California To Grapple “Indefinitely” With Nuclear Hangover

[kristopher]

California To Grapple “Indefinitely” With Nuclear Hangover
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2013 AT 12:04AM


Meltdowns have almost no probability of occurring, we’re told incessantly; nuclear energy is not only cheap but safe. So, there are currently 434 active reactors and 147 permanent shutdown reactors in the world, for a total of 581 reactors. Four of them have melted down so far – one at Chernobyl and three at Fukushima. The meltdown probability, after six decades of history, is 4 out of 581, or 1 out of every 145. If 1 out of every 145 pedestrians got hit by a car, no one would ever cross a street until we’d come up with safer crossings.

The costs of a major nuclear accident are catastrophic and come due for generations (plural!). But there are also the routine costs when reactors stop producing revenues while the expenses for decommissioning pile up. These costs are largely unknown and haven’t been priced in. It’s just easier to extend the lifespan of the reactors.

So California regulators are grappling this week with how much it will cost to decommission the scandal-plagued San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station – artfully baptized SONGS. It sits by the beach in northern San Diego County; 7.4 million people live within 50 miles. It’s supposed to be able to withstand an earthquake with a magnitude of 7.0 on the Richter scale. But a fault has since been discovered nearby, capable of producing 8.0 earthquakes. Ten times more powerful than a 7.0 quake. San Onofre is also protected against tsunamis, much like Fukushima Daiichi.

San Onofre has had by far the highest number of safety complaints in the US, as measured by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s “Allegations from On-Site Sources” – employees and contractors. The plant’s 171 complaints from 2007 through 2012 blew away the next worst in line, the 115 complaints at the Susquehanna plant in Pennsylvania. On the low end were the 6 complaints at the Kewaunee plant in Wisconsin, which was also shut down this year.

The current nightmare bubbled up in January 2012 when an alloy tube in Unit 3’s steam generator broke and hot pressurized radioactive water leaked out...

http://www.testosteronepit.com/home/2013/10/10/california-to-grapple-indefinitely-with-nuclear-hangover.html

[madokie]

1. Is decommissioning these plants even in the mix?

I mean they have it all figured out how much money they can make in the present but do they even have a plan for when they are no longer suitable for producing power. The CEO's and shareholders are doing ok but at the expense of what to do at the end of the plants productive life.
I've not seen any evidence of it if they do have a plan.

Safe, clean and cheap nuclear power is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the public to date.

I guess we the rate payers are on the hook for that, huh

[PamW]

2. Then you don't know...

Last edited Sat Oct 12, 2013, 06:14 PM - Edit history (1)

madokie states
I mean they have it all figured out how much money they can make in the present but do they even have a plan for when they are no longer suitable for producing power. The CEO's and shareholders are doing ok but at the expense of what to do at the end of the plants productive life.
I've not seen any evidence of it if they do have a plan.

madokie,

If you haven't seen any evidence of a plan; then you haven't done your homework. Nuclear power plants are REQUIRED by law to pay a portion of their profits into a "escrow fund" that will be used to pay to decommission the plant at the end of its life.

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/decommissioning.html

Each nuclear power plant licensee must report to the NRC every two years the status of its decommissioning funding for each reactor or share of a reactor that it owns. The report must estimate the minimum amount needed for decommissioning by using the formulas found in 10 CFR 50.75(c). Licensees may alternatively determine a site-specific funding estimate, provided that amount is greater than the generic decommissioning estimate. Although there are many factors that affect reactor decommissioning costs, generally they range from $300 million to $400 million.

There are numerous reactors that have been decommissioned and the site cleared of any evidence that there was a nuclear power plant there. Such plants include, Shippingport ( the USA's first nuclear plant ), Elk River, Big Rock Point, Maine Yankee, Trojan,...

You can check out the Wikipedia article on any of the above named plants, and the Wikipedia article will give you a link in the upper right as to the GPS coordinates of the plant site, and you can click on through to Google Earth or Bing Maps to take a look at the site today; and you will see just a big blank space.

Nuclear power plants have been decommissioned and dismantled and it has all been paid for by funds that the plant earned when it was operating.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

[wordpix]

15. just because the plants are no longer there, doesn't mean the contamination is gone

Are these sites regularly tested with soil samples, water samples and bio samples of fish/wildlife in the area? What happened to the radioactive materials that were removed? Where were they taken? Have those sites been tested regularly.

