Japan's Nuclear Rescuers: 'Inevitable Some of Them May Die Within Weeks'

By Dominic Di-Natale; Published March 31, 2011| FoxNews.com

AP / March 14: A Red Cross rescue worker, in red, is scanned for signs of radiation upon returning from Fukushima to his hospital in Nagahama, Shiga Prefecture.

Workers at the disaster-stricken Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan say they expect to die from radiation sickness as a result of their efforts to bring the reactors under control, the mother of one of the men tells Fox News.

The so-called Fukushima 50, the team of brave plant workers struggling to prevent a meltdown to four reactors critically damaged by the March 11 earthquake and tsunami, are being repeatedly exposed to dangerously high radioactive levels as they attempt to bring vital cooling systems back online.

Speaking tearfully through an interpreter by phone, the mother of a 32-year-old worker said: “My son and his colleagues have discussed it at length and they have committed themselves to die if necessary to save the nation.

“He told me they have accepted they will all probably die from radiation sickness in the short term or cancer in the long-term.”

The woman spoke to Fox News on the condition of anonymity because, she said, plant workers had been asked by management not to communicate with the media or share details with family members in order to minimize public panic.

userfiles/file/Japan Nuclear Workers Inevitable will die.pdf

Six times to hell and back in Chernobyl, says nuclear "jumper"
Yesterday, 03:11 am Raju Gopalakrishnan

The Ukrainian-American was a volunteer "jumper" who helped clean up after the nuclear disaster in the town of Chernobyl in the former Soviet Union in April, 1986.

These are people who jump into a radioactive area to clear debris or mend pipes and run to safety before radiation reaches lethal levels.

Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO) is trying to get jumpers -- reportedly for $5,000 (£3,102.50) a day -- to bring its damaged nuclear power plant in northern Japan under control after it was severely damaged by last month's earthquake and tsunami, the world's worst nuclear crisis since Chernobyl.

Six times during his 40-day tenure at Chernobyl, Belyakov was one of the hundreds crouching in the covered stairway leading to the roof of nuclear reactors 3 and 4. Outside, radioactivity was so high that it could kill within minutes.  read more... userfiles/file/Six times to hell and back in Chernobyl.pdf

World News

Smoke at plant, radiation fears in Tokyo

TOKYO, March 23 (UPI) -- Smoke and earlier quake jolts disrupted recovery work at Japan's crippled Fukushima nuclear plant Wednesday as radiation concerns spread to Tokyo.

Tokyo Electric Power Co., operator of the badly damaged Fukushima plant, was forced to evacuate its engineers working to restore power and critical cooling functions in some of the disabled reactors after smoke was seen coming out around 4:20 p.m. from the building housing the problematical No. 3 reactor.

In the capital, authorities issued an alert asking residents not to give tap water to infants after finding radioactive iodine levels in excess of legal limits for infants in a water purification plant, Kyodo News reported.

Read more: userfiles/file/World News Smoke at Plant Radiation Fears in Tokyo.pdf

Chernobyl Cleanup Survivor's Message for Japan: 'Run Away as Quickly as Possible'
Mar 22, 2011 – 1:23 PM

Dana Kennedy / Contributor
AOL News:  www.aolnews.com/2011/03/22/chernobyl-cleanup-survivors-message-for-japan-run-away-as-qui/
Natalia Manzurova, one of the few survivors among those directly involved in the long cleanup of Chernobyl, was a 35-year-old engineer at a nuclear plant in Ozersk, Russia, in April 1986 when she and 13 other scientists were told to report to the wrecked, burning plant in the northern Ukraine.

It was just four days after the world's biggest nuclear disaster spewed enormous amounts of radiation into the atmosphere and forced the evacuation of 100,000 people.

Manzurova and her colleagues were among the roughly 800,000 "cleaners" or "liquidators" in charge of the removal and burial of all the contamination in what's still called the dead zone.

Courtesy of Natalia Manzurova

Natalia Manzurova, shown here in 1988 in the "dead zone" of the Pripyat, is one of the relatively few survivors among those directly involved in the cleanup of Chernobyl.

She spent 4 1/2 years helping clean the abandoned town of Pripyat, which was less than two miles from the Chernobyl reactors. The plant workers lived there before they were abruptly evacuated.

Manzurova, now 59 and an advocate for radiation victims worldwide, has the "Chernobyl necklace" -- a scar on her throat from the removal of her thyroid -- and myriad health problems. But unlike the rest of her team members, who she said have all died from the results of radiation poisoning, and many other liquidators, she's alive.

AOL News spoke with Manzurova about the nuclear disaster in Japan with the help of a translator on the telephone Monday from Vermont. Manzurova, who still lives in Ozersk, was beginning a one-week informational tour of the U.S. organized by the Beyond Nuclear watchdog group.

AOL News: What was your first reaction when you heard about Fukushima?
Manzurova: It felt like déjà vu. I felt so worried for the people of Japan and the children especially. I know the experience that awaits them.

But experts say Fukushima is not as bad as Chernobyl.
Every nuclear accident is different, and the impact cannot be truly measured for years. The government does not always tell the truth. Many will never return to their homes. Their lives will be divided into two parts: before and after Fukushima. They'll worry about their health and their children's health. The government will probably say there was not that much radiation and that it didn't harm them. And the government will probably not compensate them for all that they've lost. What they lost can't be calculated.

