Radiation: Nothing to See Here?
Brian Moench, MD
Truthout
Friday, March 25, 2011
Administration spokespeople continuously claim “no threat” from the radiation reaching the US from Japan, just as they did with oil hemorrhaging into the Gulf. Perhaps we should all whistle “Don’t worry, be happy” in unison. A thorough review of the science, however, begs a second opinion.
That the radiation is being released 5,000 miles away isn’t as comforting as it seems. The Japanese reactors hold about 1,000 times more radiation than the bombs dropped over Hiroshima.(1) Every day, the jet stream carries pollution from Asian smoke stacks and dust from the Gobi Desert to our West Coast, contributing 10 to 60 percent of the total pollution breathed by Californians, depending on the time of year. Mercury is probably the second most toxic substance known after plutonium. Half the mercury in the atmosphere over the entire US originates in China. It, too, is 5,000 miles away. A week after a nuclear weapons test in China, iodine 131 could be detected in the thyroid glands of deer in Colorado, although it could not be detected in the air or in nearby vegetation.(2)
The idea that a threshold exists or there is a safe level of radiation for human exposure began unraveling in the 1950s when research showed one pelvic x-ray in a pregnant woman could double the rate of childhood leukemia in an exposed baby.(3) Furthermore, the risk was ten times higher if it occurred in the first three months of pregnancy than near the end. This became the stepping-stone to the understanding that the timing of exposure was even more critical than the dose. The earlier in embryonic development it occurred, the greater the risk.
A new medical concept has emerged, increasingly supported by the latest research, called “fetal origins of disease,” that centers on the evidence that a multitude of chronic diseases, including cancer, often have their origins in the first few weeks after conception by environmental insults disturbing normal embryonic development. It is now established medical advice that pregnant women should avoid any exposure to x-rays, medicines or chemicals when not absolutely necessary, no matter how small the dose, especially in the first three months.
“Epigenetics” is a term integral to fetal origins of disease, referring to chemical attachments to genes that turn them on or off inappropriately and have impacts functionally similar to broken genetic bonds. Epigenetic changes can be caused by unimaginably small doses – parts per trillion – be it chemicals, air pollution, cigarette smoke or radiation. Furthermore, these epigenetic changes can occur within minutes after exposure and may be passed on to subsequent generations.(4)(5)(6)
The Endocrine Society, 14,000 researchers and medical specialists in more than 100 countries, warned that “even infinitesimally low levels of exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals, indeed, any level of exposure at all, may cause endocrine or reproductive abnormalities, particularly if exposure occurs during a critical developmental window. Surprisingly, low doses may even exert more potent effects than higher doses.”(7) If hormone-mimicking chemicals at any level are not safe for a fetus, then the concept is likely to be equally true of the even more intensely toxic radioactive elements drifting over from Japan, some of which may also act as endocrine disruptors.
Many epidemiologic studies show that extremely low doses of radiation increase the incidence of childhood cancers, low birth-weight babies, premature births, infant mortality, birth defects and even diminished intelligence.(8) Just two abdominal x-rays delivered to a male can slightly increase the chance of his future children developing leukemia.(9) By damaging proteins anywhere in a living cell, radiation can accelerate the aging process and diminish the function of any organ. Cells can repair themselves, but the rapidly growing cells in a fetus may divide before repair can occur, negating the body’s defense mechanism and replicating the damage.
Comforting statements about the safety of low radiation are not even accurate for adults.(10) Small increases in risk per individual have immense consequences in the aggregate. When low risk is accepted for billions of people, there will still be millions of victims. New research on risks of x-rays illustrate the point.
Radiation from CT coronary scans is considered low, but, statistically, it causes cancer in one of every 270 40-year-old women who receive the scan. Twenty year olds will have double that rate. Annually, 29,000 cancers are caused by the 70 million CT scans done in the US.(11)(12) Common, low-dose dental x-rays more than double the rate of thyroid cancer. Those exposed to repeated dental x-rays have an even higher risk of thyroid cancer.(13)
Even properly functioning nuclear plants emit a steady stream of radiation into nearby water and atmosphere, which can be inhaled directly or ingested from soil contact, plants or cows milk. Many studies confirm higher rates of cancers like childhood leukemia, and breast and thyroid cancer among people who live in the same counties as nuclear plants, and among nuclear workers.(3)
Beginning with Madam Curie, the story of nuclear power is one where key players have consistently miscalculated or misrepresented the risks of radiation. The victims include many of those who worked on the original Manhattan Project, the 200,000 soldiers who were assigned to eye witness our nuclear tests, the residents of the Western US who absorbed the lion’s share of fallout from our nuclear testing in Nevada, the thousands of forgotten victims of Three Mile Island or the likely hundreds of thousands of casualties of Chernobyl. This could be the latest chapter in that long and tragic story when, once again, we were told not to worry.