You sound like an ad for the nuke industry.

[diane in sf]

3. They decommissioned Rancho Seco near Sacramento quite some time ago.

And the lowered costs and increased prosperity in the region because of not having to buy such expensive, dirty power more than offset the costs of shutting it down.

[madokie]

4. Thats good to know, thank you

[kristopher]

5. A point about those "escrow funds"

They are like underfunded pension plans that were designed around overly optimistic assumptions about when the bills would come due and how much those bills would actually amount to.

[PamW]

7. Didn't read the NRC article, eh?

Didn't read the NRC article, eh?

Why do you think the NRC requires that the utility report on the status of the escrow fund?

The reason the NRC requires the report is so the utility can't short-change the fund.

I know that you can cite anti-nuke after anti-nuke that will say that the funds are short-changed; because they don't go by the formula that the LAW states the utility has to follow.

We have anti-nukes telling us that it will take billions and billions of dollars to dismantle a plant; and hence the escrow funds are not up to that.

Of course, the litany of plants that actually have been dismantled were done with a small fraction of the amount of money that the anti-nukes claim is needed.

So once again, as a scientist; I believe the people who have actually done the "experiment"; those that have actually dismantled a plant, and I believe them for how much it costs.

I totally discount the "propaganda fantasies" of the anti-nukes that tell us the dismantle will cost billions and the escrow funds are short-changed; all when they've never attempted the process, and haven't the foggiest idea of what it costs.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

[kristopher]

8. Antinukes like the Government Accounting Office?

You are a hoot.

[PamW]

10. Under Law it's the NRC's call...

Under Law; it's the NRC's call, and NOT the GAO.

It's the NRC that writes the rules and enforces them. The GAO can only make sure the NRC is following its own rules.

The GAO can't "second-guess" the NRC with regard to what the rules are.

Heck; the US Supreme Court in the "NRDC v. Vermont Yankee" case stated that even the Courts should not "second-guress" the NRC.

The US Supreme Court stated that when Congress establishes a group of experts to regulate a complex technical enterprise; then the non-technical arms of the Government like the Courts and other agencies, should leave the technical judgments to the technical people that Congress authorized to do the job.

The good thing about science is that is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

[kristopher]

12. "As per usual" that is a totally irrelevant response from you.

The GAO is empowered to examine questions related to financial accountability in any and all federal agencies, including the NRC and the effectiveness of the regulatory regimes they establish and enforce. They do not have the power to take action, but since they are there to provide objective economic analysis your claims are not relevant.

The statements I made were drawn from GAO critiques of the system established by the NRC for the management of decommissioning funds.

Your attempt to hide every problem related to nuclear power behind the defense that no one is qualified to criticize the industry unless they are an insider of the industry is beyond bizarre and it reflects a mental outlook and set of values that is "disturbing" to put it mildly. It is part of what makes you the poster child for the negative social consequences of nuclear power.

[PamW]

14. The GAO is empowered to review the accountability of the Government.

kristopher states
The GAO is empowered to examine questions related to financial accountability in any and all federal agencies, including the NRC...

Yes - the GAO is empowered to examine the financial accountability of the Government.

If the NRC is having their people go on "boondoggles" to distant cities like Las vegas where they cavort in hot tubs on the public's nickel; like the GSA was caught doing...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/post/gsa-las-vegas-spending-scandal-inspector-general-refers-case-to-justice-for-possible-investigation/2012/04/13/gIQArGcfFT_blog.html

then that financial impropriety needs to be reviewed and action taken.

However, the case with the NRC is NOT about the NRC abusing and inappropriately spending NRC funds.

NO - the question here deals with judgments about how much money a utility needs to accomplish certain technical tasks involved with dismantling a power plant. Those judgments are technical judgments in nature because one has to evaluate a technical task. That is what the staff at the NRC is trained to do. They have technical people to make technical judgments of what needs to be done; and the costs involved.

When it comes to making these judgments, the US Supreme Court in the "NRDC v. Vermont Yankee" decision; told the lower Courts and other Government agencies to stop "second-guessing" the NRC.

The Supreme Court stated that Congress founded the NRC as the repository for the expertise to make those calls.