What message do you have for Japan?
Run away as quickly as possible. Don't wait. Save yourself and don't rely on the government because the government lies. They don't want you to know the truth because the nuclear industry is so powerful.

Courtesy of Natalia Manzurova

Natalia Manzurova, now 59, has suffered a variety of ailments since she worked at Chernobyl, but she says she is the only member of her team still alive.

When you were called to go to Chernobyl, did you know how bad it was there?
I had no idea and never knew the true scope until much later. It was all covered in secrecy. I went there as a professional because I was told to -- but if I was asked to liquidate such an accident today, I'd never agree. The sacrifices the Fukushima workers are making are too high because the nuclear industry was developed in such a way that the executives don't hold themselves accountable to the human beings who have to clean up a disaster. It's like nuclear slavery.

What was your first impression of Chernobyl?
It was like a war zone where a neutron bomb had gone off. I always felt I was in the middle of a war where the enemy was invisible. All the houses and buildings were intact with all the furniture, but there wasn't a single person left. Just deep silence everywhere. Sometimes I felt I was the only person alive on a strange planet. There are really no words to describe it.

What did your work as a liquidator entail?
First, we measured radiation levels and got vegetation samples to see how high the contamination was. Then bulldozers dug holes in the ground and we buried everything -- houses, animals, everything. There were some wild animals that were still alive, and we had to kill them and put them in the holes.

Were any pets left in the houses?
The people had only a few hours to leave, and they weren't allowed to take their dogs or cats with them. The radiation stays in animals' fur and they can't be cleaned, so they had to be abandoned. That's why people were crying when they left. All the animals left behind in the houses were like dried-out mummies. But we found one dog that was still alive.

Where did you find the dog and how did he survive?
We moved into a former kindergarten to use as a laboratory and we found her lying in one of the children's cots there. Her legs were all burned from the radiation and she was half blind. Her eyes were all clouded from the radiation. She was slowly dying.

Were you able to rescue her?
No. Right after we moved in, she disappeared. And this is the amazing part. A month later we found her in the children's ward of the (abandoned) hospital. She was dead. She was lying in a child's bed, the same size bed we found her in the kindergarten. Later we found out that she loved children very much and was always around them.

How did working in the dead zone begin to affect your health?
I started to feel as if I had the flu. I would get a high temperature and start to shiver. What happens during first contact with radiation is that your good flora is depleted and the bad flora starts to flourish. I suddenly wanted to sleep all the time and eat a lot. It was the organism getting all the energy out.

How much radiation were you subjected to?
We were never told. We wore dosimeters which measured radiation and we submitted them to the bosses, but they never gave us the results.

But didn't you realize the danger and want to leave?
Yes, I knew the danger. All sorts of things happened. One colleague stepped into a rainwater pool and the soles of his feet burned off inside his boots. But I felt it was my duty to stay. I was like a firefighter. Imagine if your house was burning and the firemen came and then left because they thought it was too dangerous.

When did you discover the thyroid tumor?
They found it during a routine medical inspection after I had worked there several years. It turned out to be benign. I don't know when it started to develop. I had an operation to remove half the thyroid gland. The tumor grew back, and last year I had the other half removed. I live on (thyroid) hormones now.

Why did you go back to Chernobyl after getting a thyroid tumor?
Right around the time of my operation, the government passed a law saying the liquidators had to work for exactly 4 1/2 years to get our pension and retire. If you left even one day early, you would not get any benefits.

Really? That seems beyond cruel.
It's why the nuclear industry is dangerous. They want to deny the dangers. They kept changing the law about what benefits we'd get because if they admitted how much we were affected, it would look bad for the industry. Now we hardly get any benefits.

Did your health worsen after you finally finished work at Chernobyl?
I was basically disabled at 43. I was having fits similar to epileptic fits. My blood pressure was sky high. It was hard to work for more than six months a year. The doctors didn't know what to do with me. They wanted to put me in a psychiatric ward and call me crazy. Finally they admitted it was because of the radiation.

Heroic Team Inside Fukushima Nuclear Plant 'Probably Terrified'

Mar 15, 2011 – 1:02 PM

 

Dana Kennedy Contributor
AOL News:  www.aolnews.com/2011/03/15/heroic-team-inside-fukushima-nuclear-plant-probably-terrified/

The roughly 50 technicians inside Fukushima's crippled Dai-ichi nuclear power plant, where Tokyo Electric Power said today a "critical meltdown" could develop, have one of the deadliest jobs in the world right now.

The workers are cut off from the outside world in a stricken plant where even the telephone lines have been disconnected. A crack was reported in the roof of the reactor building late today, and technicians are racing against time since Friday's earthquake and tsunami to prevent serious damage to three reactors and the spread of life-threatening radiation. Two workers were reported missing after today's explosion, officials said.

Kyodo News / AP

Radiation leaked from the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, shown in 2008, in tsunami-ravaged northeastern Japan after a third reactor was rocked by an explosion Tuesday and a fourth caught fire.

"They're like the firefighters who went into the World Trade Center," Francois Perchet, a former nuclear reactor manager now with London's World Nuclear Association, told AOL News today.

"They're taking action, they're fully engaged and they know they're saving lives. They might need help for trauma later on, but right now they know they're doing the right thing," he said.

