The Bennington Banner has just published this letter by Joseph J. Mangano, executive director of the Radiation and Public Health Project based in New York, who has written for The Nation and many other publications.
Vermont Yankee causes harm
Monday November 1, 2010
Health data suggest harm from plant
A recent report by the state health department concluded that the Vermont Yankee nuclear reactor has not harmed local residents (“Yankee gets clean bill of health,” Sept. 23). But a closer look at official government data shows some unusually high death rate near the reactor.
Vermont Yankee is located in Vernon, in Windham County. There are no unusual health risks in Windham; poverty rates and education rates are similar to the state. Residents have access to medical care, locally and in Boston. And the county is not full of industrial pollutants — with the potential exception of the state’s only nuclear reactor.
There are some troubling health patterns among Windham’s residents.
Since the 1970s, the county has the second highest mortality rate among Vermont’s 14 counties for infants dying before their first birthday. It also has the 2nd highest rate of deaths for children and young adults in the past three decades. While many factors can affect infant and child death rates, scientists agree that the youngest are most susceptible to the harmful effects of radiation exposure.
Another disturbing trend is that since 1999, Windham has the highest cancer death rate of any Vermont county. The county’s cancer death rate moved from 5 percent below the U.S. a generation ago to 10 percent above the U.S. currently.
This also should raise a red flag, since radiation is known to cause cancer in humans. Vermont Yankee generates a huge amount of radioactive particles and gases, found only in nuclear weapons and reactors. These include over 100 chemicals like Cesium-137, Iodine-131, and Strontium-90. Much of it is stored at the plant in deep, constantly-cooled pools of water. But every day, a portion is released from the reactor into the local air and water. They enter human bodies through breathing, water, and food.
Federal regulators must soon make a major decision. They will elect either to extend the Vermont Yankee license extension for 20 years, or allow the plant to shut down when the current license expires in just over a year.
This is a critical time to understand all potential health risks, and state health officials should make a thorough review.
JOSEPH J. MANGANO
Radiation and Public Health Project
Ocean City, N.J.
I’m opposed to the continued operation of VY, for many reasons, not least of which is the abysmal safety record of the plant. I also have not yet read the health department report.
But this letter to the editor, in my opinion, does not provide any convincing evidence that VY has contributed to high cancer rates. To say that Windham County has the second highest infant mortality and death rates among counties is meaningless without knowing the variance among counties and the magnitude of the difference between county 2 and county 3. Without knowing the variance among the county means, it’s impossible to judge whether the Windham County ranking is significant. Some state has to be second -if all counties are fairly similar, being second doesn’t mean much.
The second argument – that the relative rate of cancer deaths has increased compared to the United States as a whole, is also weak. At the very least, we’d need to know whether demographic changes, such as average age of the population, accompanied the shift.
Finally, none of this is meaningful without knowing the rate of immigration into the county to know whether people experiencing the cited death rates have actually had significant exposure time in the county.
I realize that in a letter to the editor there is not much space to provide a detailed analysis. But to offer a meaningless analysis such as this without acknowledging its incompleteness is intellectually dishonest. It leaves the reader wondering whether the author knows what he’s talking about or is simply being alarmist without sound science to back it up. Weak arguments such as this leave the VY opposition open to criticism as scientifically naive, and discredit the legitimate movement to close the plant.
is scientifically naive. If he is, you should state the science you are disputing, not the irrelevant fact that his information is in the form of a letter to the editor. Congressmen publish letters to the editor all the time. Does that make their words any less newsworthy?
I would like the stats Mr Mangano gave clarified. However, some of what he said is verified by CDC most recent stats, 2006, after the uprate.
2002-2006 were much lower. After 2005, a big change in the stats. Interesting.
Would also be interesting to see more recent numbers.
VT:
http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/State…
Stats for Northeast, including New England & Mid-Atlantic. Choose ‘Unites States’ in yellow bar, third dropdown, should be default setting, the rest are default-set.
In blue bar choose ‘male/female, then ‘incidences’:
http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/uscs/…
Shows state & region w/highest incidences in the country. White race stats even higher.