The GAO can review the NRC as to how the NRC spends the NRC's money; but as per the US Supreme Court; the GAO can NOT "second guess" the NRC as to what the NRC requires its licensees to do.

The good thing about science is that it is true; whether you believe in it or not.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

[wordpix]

16. good try, it's well known the NRC is an industry puppet

That's why they got rid of the former chairman and agreed to permit the first new nukes in 40 yrs. in SC. Fat chance the industry will have the money for that b/c investors don't want to invest in new nukes and then the taxpayers will be on the hook---again.

[PamW]

19. Just because..

Just because the NRC approved the first new nuclear power plants in nearly 40 years, doesn't mean that they are industry puppets.

The fact of the matter is that until Congress states otherwise, nuclear power is still legal in the USA. If a utility proposes to build a new nuclear power plant, and the design of the power plant in the application meets all the legal requirements set down in law that the power plant has to meet; then they get a license.

If you attend and graduate medical school, and then pass your State's medical board exam with flying colors; then you get a license to be a doctor in said State. The medical board doesn't need to be a puppet to give said person their medical license. They are doing what the law says they are supposed to do.

So many anti-nukes claim that the NRC has to be a puppet because they approved all the nuclear power plant. That doesn't follow.

Consider the following. The local building inspectors have the power not to certify a building that doesn't meet building codes. Suppose you are building a house, and the building inspector finds that the electrician wired the house with 16-gauge wire when the code calls for thicker 14-gauge wire. What does the building inspector do? Does the building inspector say, "That's it! You blew it! You had your chance. Tear down the house. You don't get to build it"

NO - the inspectors when they find a code violation have the electricians rewire the house to code. They have the power not to certify; but they don't have to use it because anyone that is building a house will rewire it to code rather than have all their money wasted. The same is true with nuclear power plants. If the inspectors find something done improperly, they make the constructors fix it and they don't demand that it be torn down.

The purpose of the NRC is not to disallow nuclear power plants ( which is what the anti-nukes want them to do ) The Congressionally mandated authority of the NRC is to make sure that every plant built is built to the standards specified by law.

So the NRC isn't being pro-nuke when Southern Company presents an application to build the Vogtle Units 3 and 4 power plants. The scientists and engineers that comprise the NRC's staff examine the plans for the Vogtle units, and see if they meet the legal requirements. They then make their recommendation to the NRC itself, which then issues a license as per US law.

I know the anti-nukes don't like the present situation, but until Congress says otherwise, nuclear power is legal in the USA.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

[PamW]

6. Wrong!

Last edited Sun Oct 13, 2013, 04:13 PM - Edit history (4)

Although the following article calls the Rancho Seco power plant "decommission"; all they did was to shut down and stop operating it. They didn't disassemble the plant. You can still see the cooling towers and reactor building.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rancho_Seco_Nuclear_Generating_Station

Click on the coordinates in the upper right and go to Google Earth "Satellite" or Bing "Aerial" and you will see that Rancho Seco is right where it has always been. SMUD hasn't paid to have the plant dismantled because they shut it down before it earned the costs of decommissioning. It won't be so inexpensive.

As a scientist, I really wonder when people talk about nuclear power as being "dirty". Tell us Diane; what is your understanding about why nuclear power is "dirty"?

If you go to the SMUD website that tells you where they get their power; SMUD's largest power plant is the Cosumnes Power Plant, a picture of which is featured on the page:

https://www.smud.org/en/about-smud/company-information/power-sources.htm

What do you think those two big stacks at the power plant are for, Dianne?

Do you not know that those stacks belch more crap into our atmosphere, including the greenhouse gas CO2; than ever came from any nuclear power plant including Rancho Seco.

The Rancho Seco power plant didn't belch crap into the atmosphere like the currently operating Consumnes Power Plant does. There are no "smokestacks" at Rancho Seco; only the two hyperbolic cooling towers to discharge waste heat.

The Consumnes Power Plant is currently belching crap into the atmosphere; but that's OK as long as it's not a nuclear plant?

There really weren't any real costs associated with shutting down Rancho Seco; because SMUD only stopped operating it. They really didn't disassemble it like the power plants that I named that were allowed to serve their customers and were then disassembled using part of the plant's profits; so there's no trace of power plant.