But as Japan and the rest the world worry about possible meltdowns and fluctuating radiation levels, the workers are risking their lives amid dangerous hydrogen explosions and fires that have already injured seven of them.

Today, the levels of radiation at the plant, though they have since fallen, measured a dangerous 400 millisieverts.

To put that into perspective, the average annual dose limit for nuclear power plant operators in many countries is just 20 millisieverts, and most don't absorb more than 1 millisievert in a year, said Jonathan Billowes, a professor of nuclear physics at the University of Manchester.

Billowes, like many nuclear physicists and nuclear energy experts interviewed by AOL News, has limited data about the exact situation in the Fukushima plant, but he said certain protocols are followed all over the world.

At Fukushima, however, some of the workers are personnel who have probably never been inside a nuclear power plant before. They are the teams in charge of the fire trucks used to pump hoses full of seawater into the reactors to try to cool them and avert a meltdown. The plant's diesel generators were knocked out by the tsunami and caused the reactors' cooling systems to fail.

Both the emergency responders and the plant technicians are working with the help of two or three people thought to still be in the plant's control room, as well as a special operations center relocated off-site.

"I've worked around radiation, and it's scary," Stanton Friedman, a retired nuclear physicist with General Electric, told AOL News today.

"You try to be careful, but it sure isn't easy and it sure isn't fun. These people are working a disaster within a disaster. They got clobbered. First the earthquake, then the tsunami took out their generators. You can be sure they feel a huge sense of responsibility to fix this, but they are in a tough spot. They're professionals, but they're probably terrified too."

About 170,000 people within a 30-mile radius of the plant have been evacuated. The U.S. Navy today recommended that personnel and families stationed at two bases in Japan take precautions after detecting low-levels of radioactivity, including staying inside. Japan has announced an 18-mile no-fly zone around the plant to prevent planes from spreading the radiation farther afield.

But the workers at the plant have little protection.

"They're liable to receive high doses of radiation," said Sean Freeman, a professor of nuclear physics at the University of Manchester in the U.K. "They will have to be closely monitored once this is all over."

More than 850 nonessential personnel have left the plant's control room and other areas of the facility, and those who are left are "having to work outside the box in conditions they never expected," said Lawrence Criscione, a former senior reactor operator at a nuclear power plant in Missouri.

"The worst place to be is near the reactor when you're trying to open some vents," Criscione said. "That's stressful because that's when hydrogen explosions can result."

And even though television viewers see men in white hazmat-type suits and gas masks directing traffic around the Fukushima plant, the technicians inside don't have the luxury of such gear because it can get too hot and cumbersome.

"They'll be wearing reasonably protective gear, but if you wear too much you'll have a problem with heat exhaustion," said John Sutherland, the former senior health physicist in charge of radiation protection at Canada's Point Lepreau nuclear facility.

Tsunami Relief: Network for Good

"They will also be wearing very good radiation meters at all times, with radiation badges. Based on the radiation levels showing up on those devices, they figure out how long they can work in a certain location before regrouping and moving back for a while," he said.

But the Fukushima workers may be benefiting from the 1979 nuclear disaster at Three Mile Island, where human error in part led to a partial core meltdown at one reactor.

"For the first two or three hours, the guys in the control room at Three Mile Island denied what was happening," Perchet said. "A new guy came in for his shift, and that got them slightly back on track, but those first couple of hours were crucial."

Perchet said initial denial on the part of reactor operators is always a possibility.

"Some of the workers in Japan could even be denying to themselves how bad a situation it could be," he said. "It's human nature in this kind of high-stress, dangerous situation. At the same time, these guys are like the firefighters at the World Trade Center."

Perchet said Three Mile Island kicked off a massive drive within the nuclear energy industry to improve what it calls "human performance" during emergencies at nuclear power plants. Training was implemented and involved observing and videotaping workers during simulated accidents to check their reactions and decisions.

"It's helped enormously in countering what we call 'the wrong stuff,'" Perchet said.

The crisis at the Fukushima plant, which contains six nuclear reactors, has mounted since the post-earthquake tsunami knocked out the cooling systems. Explosions rocked the structures housing reactors No. 1 and 3 on Saturday and Monday. This morning a third blast hit reactor No. 2's building. A fire also broke out at a spent fuel storage pond at the power plant's reactor No. 4 before being extinguished.

Press Releases :: May 20, 2010

Subcommittee Investigates CDC’s Environmental Health Policies and Practices, Provides Agency with Roadmap for the Future

(Washington, DC) – Today, the House Committee on Science and Technology’s Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee held a hearing to examine the policies and procedures used by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) National Center for Environmental Health/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (NCEH/ATSDR). NCEH and ATSDR serve as the CDC’s experts in performing environmental health evaluations. Specifically, Subcommittee Members reviewed the agency’s ability to assess, validate and release public health documents. In addition, Members questioned a witness from CDC, Dr. Robin Ikeda.  She responded to specific questions about CDC officials relying upon flawed science and incomplete data to draw critical public health conclusions, such as the DC lead-in-the-water crisis and public health investigations on the island of Vieques in Puerto Rico. 