Footnotes:
1. “Fukushima Daiichi reactors contain radiation equal to a thousand Hiroshima bombs,” Vancouver Observer, March 14, 2011; Ira Helfand, Robert Alvarez, Ken Bergeron and Peter Bradford (former member of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission), on behalf of Physicians for Social Responsibility.
2. Rosenthal E. Radiation, “Once Free, Can Follow Tricky Path,” The New York Times, March 21, 2011.
4. Huang YC, Schmitt M, Yang Z, Que LG, Stewart JC, Frampton MW, Devlin RB, “Gene expression profile in circulating mononuclear cells after exposure to ultrafine carbon particles,” Inhal Toxicol, 2010 May 27. (Epub ahead of print.)
5. Baccarelli A, Wright R, Bollati V, et al, “Rapid DNA Methylation Changes after Exposure to Traffic Particles.” Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., April 2009; 179: 572 – 578.
6. Zhong Y, Carmella S, Upadhyaya P, Hochalter JB, et al, “Immediate Consequences of Cigarette Smoking: Rapid Formation of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Diol Epoxides Chem. Res. Toxicol.,” Article ASAP DOI: 10.1021/tx100345x publication date (web): December 27, 2010.
7. “Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals: An Endocrine Society Scientific Statement,” 2009.
8. Bartley K, Metayer C, Selvin S, et al, “Diagnostic X-rays and risk of childhood leukaemia,” Int. J. Epidemiol. (2010) 39(6): 1628-1637, first published online October 1, 2010, doi:10.1093/ije/dyq162.
9. Bailey H, Armstrong B, de Klerk N, et al, “Exposure to Diagnostic Radiological Procedures and the Risk of Childhood Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia,” Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, November 2010, 19:2897-2909; Published online first, September 22, 2010.
10. Shuryak I, Sachs R, Brenner D., “Cancer Risks After Radiation Exposure in Middle Age,” JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst Volume102, Issue 21, Pp. 1628-1636.
11. Berrington de González A, Mahesh M, Kim K, et al, “Projected Cancer Risks From Computed Tomographic Scans Performed in the United States in 2007,” Arch Intern Med, December 14/28, 2009; 169: 2071 – 2077.
12. Smith-Bindman R, Lipson J, Marcus R, et al, “Radiation Dose Associated With Common Computed Tomography Examinations and the Associated Lifetime Attributable Risk of Cancer,” Arch Intern Med., 2009; 169(22): 2078-2086.
13. Memon A, Godward S, Williams D, et al, “Dental x-rays and the risk of thyroid cancer: A case-control study,” Acta Oncologica, May 2010, Vol. 49, No. 4: 447–453.
Japan Expands Evacuation Radius to 30 km
Tyler Durden
Zero Hedge
Friday, March 25, 2011
The latest news from Fukushima continue progressing from bad to worse. Which of course means that the (physical) silver lining around the mushroom cloud will be that much more potent: after all, the greater the destruction, the higher the Russell 2000. Just ask the Keynesians.
- FUKUSHIMA REACTOR VESSEL MAY HAVE STUCK VALVE, UCS SAYS
- TEPCO FINDS POOLED WATER AT ALL FOUR TROUBLED REACTORS: KYODO
- INCREASED RADIATION RELEASE FROM FUKUSHIMA POSSIBLE, UCS SAYS
This in turn has prompted the Japanese government to increase the “voluntary” evacuation radius from 20 to 30 kms, finally. Shortly, this will be 80. But not before many more innocent people are irradiated and sacrificed at the altar of Nikkei 10,000 (and RUT 36,000).
From Kyodo:
The Japanese government on Friday encouraged people living within 20 to 30 kilometers of the troubled nuclear power plant in Fukushima Prefecture to leave voluntarily, citing concerns over access to daily necessities, while maintaining its directive for them to remain indoors and for residents within 20 km of the plant to evacuate.
The government asked heads of affected municipalities to encourage people to voluntarily move farther away, promising to provide its full support in helping them to relocate, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano told a news conference.
But he stopped short of declaring an evacuation advisory to avoid fanning fears about the increasing danger of radiation leaks, despite criticism from concerned municipalities and local residents of the central government’s ”slow response” over the evacuation instruction.