SMUD can't say the same thing for Rancho Seco; they've only postponed having to pony up money.

If one looks at nuclear power plants where the anti-nukes got involved to shutdown the plant; the job was never completed. If you look at plants where the anti-nukes shut the plant down, like Rancho Seco, or Shoreham; if you go to the Wikipedia article for those plants, and click on the coordinates in the upper right and click on through to Google Earth or Bing Aerial to see those sites today; you see the inactive nuclear power plant.

However, if you go to the Wikipedia article for plants that avoided the anti-nukes, and served out their lives; such as Shippingport, Yankee Rowe, Big Rock Point, Maine Yankee... and you click on through to see those sites today; you see big empty fields where anyone can go. The nuclear industry isn't the one that doesn't clean up after itself.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

[kristopher]

9. History of the disastrous Rancho Seco nuclear power plant

"SMUD hasn't paid to have the plant dismantled because they shut it down before it earned the costs of decommissioning." - DrGreg/PamW

History[edit]

In 1966, SMUD purchased 2,100 acres (850 ha) in southeast Sacramento County for a nuclear power plant, which was built in Herald, 25 miles (40 km) south-east of downtown Sacramento.

In the early 1970s, a small pond was expanded to a 160-acre (65 ha) lake to serve as an emergency backup water supply for the station. The lake has always received its water from the Folsom South Canal and has no relationship with the power plant's daily water supply. Surrounding the lake is 400 acres (160 ha) of recreational area originally operated by the County of Sacramento for day-use activities.

The 2,772 MWt Babcock and Wilcox pressurized water reactor (913 MWe) achieved initial criticality on 16 September 1974 and entered commercial operation on 17 April 1975.

On 20 March 1978 a failure of power supply for the plant's non-nuclear instrumentation system led to steam generator dryout. (ref NRC LER 312/78-001). In an ongoing study of "precursors" that could lead to a nuclear disaster if additional failures were to have occurred,[1] in 2005 the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission concluded that this event at Rancho Seco was the third most serious safety-related occurrence in the United States[2] (Behind the Three Mile Island accident and the cable tray fire at Browns Ferry).

The plant operated from April 1975 to June 1989 but had a lifetime capacity average of only 39%; it was closed by public vote on 7 June 1989 (despite the fact that its operating license did not expire until 11 October 2008) after multiple referendums.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rancho_Seco_Nuclear_Generating_Station

Cooling Accident at Rancho Seco Chills Nuclear Power Industry
August 31, 1986
STEVE GEISSINGER | Associated Press


SACRAMENTO — An accident that seemed typical for the Rancho Seco nuclear power plant has become one of the worst headaches in the industry, leaving the plant's restart uncertain, forcing rate hikes, and raising safety concerns elsewhere.

In the pre-dawn hours the day after Christmas, operators futilely fought to halt a rapid temperature drop in the nuclear reactor vessel amid a chorus of alarms that also warned--falsely--of both a fire and an earthquake. An operator collapsed from the stress.

Federal investigators said a power outage to control room instruments and employee errors allowed the steel vessel to cool 180 degrees in 24 minutes--well beyond the 100-degrees-per-hour limit designed to prevent cracking of a vessel, which could drain water that acts as a coolant and trigger a reactor meltdown.

The episode did not last long enough to fracture the vessel, but before it was over, two workers had been exposed to an apparently safe level of radiation and the plant had vented a reportedly harmless amount of radioactive steam into the air over Sacramento Valley pastures, about 25 miles southeast of the California capital...

http://articles.latimes.com/1986-08-31/local/me-15083_1_rancho-seco-nuclear

Less Cancer Found after Rancho Seco Nuclear Plant Closes
Tuesday, April 02, 2013

Researchers studying the health of 1.4 million people living near the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station in Sacramento County aren’t pointing any fingers, but they have found a marked decrease in the incidence of cancer since the troubled facility closed in 1989.

The study, published in the peer-reviewed Biomedicine International, found 4,319 fewer cancers over 20 years, including declines in 28 of 31 specific categories. Fourteen of the reductions were considered statistically significant and included better results for women, children and Hispanics.

There were fewer incidences of cancer among both men and women, although the changes were four times as pronounced among females. Data on mortality rates were not included in the study.