“In prior hearings we documented problems with ATSDR’s work on formaldehyde and the safety of trailers provided to families that survived Hurricane Katrina.  We also documented problems with ATSDR environmental assessments at Camp LeJeune, Vieques, Puerto Rico and Midlothian, Texas. Three of the four cases mentioned have seen the health evaluations withdrawn by ATSDR, and the fourth case is under review,” stated Subcommittee Chairman Brad Miller (D-NC). “We need more honesty and transparency and less attitude from these offices. When you work at a public health science agency and the words most frequently used are ‘haphazard,’ ‘hit-or-miss’ and ‘ad hoc,’ maybe you should pause and reflect.”

Among the cases reviewed at today’s hearing was that of Vieques Island in Puerto Rico.  From 1941 to 2003 the U.S. Navy engaged in live bombing practice activities on and off the coast of Vieques Island in Puerto Rico spreading munitions containing toxic chemicals into the sea and local ecosystem. In November of 2003, ATSDR released a summary of its work on the island, stating that the Vieques residents were not harmed from exposure to toxic chemicals from the Navy training activities. In fact ATSDR said that “It is safe to eat seafood from the coastal waters and near-shore lands on Vieques.”  Dr. John Wargo of Yale testified about problems with the assessment done by ATSDR, an assessment that was withdrawn in 2009, as well as about the limits of ATSDR’s new effort to evaluate health effects on the island.

 

“The injustice toward the people of the Puerto Rican Island of Vieques must end. Vieques was used as a bombing range by the U.S. Navy from World War II until 2003 and the munitions from the bombs have severely impacted the health of the residents. Yet in 2003, ATSDR issued a much criticized report that said that the levels of toxins and contaminants posed no health risk,” said Rep. Steven Rothman (D-NJ). “Now that ATSDR is committed to a new health assessment that reflects scientific-based and credible recommendations, I am hopeful that we will finally be able to bring justice to Vieques. The time for the U.S. government to right this wrong has come.”

 

The CDC also failed to adequately validate public health data and protect the public’s health during the Washington, D.C. lead-in-water crisis in 2004. In January of 2004, The Washington Post published a story that informed the public for the first time that water tests conducted the previous summer by the D.C. Water and Sewer Authority (WASA) showed that thousands of DC homes, two- thirds of those tested, had elevated lead levels in their tap water above the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) limit of 15 parts-per-billion (ppb).  The Subcommittee released a staff report, A Public Heath Tragedy: How Flawed CDC Data and Faulty Assumptions Endangered Children’s Health in the Nation’s Capitol,which detailed its investigation into the CDC’s response to this crisis today. The staff report documents the serious flaws in the original CDC article, Blood Lead Levels in Residents of Homes with Elevated Lead in Tap Water — District of Columbia, 2004, which was widely cited as evidence that there was no public health crisis due to elevated water lead levels.  Dr. Marc Edwards of Virginia Tech also testified before the Subcommittee regarding his findings that there was a strong correlation between lead in water levels and elevated lead levels in children living in Washington D.C. during this crisis.

 

The GAO also released a report at the hearing, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry: Policies and Procedures for Preparing Public Health Products Should Be Strengthened. The GAO report concluded the policies and procedures ATSDR established for preparing and releasing its public health documents lacked the “critical controls to provide reasonable assurance of product quality.” In addition, the report found that the agency also lacks a comprehensive risk assessment process for evaluating priorities regarding its development, review and release of public health documents. These assessments have been widely criticized. Dr. Cynthia Bascetta of GAO testified to their findings, and her testimony was reinforced by testimony from Mr. Stephen Lester of the Center for Health, Environment and Justice.  Mr. Lester has been working on ATSDR-related issues for two decades.

 

In introducing the hearing, Miller said, “This Subcommittee cannot possibly identify every mistaken evaluation, assessment, report or article done by ATSDR or NCEH staff, and that is not the role of Congressional oversight. The CDC must take all necessary steps to set these offices on the right path.”

 

In an effort to improve the environmental public health practices at CDC, especially those carried out by NCEH/ATSDR, Chairman Miller offered a roadmap to reform the agencies policies and practices. The roadmap stresses five key points:

·     Develop study designs that can actually identify a suspected health problem;

• Ensure proper data collection and evaluation, and be more transparent about the limits of the data used;
• Establish rigorous and consistent internal and external reviews of study designs, data collection and quality, analytical methods and conclusions;
• Establish consistent policies and procedures for conducting public health research and interventions, and for publications; and
• Be open to learning of problems with the agency’s products from critics;

Mr. Miller said the new CDC Director, Dr. Thomas Frieden, has an opportunity to promote needed change at the agencies. “I congratulate Dr. Frieden for initiating a search for a new leader of ATSDR-NCEH.  We need a new team there that can restore staff confidence, provide guidance about quality and processes, and give to this country a function we so desperately need:  reliable, expert evaluation of environmental health dangers.”

 

This is the third hearing the Subcommittee has held on ATSDR’s public health practices. On March 12, 2009 the Subcommittee examined the agency’s previous problems and potential future issues/problems. On April 1, 2008, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the toxic FEMA trailers housing hurricane victims and examined how and why ATSDR failed to protect the public’s health.

 

For more information on the Committee’s work on ATSDR/CDC, please visit our website.