On a possible new directive from the government, Edano said the Nuclear Safety Commission of Japan is looking into the possibility of whether an evacuation directive can be issued on the basis of living conditions rather than safety concerns. Evacuation directives to date have all been linked to concerns about radiation levels.
In the meantime, now that Tokyo has neither running nor bottled water, those particular 14 million residents are certainly giving a long hard look at at the voluntary evacuation option themselves. Which will be GDP bullish.
Dangerous Breach at Japan Nuke Plant
Dangerous Breach Suspected at Japan Nuke Plant
The uncertain situation halted work Friday at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear complex, where dozens had been working feverishly to stop the overheated plant from leaking dangerous radiation, officials said.
Suspicions of a possible breach were raised when two workers waded into water 10,000 times more radioactive than normal and suffered skin burns when the water splashed over their protective boots, the Nuclear and Industry Safety Agency said.
However, though damage cannot be ruled out, the cause remained unclear, spokesman Hidehiko Nishiyama told reporters.
"It is possible there may be damage somewhere in the reactor," he said, adding later that there was no data suggesting there were any cracks and that a leak in the plumbing or the vents could be to blame.
The confusion was yet another setback to the urgent task of gaining control of the Fukushima nuclear plant 140 miles (220 kilometers) northeast of Tokyo two weeks after a magnitude-9 quake triggered a tsunami that engulfed the facility and knocked out its crucial cooling system.
The plant has been releasing radiation, with elevated levels of radiation turning up in raw milk, seawater and 11 kinds of vegetables, including broccoli, cauliflower and turnips.
Tap water in several areas of Japan — including Tokyo — also tested with radiation levels considered unsafe for infants, who are particularly vulnerable to cancer-causing radioactive iodine, officials said.
The scare caused a run on bottled water in the capital, and prompted city officials to distribute bottled water to families with babies.
Officials are also grappling with a humanitarian crisis in the northeast, where hundreds of thousands of survivors remain camped out in schools and civic buildings two weeks after the tsunami swallowed up swaths of the coast.
Some 660,000 households do not have water and more than 209,000 do not have electricity. Damage could rise as high as $310 billion, the government said, making it the most costly natural disaster on record.
Police said the official death toll rose to over 10,000 on Friday. With the cleanup and recovery operation continuing and more than 17,400 listed as missing, the final number of dead was expected to surpass 18,000, taking into account overlapping figures.
In Fukushima, fires, explosions and spikes in radiation have hampered efforts to contain the nuclear crisis. High radiation levels have forced repeated evacuations, and more than two dozen workers have been injured, according to NISA.
Operators have been struggling to keep cool water around radioactive fuel rods in the reactor's core after the March 11 earthquake and tsunami cut off power supply to the plant and its cooling system.
Damage could have been done to the Unit 3 core when a March 14 hydrogen explosion blew apart its outer containment building.
This reactor, perhaps the most troubled at the six-unit site, holds 170 tons of radioactive fuel in its core.
Previous radioactive emissions have come from intentional efforts to vent small amounts of steam through valves to prevent the core from bursting. However, releases from a breach could allow uncontrolled quantities of radioactive contaminants to escape into the surrounding ground or air.
Some work was suspended Friday to check radiation levels, NISA said.
Gaps in US Radiation Monitoring Revealed
Gaps in US Radiation Monitoring System Revealed
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Part of the nation's key radiation warning system was out of service as the U.S. braced for possible exposure to the fallout from a nuclear crisis in Japan.
While no dangerous levels of radiation have reached American shores, the test of the monitoring network has spurred some lawmakers to question whether it can adequately safeguard the country against future disasters.
The system is crucial because federal officials use the monitors' readings to validate the impact of nuclear incidents, then alert local governments and the public.
In California, home to two seaside nuclear plants located close to earthquake fault lines, federal officials said four of the 11 stationary monitors were offline for repairs or maintenance last week. The Environmental Protection Agency did not immediately say why the monitors were inoperable, but did not fix them until several days after low levels of radiation began drifting toward the mainland U.S.
About 20 monitors out of 124 nationwide were out of service earlier this week, including units in Harlingen, Tex. and Buffalo, N.Y. on Friday, according to the EPA.
Gaps in the system — as well as the delays in fixing malfunctioning monitors in some of Southern California's most populated areas — have helped to prompt hearings and inquiries in Washington and Sacramento.
"Because the monitoring system ... plays such a critical role in protecting the health and safety of the American people, we will examine how well our current monitoring system has performed in the aftermath of the tragic situation in Japan," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat who chairs the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which plans a hearing in the next few weeks on nuclear safety.