It’s the first study of long-term changes in the health status of people living near nuclear plants and is certain to be of interest to the 65 communities hosting 104 aging nuclear reactors around the country. That includes the plant in San Onofre, between Los Angeles and San Diego, which has been shuttered since radioactive steam leaked from damaged reactor tubes in January 2012...

http://www.ca.allgov.com/news/controversies/less-cancer-found-after-rancho-seco-nuclear-plant-closes-130402?news=849611

[PamW]

11. Disasterous????? I don't think so.

Last edited Sun Oct 13, 2013, 05:57 PM - Edit history (6)

The operation of Rancho Seco may have been a disaster; but whose fault is that?

At the same time that Rancho Seco was operating, the nuclear power plant that was universally acclaimed as the best operated nuclear power plant; the one that had the highest "capacity factor" and was producing energy at the lowest cost were the 3 reactor units at the Oconee Nuclear Power Plant in South Caroline operated by the Duke Power Company:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oconee_Nuclear_Station

Look at the picture of the Oconee Nuclear Plant in the above link. Look familiar? It should. Each unit looks a lot like Rancho Seco. That's because each of the 3 units at Oconee is a TWIN to Rancho Seco.

Duke Energy operated those B&W reactor units so that they were THE most efficient, and best run nuclear power plant in the USA. All the while SMUD was having all their difficulties with Rancho Seco.

It's like the situation at San Francisco airport several weeks ago. On a clear, sunny day; United Airlines was able to land several of their Boeing 777 airliners at SFO - San Francisco International Airport. However, when Asiana Airlines attempted to land one of their Boeing 777 airliners at SFO; it crashed.

What do we conclude from that? Do we conclude that the Boeing 777 is a bad or poorly designed airliner because one crashed at San Francisco on a clear, sunny day? I don't think so!.

NO - any intelligent person looking at that accident has to conclude that it was TOTALLY the fault of the Asiana pilots; pilots that couldn't even land an extremely safe and reliable Boeing 777 in ideal conditions at SFO.

The same goes for Rancho Seco. Rancho Seco is like the Boeing 777; and the operators at Duke Energy can skillfully and successfully operate B&W reactors just as United pilots successfully landed their Boeing 777s on that ideal day at SFO.

At the time, some suggested that SMUD actually hire Duke Energy to run Rancho Seco for them; and tap into Duke's cadre of successful B&W reactor operators. However, one of the leaders of the anti-nuke movement, and the anti-Rancho Seco movement; was elected chairman of the SMUD board; and he successfully torpedoed that idea. The anti-nukes didn't want anyone that could actually come in and run the plant successfully to be in charge of running the plant.

I don't see how you can say it was "disasterous". Was anyone killed, hurt or injured in that incident when they over-cooled the reactor? Because you are not a scientist or engineer, and not educated in the sciences nor the engineering disciplines; you don't know about the safety margins that engineers design into a system. Engineers design in a safety margin between what they say are the rules for operating the plant, and the conditions that will actually cause damage.

Yes - the operators at Rancho Seco exceeded the operating rules; but they didn't exceed the built-in safety margins. There was no cracking of the reactor. There was no release of radiation, and no possibility of harm to either the public nor the operating personnel. So I don't know why one refers to this incident as a "disaster".

The best science doesn't come from California Government panels. Those panels are just chock full of political ideologues masquerading as scientists. Just like when California's Air Resources Board (CARB) demanded that MTBE be added to gasoline in California. They claimed to have done all the studies to show that MTBE would accomplish wonders and would be safe for the environment. Their "scientists" ( really pseudo-scientists, in my book ) published report after report singing the good graces of MTBE.

It was only after the California Legislature commissioned real scientists from the University of California and the two California national labs that University of California then operated; that the truth about how the politicians masquerading as scientists were shown to have "fudged" all the data with regard to MTBE.