NEWS RELEASE

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry releases Public Health

Assessment with Public Comment Period for Lincoln Park/Cotter Uranium Mill

ATSDR admits public health hazards – passes responsibility for health protection to citizens

For Immediate Release:

September 13, 2010

For More Information Contact:

Carol Dunn, Co-Chair, Colorado Citizens Against ToxicWaste, Inc. (719)275-2822

Sharyn Cunningham, Co-Chair, Colorado Citizens Against ToxicWaste, Inc. (719) 275-3432

ATSDR released a Public Health Assessment (PHA) for the

Cotter Uranium Mill/Lincoln Park Superfund Site

in Canon City, CO, twenty years after it was required. Shortly after the Superfund designation in 1984, ATSDR

did a two-page report, with the intention of returning. That never happened, as so often has been the case here.

In 2004, local physicians asked EPA for epidemiology studies to confirm or refute suspicions that illnesses

associated with uranium processing contamination exist here. EPA claimed a need for ATSDR’s

recommendation. This led to the realization in 2005 that no PHA had been performed. Five years later, on

September 10, 2010, ATSDR released the PHA with a public comment period ending November 9, 2010: Read

online at:

“I’m disappointed that ATSDR ignored our local doctors request,” said Carol Dunn, Co-Chair of Colorado

Citizens Against ToxicWaste, Inc. “Instead of recommending a study of real people with real health problems,

ATSDR studied the Cotter Mill’s self-sampling data to see if there was a risk to our health. This is the

unfortunate outcome at most contaminated uranium sites. People are never studied for the illnesses these

pollutants cause at low levels that accumulate in the body over long periods of time.”

ATSDR’s four main conclusions often acknowledge a lack of information. It’s admitted that contaminated wells

are a “public health hazard,” with no solution offered. Information from the

found seven families using their wells for domestic purposes, was not part of the evaluation. Soils are declared

safe, yet ATSDR admits a lack of information to assess a future danger from the heavy metal Lead.

The Assessment claims that our vegetables won’t harm “most” people’s health, if we limit our intake of foods

irrigated with well water, wash it thoroughly, and peel our root crops. Yet it acknowledges that arsenic was found

above

Superfund site soils, as well as chickens, are higher in uranium and molybdenum than food from supermarkets.

Yet no Action Plan or Recommendation is given to study the health impact, clean it up, or acquire information

they admit is lacking.

Lastly, the conclusion that air particulates in dust pose no threat glaringly avoids the threat of recently elevated

radon gas emissions from decaying uranium mill tailings impoundments with little water or soil coverage control.

According to the EPA, “There is no safe level of radon – any exposure poses some risk of cancer,” (see

2008 Well Water Use Survey, whichchronic health guidelines for adults and infants, and that local fruits and vegetables grown on our

www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclides/radon.htm#inbody

“ATSDR’s conclusion that health hazards exist tell us nothing new,” said Sharyn Cunningham with Colorado

Citizens Against ToxicWaste. “We hoped for solutions in their Action Plan, and Recommendations requiring

removal of the contamination to protect the public from exposure. Instead, ATSDR places the responsibility

squarely on the shoulders of citizens, offering a short-term education on how to

).live with a long-term hazard.”

ATSDR will present the Public Health Assessment and take public comments at two meetings on Thursday,

September 23, 2010, at the Holy Cross Abbey, Canon City, CO, at 11:00 am and 7:00 pm.

Toxins causing 'grievous harm,' cancer panel says

By Liz Szabo, USA TODAY

Widespread exposure to environmental toxins poses a serious threat to Americans, causing "grievous harm" that government agencies have not adequately addressed, according to a strongly worded report released today by the President's Cancer Panel, a body of experts that reports directly to President Obama.

The American Cancer Society estimates that about 6% of cancer deaths — nearly 34,000 a year — are caused by environmental pollutants.

That number could be much higher, the new report says. Although the report doesn't give a figure, it says the government has "grossly underestimated" the problem because of a lack of research. Much of the suffering faced by people diagnosed with toxin-related cancer "could have been prevented through appropriate national action," according to the 240-page report.

read more... www.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-05-06-1Achem06_ST_N.htm
 

 

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/PHA/HCPHA.asp?State=CO
 

Health issues and concerns

Seldom, if ever, are communities studied for health effects from uranium recovery facility contaminants.  If done by industry or government, cancer registry reviews are used, and never epidemiological studies looking for unusual incidences of other diseases.  Cancer registry reviews do not track people who leave the community, and do include newcomers, reducing the statistical outcome to irrelevance.   Because cancers can take from 10 to 30 years to manifest, If a high incidence of cancer is found, agencies and industry claim it could be due to other influences, e.g. lifestyle or exposure from some other source.  In other words, the only health studies used by government are those that cannot, by their very nature or in the methods used, give any definitive answers.

To add insult to injury, instead of studying people, government agencies study environmental sampling data gathered primarily by the industry, the party responsible for the contamination in the first place.  If the data does not indicate a high enough concentration of contaminants, then it is assumed there are no health effects in the community.  If the data shows high concentrations, then areas are marked for clean up (using deficient standards) and the case is closed.