EPA officials said the program effectively safeguarded the country against a threat that did not materialize. They said they put portable monitors in place as backups and repaired the permanent ones in Los Angeles, San Bernardino, San Diego within a few days.
"The network as a whole continues to detect even the slightest traces of radiation in the air," the agency said in a statement to The Associated Press.
The EPA's independent watchdog, Inspector General Arthur Elkins, told the AP he is considering reviewing the agency's emergency response planning, including the agency's RadNet system.
The network, launched after the Cold War and upgraded following the 9-11 attacks, measures radiation nationwide through dozens of monitors that suck in air samples periodically and pump out real-time readings about radioactive isotopes.
The EPA's data, as well as samples that numerous federal agencies are collecting in Japan, is sent to the Department of Energy's atmospheric radioactivity monitoring center in California. Teams there check it against sophisticated computer models that predict how releases at Fukushima could spread across the Pacific.
To save money, EPA relies in part on trained volunteers to regularly change out air filters on the RadNet monitors and mail them to a federal lab in Alabama where the data gets a detailed analysis a few days later. Volunteers are also tasked with alerting EPA if something goes wrong with the machine.
"It sounds sort of loosey goosey, but we already operate our network on a very rigid schedule so we just sort of fit it into our lifestyle," said Eric Stevenson, a director of technical services who oversees operation of the monitor from his office at the Bay Area Air Quality Management District near San Francisco's domed city hall. "We've been operating this thing for years and no one has really said boo about it. Something like this comes along and all of us realize 'Hey, gee, that's a relatively smart program.'"
One RadNet monitor in Fontana, Calif. stopped transmitting data in November, and regional air quality officials alerted EPA, said Philip Fine, an atmospheric measurements manager with Southern California Air Quality Management District. The repairs happened last weekend, when EPA made fixing California monitors a priority, he said.
In San Diego, an air district official who oversees one RadNet monitor, said they "babysit" the machine for the EPA and were unaware it had problems until agency officials showed up to fix it last weekend.
"We thought it was running," said Bob Kard, the air pollution control officer for the San Diego Air Pollution Control District.
EPA officials say the system has more than enough monitors to detect any radiation problems even if individual machines break down.
"We have plenty of data coming in across the country to see the potentials on health and safety," said Ron Fraass, who directs EPA's National Air and Radiation lab in Montgomery, Ala. "If you were going to keep your pc operating outdoors in all weather, it's going to break once in a while."
California lawmakers have questioned the adequacy of the EPA monitoring, noting there are no sensors along the coast between San Francisco and Los Angeles.
"The question remains unanswered as to why we have gaps," said California Senate Majority Leader Ellen M. Corbett, (D-San Leandro), who chairs the state committee on earthquake and disaster preparedness "The radiation monitors that we do have in California must be properly checked and maintained."
Daniel Hirsch, a nuclear watchdog who lectures on nuclear policy at the University of California, Santa Cruz, said he was uneasy about the malfunctioning monitors.
"The fundamental concern is that we're being offered bland assurances that everything is ok but much of the monitoring system was broken," Hirsch said.
Syria: Troops Open Fire On Protesters
Troops Open Fire as Protests Explode across Syria
DAMASCUS, Syria (AP) — Troops opened fire on protesters in cities across Syria and pro- and anti-government crowds clashed in the capital's historic old city as one of the Mideast's most repressive regimes sought to put down demonstrations that exploded nationwide Friday demanding reform.
The upheaval sweeping the region definitively took root in Syria as an eight-day uprising centered on a rural southern town dramatically expanded into protests by tens of thousands in multiple cities. The once-unimaginable scenario posed the biggest challenge in decades to Syria's iron-fisted rule.
Protesters wept over the bloodied bodies of slain comrades and massive crowds chanted anti-government slogans, then fled as gunfire erupted, according to footage posted online. Security forces shot to death more than 15 people in at least six cities and villages, including a suburb of the capital, Damascus, witnesses told The Associated Press. Their accounts could not be independently confirmed.
The regime of President Bashar Assad, an ally of Iran and supporter of militant groups around the region, had seemed immune from the Middle East's three-month wave of popular uprising. His security forces, which have long silenced the slightest signs of dissent, quickly snuffed out smaller attempts at protests last month. Syrians also have fearful memories of the brutal crackdown unleashed by his father and predecessor, Hafez Assad, when Muslim fundamentalists in the central town of Hama tried an uprising in 1982: Thousands were killed and parts of the city were flattened by artillery and bulldozers.