The final link above is about a study authored by Mangano and Sherman. Those two are notorious for writing "junk science" articles. For example, a few weeks after the Fukushima accident, Mangano and Sherman wrote an article posted on "Counterpunch.com". They claimed that weekly death rates were up following the Fukushima accident. Readers inquired about something funny; the fact that they averaged their results over 4 weeks before the Fukushima accident, but 10 weeks after the accident; instead of 10 weeks and 10 weeks. Counterpunch's own statistician, Pierre Sprey, thought that was peculiar too, and he averaged the data over 10 weeks on either side; and it contradicted the conclusion of Mangano and Sherman. Their claimed effect was TOTALLY due to "cherry picking" their data:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/06/17/definitely-bachmann-over-weiner/

Scroll down to the heading "Post Fukushima Infant Deaths in the Northwest"

One of the CounterPunch critics pointed out that using four weeks before and ten weeks afterwards “looked like cherry-picking the data.” To overcome this potential bias, Sprey collated the death numbers for the ten week period before, then did the calculations comparing infant deaths for ten weeks before and ten weeks afterwards for the same eight cities. His result was a statistically insignificant difference in deaths per week before and after

From Scientific American, an article condemning the "junk science" of Mangano and Sherman:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/12/20/researchers-trumpet-another-flawed-fukushima-death-study/

So excuse me if I TOTALLY DISCOUNT any "scientific" reports from any arm of the California State Government that have a HISTORY of bias and JUNK SCIENCE in the past, certainly nothing that has been authored by the likes of Mangano and Sherman.

Instead, let us look at the data from good scientists like those from Universities and the National Cancer Institute. Here is a report courtesy of the Health Physics Society at the University of Michigan:

http://www.umich.edu/~radinfo/introduction/radrus.htm

Note that the percentage of the average person's exposure due to the use of nuclear power ( called "nuclear fuel cycle" in the table ) is <0.03%. That means that Mother Nature is giving you 3000 TIMES the amount of radiation as you get from the entire nuclear fuel cycle; starting with mining to disposal.

You will probably say that the above is an average, and the people that live near nuclear power plants are getting the radiation. The following study courtesy of the National Cancer Institute INCLUDED the years of the operation of Rancho Seco in their study. So if Rancho Seco were causing a harmful effect on its neighbors, this is the study that would have shown it:

No Excess Mortality Risk Found in Counties with Nuclear Facilities

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/nuclear-facilities

A National Cancer Institute (NCI) survey published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, March 20, 1991, showed no general increased risk of death from cancer for people living in 107 U.S. counties containing or closely adjacent to 62 nuclear facilities. The facilities in the survey had all begun operation before 1982. Included were 52 commercial nuclear power plants, nine Department of Energy research and weapons plants, and one commercial fuel reprocessing plant. The survey examined deaths from 16 types of cancer, including leukemia. In the counties with nuclear facilities, cancer death rates before and after the startup of the facilities were compared with cancer rates in 292 similar counties without nuclear facilities (control counties).

So if you look at the evidence from real scientists and not all the "pseudo-science" that some tend to post. ( I know its hard if one doesn't have the scientific credentials to tell them apart. ), one has to conclude that nuclear power is NOT having harmful effects.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

[wordpix]

17. oops, you forgot to snip the "conflicting results" studies

snip:

The survey, conducted by Seymour Jabon, Zdenek Hrubec, Sc.D., B.J. Stone, Ph.D., and Dr. Boice, was begun in 1987 for scientific purposes in response to American public health concerns, and after a British survey of cancer mortality in areas around nuclear installations in the United Kingdom showed an excess of childhood leukemia deaths near some facilities. 1 No increases in total cancer mortality were found in the British study, and other smaller surveys of cancer deaths around nuclear facilities in the United States and the United Kingdom have yielded conflicting results.

Good try snipping the info that supports your nuke puppetmasters.

[PamW]

18. Why would I do that?

Why would I snip off the conflicting results?

I'm a scientist; I don't distort data to prove my point. I'll let the anti-nukes like Mangano and Sherman do that. ( See post #11 above )

In any complex issue, there will always be "conflicting results". The question is do you ignore the scientific consensus and believe the minority report? Although there have been conflicting results, the consensus of the scientists in the National Cancer Institute study was that nuclear power did not lead to increased cancers for the neighbors of nuclear power plants.

You have the freedom to discount the scientific consensus and believe the minority reports. You would not be unique in doing so.

In the climate change field, there are also conflicting reports that argue against global climate change. However, the scientific consensus is that there is global climate change. The people that discount the scientific consensus and believe the minority report because it is more in keeping with their ideology are known as "climate deniers".

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW