At the American Nuclear Society Meeting 2010 being held in San Diego, CA from June 13-18, NRC Chairman Greg Jaczko gave one of the plenary addresses. Lisa Stiles, providing reports from the meeting to the Atomic Show and Atomic Insights filed the following report and audio interview:
From Lisa Stiles: Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Chairman Greg Jaczko told attendees at the 2010 American Nuclear Society (ANS) Annual Meeting Opening Plenary in San Diego that he has commissioned from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) a study of cancer risks in areas surrounding nuclear facilities. He said that the last comprehenisve study was completed in 1990 by the National Cancer Institute. Since then, the availablility and quality of data has improved and Jaczko believes an updated study is needed.
Jaczko mentioned the study as part of the NRC’s efforts to enhance public confidence. He said that stakeholders frequently ask questions about radiation risk and the data that support NRC and licensee assumptions and analyses.
Conference attendees asked several questions expressing concern about the need, scope and goals of the initiative. Dr. Lee Dodds, Nuclear Engineering Department Head at the University of Tennessee-Knoxville, asked if the NAS report would also study the health effects of other energy fuel cycles so that the public could make an informed comparison. Jaczko responded that his agency’s only jurisdiction is in the nuclear arena.
Chairman Jaczko agreed to discuss the study in more detail with me. Unfortunately, my recorder missed the first 30-60 seconds of the interview. In that time I asked him about the scope of the study: Would it include only new data since 1990? By “nuclear facilities” did he mean only commercial plants or other licensees? Would the study include all historical data including that from government facilities? The chairman said that the details are not complete and that the NAS would have most of the responsibility for determining the appropriate scope.
I next asked him about the goal of the study and what he expected to be different from previous analyses. The audio picks up as he responds. I look forward to discussion of Jaczko’s remarks!
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 10:28 — 4.9MB)
Subscribe: Android | Google Podcasts | RSS
Another attendee didn’t really ask a question but made a statement to the effect that if he was an antinuclear activist of any stripe, this is just the thing that he’d like– another study about nonexistant health effects.
Check the Twitter feeds. Good points there, such as “Jaczko is dancing around the question of the need for another health study.”
Later in the day, a fellow from the LaRouche PAC asked ANS President Sanders and his panel if they supported fusion rocket ships to get to and colonize Mars. Mr. Sanders had a serious response: “I think the only way to get to Mars is with a nuclear powered ship.” The guy responded, “fission or fusion?” Sanders: “I don’t care.”
Lisa put together a very nice interview with the Chairman. His responses made me think this is just a publicity stunt. He said that low doses from nuclear plants are lost in the wash from the other natural sources and that the study would not be of sufficient statistical power to confirm or disprove LNT. So it sounds like he is having the study updated for political reasons. I have no problem with it as long as nobody claims that we will truly learn something new
Great job again by Lisa. Your interview drew out these crucial points.
Curiously when asked if his requested NAS study would relate comparative health impacts of other fuels Jaczko maintained that the NRC only had jurisdiction over (commercial) nuclear facilities — which would be irrelevant to the scope a NAS study; when asked if government facilities (outside NRC jurisdiction) or only commercial plants would be included in the study he deferred: “NAS would have most of the responsibility for determining the appropriate scope” of the study.
The Abt Associates study, more recent than the National Cancer Institute (NCI) survey, found that “Fine particle pollution from U.S. power plants cuts short the lives of nearly 24,000 people each year, including 2800 from lung cancer.”
The NCI survey (published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, March 20, 1991), examined 16 types of cancer in 62 counties with nuclear facilities and compared them with control counties, yet survey results often can be interpreted ambiguously especially by the media and even the researchers and peer reviewers themselves e.g. a UK study widely refuted yet often cited (“Cancer Near Nuclear Installations,” David Forman, Paula Cook-Mozaffari, Sarah Darby, et al. Nature, October 8, 1987) shows even random geographic “cancer clusters” can be misinterpreted in statistical data.
In contrast we already have vary good data on mortality clusters attributable to individual coal plants, most notably along the Ohio river valley: see http://www.catf.us/coal/problems/pollution_locator/