The Assads' leadership — centered on members of their Alawi minority sect, a branch of Shiite Islam in this mainly Sunni nation — have built their rule by mixing draconian repression with increasing economic freedom, maintaining the loyality of wealthy Sunni merchant class in the prosperous cities of Damascus and Aleppo.
Bashar Assad now faces the same dilemma confronted by the leaders of Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and Bahrain — ratchet up violence or offer concessions. A day earlier, his government seems to test out the latter track, offering to consider lifting draconian emergency laws and promising increased pay and benefits for state workers.
As massive crowds rejected the government's offers, the worst violence appeared centered around Daraa, where the arrest of a group of young men for spraying anti-regime graffiti last week set off a cycle of growing demonstrations and increasingly violent government crackdowns. The Syrian government said 34 had been slain in Daraa before Friday, while the U.N. human rights office put the figure at 37. Activists said it was as high as 100.
Thousands poured into Daraa's central Assad Square after Friday prayers, many from nearby villages, chanting "Freedom! Freedom!" and waving Syrian flags and olive branches, witnesses said. Some attacked a bronze statue of Hafez Assad. One witness told The Associated Press that they tried to set it on fire, another said they tried to pull it down.
Troops responded with heavy gunfire, according to a resident who said he saw two bodies and many wounded people brought to Daraa's main hospital.
After night fell, thousands of enraged protesters snatched weapons from a far smaller number of troops and chased them out of Daraa's Roman-era old city, taking back control of the al-Omari mosque, the epicenter of the past week's protests.
The accounts could be immediately be independently confirmed because of Syria's tight restrictions on the press.
In Damascus, the heart of Bashar Assad's rule, protests and clashes broke out in multiple neighborhoods as crowds of regime opponents marched and thousands of Assad loyalists drove in convoys, shouting, "Bashar, we love you!"
The two sides battled, whipping each other with leather belts, in Damascus' old city outside the historic Umayyad mosque, parts of which date to the 8th Century. About two miles (three kilometers) away, central Umayyad Square was packed with demonstrators who traded punches and hit each other with sticks from Syrian flags, according to Associated Press reporters at the sites.
An amateur video posted on the Internet showed hundreds of young men marching though Damascus' old covered bazaar, some riding on others shoulders and pumping their fists in the air, chanting, "With our souls, with our blood, we sacrifice for you, Daraa!"
Secutiry forces chased and beat around 200 protesters chanting "Freedom, Freedom!" on a bridge in the center of the city, an activist said.
After dark, troops opened fire on protesters in the Damascus suburb of Maadamiyeh, a witness told the AP. An activist in contact with people there said three had been killed.
The scenes of chaos and violence shocked many in this tightly controlled country where protests are usually confined to government-orchestrated demonstrations in support of the regime, and political discussions are confined to whispers, mainly indoors.
"There's a barrier of fear that has been broken and the demands are changing with every new death," said Ayman Abdul-Nour, a Dubai-based former member of Assad's ruling Baath Party. "We're starting to hear calls for the regime's ouster," he said.
Also startling was the scope of the protests — in multiple cities around the country of nearly 24 million.
Troops opened fire on more than 1,000 people marching in Syria's main Mediterranean port, Latakia. One activist told AP witnesses in the city hospital saw four protesters slain. Another was reported slain in the central city of Homs, where hundreds of people demonstrated in support of Daraa and demanded reforms, he said. He, like other activists and witnesses around the country, spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation by the regime.
Demonstrators in the southern village of Sanamein tried to march to nearby Daraa in support of protesters there, but they were met by troops who opened fire, said an activist in Damascus in touch with witnesses threre. He said the witnesses reported fatalities — some as high as 20 dead — but that he could not confirm the number.
A video posted on Facebook by Syrian pro-democracy activists showed what it said were five dead young men lying on stretchers in Sanamein as men weeped around them. The voice of a woman can be heard saying, "down with Bashar Assad."
An unidentified Syrian official asserted that an armed group attacked the army headquarters in Sanamein and tried to storm it, leading to a clash with guards.
Further protests erupted in the town of Douma, outside the capital, and the cities of Raqqa in the north and Zabadani in the west, near the border with Lebanon, a human rights activist said, reporting an unknown number of protesters detained.
The protests in Damascus appeared led by relatively well-off Syrians, many of whom who have been calling for reforms for years and have relatives jailed as political prisoners.
They contrast sharply with the working-class Sunni protesters in conservative Daraa, where small farmers and herders pushed off their land by drought have increasingly moved into the province's main city and surrounding villages, looking for work and in many cases growing angry at the lack of opportunity.