Actually studying communities near these facilities could reveal information about the affect of chronic exposure to low-level concentrations of contaminants, and possibly support improving limits on contaminants that industry is allowed to emit.  That's a detour on the Yellowcake Road that industry and government do not want to travel, because it would raise clean up costs and cut profits. Federal and State decisions on allowable standards for clean up and emissions are based on Cost v. Benefit studies, and decisions are heavily influenced by industry lobbyists.  The benefit of saving one life is not considered worth the cost.  Industrial waste is swept under the carpet - out of sight - out of mind.  This is a practice none of our wise grandmother's would have tolerated in our homes, because the dirt will come back to haunt you.  If you want to solve the mystery surrounding epidemics of diabetes, ADD, autism, autoimmune disease, and more, just look under our industrial carpets.

Radiation Risk

For decades the nuclear industry and regulating government agencies operated under the assumption that only acute (high level) exposure caused health risk.  New research proves that chronic exposure to low levels of radiation can cause a multitude of health problems.  Much has been discovered through biological cellular and molecular research.  Radiation exposure breaks biomolecular bonds causing DNA damage that leads to solid cancers, leukemia, Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma, and hereditary health effects.  Hereditary effects can include chromosonal disease or congenital defects. Some people are more susceptible, such as the elderly, the fetus, very young children, or people suffering from other illnesses.  Miscarriage, reproductive disorders, and developmental disabilities can be caused, and some people are simply susceptible due to hereditary predisposition.  The types of cancer possible include, but are not limited to:

Brain, Colon, Ovary, Liver, Bone, Gall Bladder, Salivary Gland, Urinary, Bladder, Leukemia, Lung, Lymphoma, Thyroid, Breast (Male/Female), Esophagus, Stomach, Pharynx, Bile Ducts, and Kidney.

The National Academy of Sciences, reviews research to help determine clean up and industry operating standards for government agencies, and have studied the effect of radiation on the human body for years.  In June 2005, the NAS BIER-VII Phase 2 report found that a preponderance of scientific evidence shows that even low doses of ionizing radiation may cause harm.  The report further states that  health risks rise proportionally with levels of exposure and as overall lifetime exposure accumulates.  Studies in mice "produced extensive data that radiation-induced cell mutations in sperm and eggs can be passed on to offspring," and that there is no reason to believe the same wouldn't hold true for human offspring.  Click to read the NAS Press Release.  Click on this link for the full report:  http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11340#toc

John W. Gofman, M.D, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology, UCB, in Key Facts Justifying Opposition to Nuclear Pollution at Any Level: A Brief Letter of Concern-February 6, 2001, writes, "It follows from the absence of any safe dose that citizens everywhere have a strong scientific basis for opposing activities which can cause radioactive pollution at any level. The fact that humans cannot escape exposure to ionizing radiation, from various natural sources, is no reason to let human activities increase the exposure. Moreover, the record of governments and their licensed agents has often been horrible regarding containment of radioactive poisons. This record argues strongly against confidence in any promises of future containment."  Click to read Dr. Goffman's 2001 Statement.

Panna Maria Uranium Mill and Mine Residents Show Damage to Cell Repair Response

To put it simply, when a cell is hit by radiation it will either die, mutate, or repair itself.   The cell's ability to repair itself helps us tolerate exposure from natural radiation or medical treatments.  Dr. William Au, et al, from the Department of Preventive Medicine and Community Health, The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, studied residents living near the Panna Maria Uranium Mill and Mine in Texas to see if they had increased genotoxic effects from exposure to radioactive toxicants in their soil and water.  The study found that cells of residents lost the ability to repair after chronic or repeated exposure to low levels of radiation.  Click to read Dr. Au's study.

Harmful Impacts to the Developing Embryo and Fetus

Pregnant women living near uranium recovery facilities, or those working at facilities, are at higher risk for damage to the developing emybro.  Researchers Kozlowski, et al, write, "The harmful impacts of ionizing radiation on the developing embryo and fetus are well recognized. However, the molecular and biological mechanisms of embryonic injury, particularly at the earliest stages of development, are poorly understood."  The goal of their project was to address the "mechanisms of radiation damage and radioprotection in a vertebrate embryo in vivo."  The research found, among other things, that the Central Nervous System was more sensitive to radiation than other tissues in the developing embryo.  Click to read Embryo Study.

Chris Shuey, of SRIC, writes, "Rates of birth defects in babies born to Navajo women living in uranium mining areas in New Mexico and Arizona between 1964 and 1981 were 2 to 8 times the national averages, depending on the type of defect.  An association between uranium exposure and birth defects may be significant when the mothers’ and fathers’ exposures are combined,"  (Shuey, Chris, 2007.  URANIUM EXPOSURE AND PUBLIC HEALTH IN NEW MEXICO AND THE NAVAJO NATION: A LITERATURE SUMMARY.  Compiled for Southwest Research and Information Center). 

Lung Cancer, Radon and Mining

“Studies have long linked radon exposure to lung cancer within the mining industry...According to the EPA, approximately 21,000 people die every year from radon-induced lung cancer, exceeding the annual death toll from drunken-driving accidents and residential house fires combined.”  Click to read article on Radon Exposure.

The Bystander Effect - Cells don't have to be hit directly by radiation to suffer damage

SCIENTIFIC AND PUBLIC HEALTH RAMIFICATIONS OF THE KIKK STUDY 

Childhood Leukemia and Cancers Near German Nuclear Reactors:  Significance, Context, and Ramifications of Recent Studies, by  RUDI H. NUSSBAUM, as published in The International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, Vol. 15, No 3 (2009); 15:318-323.

