If plant emissions were increasing cancer rates, you would
expect to find those cancers downwind of the plant. Next, the cancer rate in
Westchester County -- where Indian Point is located and where maximum
radiation exposures would be expected -- is lower than those in Rockland,
Orange and Putnam. Also, there are several other New York counties, upstate
and far away from Indian Point, that have thyroid cancer rates similar to
the three counties near Indian Point.
As to the strontium-90 allegedly found in breast milk samples, the NRC says
that the low levels detected in the environment surrounding Indian Point
“are consistent with decayed quantities of activity from historic
atmospheric weapons testing.”
While thyroid cancer seems to be on the rise in the U.S. and New York State,
no one really knows what exactly causes the disease. The New York State
Health Department speculates that part of the reason for the increase may be
the expanded use of radiation to diagnose and treat medical conditions. The
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says that at least part of the
reported increase in thyroid cancer rates is likely explained by
improvements in detection and diagnosis. The good news is that deaths from
thyroid cancer are not increasing.
What’s left, then, is a bunch of celebrity anti-nuclear power activists at
the Radiation and Public Health Project -- including the likes of Alec
Baldwin and Christie Brinkley -- seemingly bent on scaring people about
nuclear power for no good reason.
Since they believe that manmade carbon dioxide emissions drive climate
change, you’d think that they would embrace nuclear power as a carbon-free
form of generating electricity. Brinkley says [Suggested link is http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/sgw_marcher.asp?442768]
that, “unless we stop global warming in the next 10 to 20 years, our
children face a future so bleak and frightening, it brings tears to my eyes
just to think of it.” Baldwin narrated a National Geographic documentary
that likened global warming to “doomsday.”
If Baldwin and Brinkley really believe that humans are causing catastrophic
global warming, it would seem that they ought to be scaring up, not scaring
off support for nuclear power.
Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and manages the Free Enterprise Action Fund. He is a junk science expert, and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.