The protests in Daraa appeared to take on a sectarian dimension, with some accusing the regime of using Shiite Hezbollah and Iranian operatives in the crackdown.
The start of the protests' outbreak far from the urban centers makes Syria's uprising like Tunisia's, in which protests in the peripheries spread to the cities, said Bassam Haddad, Syria expert and director of the Middle East studies program director at George Mason University.
That doesn't necessarily mean the regime is in danger, he said. "If this continues at the level we see right now or if the regime finds a way to deal with the protests at this level, the Syrian regime will be able to weather the storm." But he said the bloodshed could only cause protets to expand.
The White House urged Syria's government to cease attacks on protesters and Turkey said its neighbor should quickly enact reforms to meet legitimate demands. The U.N. said Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon spoke to Assad Friday morning and underlined "that governments had an obligation to respect and protect their citizens fundamental rights,"
Mroue reported from Beirut, Lebanon. Michael Weissenstein and Ben Hubbard in Cairo contributed.
Conflicted feelings on nuclear power?
What's behind our conflicted feelings on nuclear power?
Even before the Japanese nuclear crisis, Americans were bombarded with contradictory images and messages that frighten even when they try to reassure. It started with the awesome and deadly mushroom cloud rising from the atomic bomb, which led to fallout shelters and school duck-and-cover drills.
On screen, Bert, the ever-alert turtle of the government civil-defense cartoons, told us all we needed to do was shield our eyes when the bomb exploded and duck under our desks. Jane Fonda in "The China Syndrome" told us to be worried about nuclear power accidents, and just days later, Three Mile Island seemed to prove her right. Now bumbling nuclear plant worker Homer Simpson, Blinky, the radiation-mutated, three-eyed fish, and evil nuclear power plant owner Montgomery Burns make us giggle and wince.
The experts tell us to be logical and not to worry, that nuclear power is safer than most technologies we readily accept. Producing and burning coal, oil and gas kill far more people through accidents and pollution each year.
But our perception of nuclear issues isn't about logic. It's about dread, magnified by arrogance in the nuclear industry, experts in risk and nuclear energy say.
"Whereas science is about analysis, risk resides in most of us as a gut feeling," said University of Oregon psychology professor and risk expert Paul Slovic. "Radiation really creates very strong feelings of fear—not really fear, I would say more anxiety and unease."
Some experts contend that when a disaster has potentially profound repercussions, we should pay attention to emotions as much as logic.
Nuclear energy hits all our hot buttons when we judge how risky something is: It's invisible. It's out of our control. It's manmade, high-tech and hard to understand. It's imposed on us, instead of something we choose. It's associated with major catastrophes, not small problems. And if something goes wrong, it can cause cancer—an illness we fear far more than a bigger killer like heart disease.
Thirty years ago, before the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster, Slovic took four groups of people and asked them to rate 30 risks. Two groups—the League of Women Voters and college students—put nuclear power as the biggest risk, ahead of things that are deadlier, such as cars, handguns and cigarettes. Business club members ranked nuclear power as the eighth risk out of 30. Risk experts put it at 20.
The only fear that Slovic has seen as comparable in his studies to nuclear power is terrorism.
A Pew Research Center poll after the Japanese nuclear crisis found support for increased nuclear power melting down. Last October the American public was evenly split over an expansion of nuclear power; now it's 39 percent in favor and 52 percent opposed.
"Nuclear radiation carries a very powerful stigma. It has automatic negative associations: cancer, bombs, catastrophes," said David Ropeik who teaches risk communications at Harvard University. You can't separate personal feelings from the discussion of actual risks, said Ropeik, author of the book "How Risky Is it, Really?"
But Ropeik, who has consulted for the nuclear industry, said those fears aren't nearly as justified as other public health concerns. He worries that the public will turn to other choices, such as fossil fuels, which are linked to more death and climate change than the nuclear industry is. He cites one government study that says 24,000 Americans die each year from air pollution and another that says fossil fuel power plants are responsible for about one-seventh of that.
At the same time, health researchers have not tied any U.S. deaths to 1979's Three Mile Island accident. United Nations agencies put the death toll from Chernobyl at 4,000 to 9,000, with anti-nuclear groups contending the number is much higher.
Since 2000, more than 1,300 American workers have died in coal, oil and natural gas industry accidents, according to federal records. Radiological accidents have killed no one at U.S. nuclear plants during that time, and nuclear power has one of the lowest industrial accident rates in the country, said Nuclear Energy Institute spokesman Steve Kerekes.