Historically, in the evolution of scientific ideas, major contradictions between established beliefs and incontrovertible findings would spawn critical reviews of long accepted assumptions, often resulting in revolutionary changes of basic axioms. At least from the time of Galileo, powerful interest groups have strenuously opposed these paradigm shifts. The claim that the unassailable KiKK findings are unexplainable and the attempts to invalidate them have their historical antecedents.

The KiKK study points out the need for a critical reexamination of uncertainties, flaws, and inappropriate generalizations in fundamental assumptions and models on which current radiation safety standards and regulations are based. A US government-sponsored case-control study, similar in design to the German KiKK study, would provide invaluable additional data for a sound scientific basis for such a reexamination since there are only minor design variations between US and German nuclear reactors. The KiKK study’s ramifications add to the urgency of a policy debate regarding the high toll exacted in public health for nuclear power production.  read more... userfiles/file//KiKKCommentaryJuly2009IJOEH.pdf

Follow DOE Low-Dose Radiation Research Program

The goal of the [Department of Energy] Low Dose Radiation Research Program is to support research that will help determine health risks from exposures to low levels of radiation. This information is critical to adequately and appropriately protect people while making the most effective use of our national resources.  Click http://www.science.doe.gov/ober/BSSD/lowdose.html

Heavy Metal and Chemical Risk

Most people think about cancer as the only health issue when it comes to contaminate exposure from uranium mining and milling.  However, heavy metal toxicity is also a serious problem, causing many illnesses as well as cancers.  Ingestion of heavy metals and radionuclides through water or vegetables, taking them in through a cut on your skin, breathing them into your lungs, and other ways they absorb into your blood stream are the many risks for the person working in the industry or living near a uranium recovery facility.

Heavy metals found at uranium recovery facilities include Molybdenum, Cobalt, Nickel, Arsenic, Copper, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, Vanadium and Zinc, to name a few.  Uranium is both a heavy metal, with those inherent dangers, as well as a radioactive material.  Depending on which metal, illnesses associated with over exposure can include, but are not limited to, the following:

Cancer,  Chronic Silicosis, Chronic Beryllium Disease, Cataracts, Retinopathy, Neuropathy, Myelopathy, Pulmonary Fibrosis, Nephritis, Chromosonal Diseases, Congenital Defects, Miscarriage, Liver Disease, Autoimmune Disease (Systemic Lupus Erythematosus, Scleroderma), Dymylinating Diseases (M.S. etc.), Saturnine Gout/Gouty Arthritis, Reproductive Disorders, DNA Damage, and Diabetes. 

Chemicals found at uranium mines and mills can include Sulfuric acid, Hydrochloric Acid, Nitric Acid, Sulfate, Solvents, Caustic Soda, Kerosene, and more.  Uranium conversion facilities add fluorine and fluorides to the chemical mix.  Risk can be from inhalation, ingestion or skin exposure.  Pathways of exposure for both employees, neighbors and wildlife can include water and air contamination from spills, accidents, or leaking tanks.  Serious burns to skin and lungs happen all too often at uranium recovery facilities, and uranium hexaflouride gas releases at conversion facilities have injured employees at Converdyn's Metropolis, Illinois facility, and killed employees at General Atomic's Sequoyah Fuels conversion facility in Gore, Oklahoma.

Studies and Articles link kidney disease and diabetes to living near uranium mine

The University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, et al, prepared recommendations for a Uranium Health-Based Ground Water Standard for the New Mexico Environment Department of Ground Water Quality Bureau, May 2003.  The study states, "Based on our review of relevant technical information and data available at this time, the calculations provided, and the uncertainties discussed, a recommended standard of 0.007 mg of uranium per liter of water is recommended to be protective of kidney toxicity in New Mexico populations.

The State of New Mexico did not accept this recommendation, and instead adopted 0.030 mg per liter of uranium, the current EPA groundwater standard. Click to read UNM Uranium Standard Research.

Chris Shuey, MPH, of SRIC, in URANIUM EXPOSURE AND PUBLIC HEALTH IN NEW MEXICO AND THE NAVAJO NATION: A LITERATURE SUMMARY, writes, "A significant predictor of kidney disease and diabetes was found to be environmental exposure due to living within .8 kilometers (2,625 feet) of a uranium mine site, and coming in contact with uranium as a heavy metal."

In Fremont County, CO, where the permit to explore for uranium was granted within 500 feet of 44 land and home owners, and uranium mining is the next logical step, residents would be almost twice as close as those concerned about in the study (.8 kilometers = 2, 625 feet = ½ mile.  500 feet = 1524 kilometers. / .4 kilometers = 1,312 feet).  The same contaminates found at mines are found at uranium mills.  The Cotter Uranium Mill's nearest residential neighbor is about 1/4 mile away, and a private golf course borders Cotter's entrance and is directly across from mill processing buildings and storage tanks. Paducah's Enrichment Facility and Converdyn's Metropolis Conversion Facility are located near large populations.  Click to read Shuey's Literature Review.

The following news story probes link between uranium and kidney illness, By Zsombor Peter, Staff Writer
http://www.gallupindependent.com/2007/august/080407zp_studyurnmkdnyilns.html

Uranium Damages DNA as a Heavy Metal

"The fact that uranium, as a radioactive metal, can damage DNA is well documented. But what Stearns and her collaborators recently have found is that uranium can also damage DNA as a heavy metal, independent of its radioactive properties." Click to read Yellow Monster Article.