Alan Kolaczkowski, a retired nuclear engineer, consulted with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on specific probabilities of accidents at nuclear plants. He estimates the risk of a disaster at a given plant at 1 in 100,000—about the same as your chance of being killed by lightning over your lifetime. For comparison, an American's odds of dying in a car crash are 1 in 88; being shot to death, 1 in 306; and dying from bee stings, 1 in 71,623, according to the National Safety Council. The council couldn't come up with the odds of dying from radiation because it lists zero people dying in the United States from radiation in 2007, the most recent year for which these cause-of-death figures are available.
Ropeik calls this mismatch between statistics and feelings "a classic example of how public policy gets made—not about the numbers alone, but how we feel about them, and it ends up doing us more harm."
Kolaczkowski faulted his own industry.
"Those in the industry believe it is so complex it cannot be explained to the general public, so as a result, the industry has a trust-me attitude and that only goes so far," he said. "We're all afraid of the unknown, the ghosts under the bed."
David Lochbaum of the Union of Concerned Scientists, a group that presses for safer nuclear plants, is a former plant engineer. He likens the public's fears to unjustified worries about shark attacks: The risks and deaths are small, but the attention and fears are big.
"It may be an irrational fear, but I don't think it's one that can be educated away," Lochbaum said.
However, calling these fears irrational isn't justified, said Georgetown University law professor and former Environmental Protection Agency associate administrator Lisa Heinzerling. She said people's concerns have been unjustly trivialized.
People have been trained to think about and prepare for low-probability, catastrophic events like the earthquake and tsunami that caused the Japanese nuclear disaster, Heinzerling said. She pointed to homeowner's insurance. Most people won't have a fire that destroys their home, but "we worry about really big things even if they are improbable because we will be wiped out."
Americans also have long had an ambivalence toward new technology, going back to worries about the introduction of electric lights in homes 130 years ago, said University of Detroit Mercy history professor John Staudenmaier,
"Americans overreact with adulation and awe, then overreact with fear and anxiety," said Staudenmaier, editor emeritus of the academic journal Technology and Culture.
Trying to explain the fears, nuclear industry spokesman Kerekes said, "There's a perception gap that exists." But he adds: "Other industries haven't had to do deal with an animated cartoon series that lasted, what, 25 years?"
That would be "The Simpsons." Producer Al Jean said the show, which has been on the air since 1989, reflects America's real feelings.
"There is something that taps into people's view of big business, and in particular, nuclear power, which is giving profit-minded people complete control over life and death. It is a scary thought, and I think that is a topic for satire," Jean said.
Jean recognizes that nuclear plant workers aren't really like Homer Simpson and radiation doesn't "put a cute third eye on a fish." But he thinks his show is accurate with its portrayal of the greedy, conniving nuclear power plant owner Montgomery Burns: "Mr. Burns may be representative of some people in the nuclear industry—not just nuclear, but all industries—who seem like they're more interested in getting the money rather than doing what's safe. I think that's what resonates in the public."
Yet, Jean takes pride in noting that the Springfield nuclear power plant has never blown up.
The lack of transparency in the nuclear industry— including Tokyo Electric Power Co.—has caused some of the problems, said Baruch Fischhoff, a professor of decision sciences at Carnegie Mellon University. It is a charge Kerekes disputes.
"The nuclear industry has behaved in a way that is untrustworthy, both in the sense of not telling people the truth and not having the competence to manage their own affairs," Fischhoff said. He added that industry is too quick to brush off people's fears: "Telling the public that they are idiots is certainly not a way of making friends."
———
Online:
Paul Slovic's Decision Research: http://www.decisionresearch.org/
The Nuclear Energy Institute: http://www.nei.org/
The Union of Concerned Scientists: http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear—power/
New device can adjust your thermostat
New device on utility poles can adjust your thermostat
Dwight Rhine recently spotted additions to the utility poles in his Manchester Township neighborhood and wondered what was up.
A metal arm sticks out from the pole, and the object attached to it is partially blue.
It turns out that they are controllers for Met-Ed's energy saving program.
Customers can voluntarily enroll to allow the utility to remotely control their air conditioners and pool pumps when demand for power peaks on hot summer days. In return, residents receive a credit on their bill.
The goal is to reduce that peak demand for power, said Scott Surgeoner, a spokesman for FirstEnergy, parent company of Met-Ed.
So far, about 5,000 customers in York County have enrolled in the EasyGreen program, he said. The utility needs about 20,000 to reduce the peak by 32 million watts.
Many people are not home during the day when the demand for power usually peaks, Surgeoner said.
If customers set their thermostat at 72 degrees, and the savings device kicks in, they could see the temperature rise 6 or 9 degrees, depending upon which level of temperature increase they choose. The hours typically would be from noon to 7 p.m.
With fans on, "you're not going to notice a great difference," he said.
A radio signal will be sent from a nearby utility pole to the specially installed thermostats inside the home to regulate the cycling of the air conditioner, Surgeoner said.
In communities where the utility wires are underground, the company can connect a controller to the central air conditioning unit at the home.
Residents can save $40 a year -- $10 for each month of June, July, August and September -- as long as they remain enrolled, he said. Plus they get a $50 gift card for signing up.
The savings are greater if both an air conditioner and pool pump are enrolled.
In addition, customers will save on electricity because their air conditioners and pool pumps will be running less, Surgeoner said.
Rhine said his family knows about the program but decided not to participate.
"I'm a really big fan of cold AC in the summer," he said.
In addition, his wife and children are home during the day at that time.
Learn more
To find out more about the EasyGreen program or to sign up, visit easygreen-met-ed.com or call 1-866-311-8558.Also of interest
· Time of another technological change: The end of the telephone operator in York County.
Philly church abuse case
Trial can go forward
Trial can go forward in Philly church abuse case
Associated Press
Four co-defendants -- two priests, an ex-priest and a former Catholic school teacher -- are charged with raping children. The ruling, issued at a sometimes heated hearing, denied lawyers the chance to fight the charges at a preliminary stage.
Judge Renee Cardwell Hughes said a 124-page grand jury report issued last month demonstrates probable cause, even on newly added conspiracy charges. She also issued a gag order, preventing parties from publicly discussing the case.
The case is drawing special attention because prosecutors for the first time charged a church official for allegedly transferring predator priests to new parishes without warning, thereby exposing more children to them.
Monsignor William Lynn, the former secretary for clergy, faces up to 28 years in prison if convicted.
The archdiocese will continue to pay his legal fees, even though the judge warned Lynn that his legal strategy may come to conflict with the church's.
Lynn said he understood the potential conflict but accepted the arrangement, at least for now. Friends have offered to help with his legal bills if he later needs it, he added. Lynn also had counsel provided by the archdiocese during an earlier grand jury investigation of pedophile priests, which culminated with a damning 2005 grand jury report, but no criminal charges.
"Their interests may not align with yours," Cardwell Hughes told him Friday, "if you reach a point where the archdiocese says, 'We don't want you to do X because X exposes the archdiocese to liability, criminally or civilly, or X exposes the archdiocese to negative publicity.'"
"It may be in your best interest to attack certain people," Cardwell Hughes warned the monsignor, who has been put on administrative leave by the archdiocese.
"I do understand that," Lynn said.
The five priests were ordered to return to court for formal arraignment April 15. All have signaled their intent to fight the charges.
The two-hour hearing on various pretrial motions featured heated exchanges between the judge and defense lawyers for the five men.
Two priests, 64-year-old Charles Engelhardt and 47-year-old James Brennan, along with 68-year-old former priest Edward Avery and 48-year-old teacher Bernard Shero, are charged with rape and related crimes dating to the 1990s.
Cardwell Hughes oversaw the yearlong grand jury investigation, which featured 24 witnesses and yielded more than 10,000 documents. The trial judge has not yet been assigned.
Defense lawyers asked her to step down from deciding preliminary objections to the charges, given her grand jury role, but she refused -- and frequently took offense.
She twice told a defense lawyer, as he pressed her on a point, to "shut up."
Audience members who packed into the small courtroom could glean bits and pieces of each side's case from the arguments.
A lawyer for Brennan, charged with raping a 14-year-old boy, said he wanted the right to question the victim at a preliminary hearing about whether the alleged sex included penetration, as the rape charge would require.
City prosecutors, meanwhile, revealed that they may need to call that lawyer, Richard DiSipio, as a witness.
DiSipio studied at St. Charles Borromeo, the archdiocesan seminary, in the late 1970s and early 1980s before becoming a sex-crimes prosecutor for the city and then a defense lawyer. According to prosecutors, he may have information about an alleged sexual assault reported by a fellow seminarian during their student days. Lynn was dean at the time.
The assault is not part of the crimes charged but could be introduced to show prior bad conduct, according to the judge, who gave prosecutors time to decide whether to seek his removal from the case.
Lynn, 60, served as secretary for clergy from 1992 to 2004 under former Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua.
The Feb. 10 grand jury report blasted both Bevilacqua and his successor, Cardinal Justin Rigali, for their handling of priest-abuse complaints, but said there was not enough evidence to charge them with any crimes.