Community Risk

Seldom, if ever, are communities studied for health effects from uranium recovery facility contaminants.  To add insult to injury, instead of studying people, government agencies study environmental sampling data gathered primarily by the industry, the party responsible for the contamination in the first place.  Actually studying people could reveal new information about the effect of chronic exposure to low-level concentrations of contaminants, and possibly improve the standard limits on contaminants that industry is allowed to emit.  That's a road industry and government do not want to travel, because it would raise clean up costs and cut into profits.

Health studies expensive, time-consuming and scientifically challenging

Chris Shuey, MHP, of SRIC, states during testimony to Congress in March 2009, "Health studies in uranium-mining communities are expensive, time-consuming and scientifically challenging, but they can and should be done."  Click to read Shuey Testimony to Congress.

David Richardson, Dept. of Epidemiology School of Public Health, UNC, Chapel Hill, NC , March 1, 2007, in his review of cancer studies at a uranium mill site, writes, "...for many US states comprehensive cancer registry data began to be collected relatively recently and there is no national reglstry that may be used to easily ascertain cases when people move across state boundanes." Richardson's critical review of cancer studies done at the Superfund Site bordering the Cotter Uranium Mill explains the limitations of methods currently used in such studies, and discusses potential solutions for those limitations that could be used in additional research at sites like this. Click to read Richardson't Review.

Chris Shuey, MHP, of SRIC, writes, "Despite more than 50 years of uranium development on the Navajo Nation, no comprehensive public health study has ever been conducted in uranium-mining communities. The federally funded DiNEH Project is an ongoing cross-sectional study examining the relationship of high rates of kidney disease in the Eastern Navajo Agency to exposure to uranium and other heavy metals in the environment. Preliminary results of the study indicate that the percentages of self-reported chronic kidney disease, diabetes, high blood pressure and autoimmune diseases are higher in Navajo communities with higher numbers of uranium mines. Initial exposure modeling indicates that environmental exposures, including living within 0.8 kilometer of a uranium mine site and coming in contact with uranium wastes, are significant predictors of kidney disease/diabetes."  Click to read Shuey's Navajo Literature Summary.

Employee Risk

All information previously covered on contaminants, health risks, and associated illnesses apply to employees of uranium recovery facilities.  The greatest difference and concern for the employee is that he/she is allowed a much higher level of exposure than neighbors or visitors of the mines, mills, conversion and enrichment facilities. 

SANTA SUSANA FIELD LABORATORY EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDY

This facility operated nuclear reactors, handled plutonium and conducted rocket-engine tests, none of which are related to nuclear fuel production.  However, the recommendation of the study is that the findings should be applied to any facility where workers are exposed to radiation.  The study was performed by a team of researchers from UCLA to determine if workers were affected by exposure to radioactive and chemical materials, and if the neighboring community was affected.

The Findings:  "The study makes several findings that call into question whether current regulatory exposure limits are sufficiently protective, and we recommend that regulatory bodies revisit their standards in light of the SSFL study and other recent studies that reached similar conclusions.  (i). Nuclear workers are currently permitted to receive 5 Rem (also called 50 mSv) each year, the equivalent of 150 Rem (1500 mSv) over a 30-year career. The SSFL study, and several other large recent studies of radiation-exposed workers, have found evidence of cancers occurring from radiation at levels significantly lower than this regulatory limit. In light of these findings, we recommend that the current limits for radiation exposure be reconsidered by all regulatory and advisory bodies responsible for radiation protection."  Click to read the SSFL EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDY OVERSIGHT PANEL report.

The National Apology to Uranium Workers

 As stated by U.S. Senator Bingaman in 1999, "The Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, or RECA, was originally enacted in 1990 as a means of compensating the individuals who suffered from exposure to radiation as a result of the U.S. government’s nuclear testing program and federal uranium mining activities. While the government can never fully compensate for the loss of a life or a reduction in the quality of life, RECA serves as a cornerstone for the national apology Congress extended to those adversely affected by the various radiation tragedies," (click to read Congressional Record).  The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) was enacted to facilitate the compensations.

Unfortunately, it has been weighted down with difficulties in determining eligibility, disagreements over who does or doesn't receive compensation for medical expenses, and in actually collecting the compensation.  Some improvements have happened.  Now not only are Department of Energy nuclear weapons workers (including employees, former employees, contractors and subcontractors) eligible for lump-sum compensation, but also uranium miners, millers, and ore transporters and eligible survivors of employees.   Click to read LHSFNA article and ANWAG Press Release.  Ceilings on compensation vary, and are rather complicated depending on various circumstances, but some are capped at $250,000.

For Information on Compensation Eligibility visit the Department of Labor, Office of Worker's Compensation Programs:    
http://www.dol.gov/esa/owcp/energy/regs/compliance/main.htm
 

Cold War patriots

Uranium miners, widows get warm reception

Uranium, Health & the Pinon Ridge Mill

FOR MOST PEOPLE, the most sobering and confusing aspect of the proposed Paradox Valley Energy Fuels uranium mill in the west end of Montrose County is the question of human health.
By Dick Kamp Wick Communications Environmental Liaison
read more...  userfiles/file//MontrosePressUMillParadox11-16-08.pdf