New Study Cites Added Danger of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant

by Jack McCurdy

Summary: The health of people living around the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant has declined dramatically since its reactors were activated some 30 years ago, and the teeth of some babies in those families have now been found to contain Strontium-90, a radioactive isotope or element, all according to a new study reported in a recent article in Truthout, an independent nonprofit news organization.

The danger to human health from spent nuclear fuel stored at nuclear plants — like the one in our own backyard, Diablo Canyon--has been cited throughout the nation and the world for many years.

As the General Accounting Office has said, "One of the most hazardous materials made by man is spent nuclear fuel — the used fuel periodically removed from reactors in nuclear power plants. Without protective shielding, the fuel’s intense radioactivity can kill a person exposed directly to it within minutes or cause cancer in those who receive smaller doses." (PSR - Environment and Health - The Growing Problem of Spent Nuclear Fuel) Now, a new study claims that the health of people living around the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant has declined dramatically since the plant's two nuclear reactors were activated in 1984 and 1985, and the teeth of some babies in those families have now been found to contain Strontium-90, a radioactive isotope or element.

The study was reported last month by Truthout, an independent 501(c)3 nonprofit news organization. (See: Nuclear Reactors Toxic to Surrounding Areas) Diablo Canyon is located in Avila Beach just north of Pismo Beach, Arroyo Grande and Oceano, which are downwind from the power plant, and just below Baywood-Los Osos.

The Truthout article quoted the author of the study, Joseph Mangano, as saying: "This should be a concern for any nuclear reactor and its health risks, whether it's been operating for a day or 30 or 40 years because these reactors create over 100 cancer-causing chemicals; much of it is stored as waste at the plant, but a portion of it is released into the environment and gets into human bodies through the food chain." Mangano is the executive director of the nonprofit Radiation and Public Health Project (RPHP).

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission and other organizations challenged the findings of the study, which was released by the World Business Academy for its Safe Energy Project, a think tank based in Santa Barbara.

PG&E, which owns and operates the Diablo Canyon plant, is not giving this report any consideration," Blair Jones, a PG&E spokesman, was quoted in the Truthout report.

But the study has strong support. Truthout reported that Dr. Stephen Hosea, associate director of internal medicine education at the Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital in Santa Barbara, said he believes the study has strong epidemiological merits in that it analyzes patterns of changing health and disease conditions and identifies risk factors in defined populations.

"Any time you look at a study, you want to ask if it makes sense with other things that we know, and we certainly know that exposure to radiation can cause birth defects and problems with the fetus and neonates," Dr. Hosea told Truthout. "It also is well-known to cause cancer as well. So it certainly makes sense from that standpoint."

It seems likely that other organizations with interest and expertise in the nuclear field will support Dr. Hosea once the Mangano report is widely circulated. They include Nuclear Information and Resource Service and the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

Mangano's study findings also document, Truthout reported, that the Strontium-90 levels in 50 baby teeth were collected mostly from San Luis Obispo County, but also from Santa Barbara County, which is downwind from the Diablo Canyon plant, and were 30.8 percent higher than the levels found in the 88 baby teeth from the rest of the state.

Cindy Folkers, radiation and health specialist for Beyond Nuclear, commented, "Testing children's teeth for Sr-90, just like testing people's bodies for cesium 137 after Chernobyl and Fukushima, is a prudent and scientifically defensible way to examine the radiation exposure issue, especially around nuclear power reactors where the assumption of non-harmful doses is often made by industry, who measures its own effluent, reports it to the NRC and then the NRC reports it to the EPA. In reality, the EPA only sets the radiation standards, NRC implements them however they like. And NRC likes to have the nuclear power reactor operators measure their own releases.

"Somebody has to take independent measurements if we are to discern what radiation's real health impact is," she continued. "Too bad if the industry doesn't like data collection and scientific investigation. They can take pot shots at all the messengers they like, but they still have to explain how their Strontium 90 is ending up in our children's teeth (and in fish bones around Indian Point). If it were from the above ground bomb tests, why does it happen to be elevated around nuclear power reactors? Why was it decreasing after the above ground bomb testing stopped, only to increase later on? How might it be affecting the health of these children? Could it be part of the explanation as to why children residing around nuclear power reactors in France and Germany (two countries where these studies were conducted) seem to be at greater risk for leukemia? These questions absolutely do warrant further investigation--that is if you care to eventually know the answer. To me it seems a picture is forming of radiation damage from routine, allowed, releases from nuclear power reactors that are operating normally."

Mangano's study findings also document, Truthout reported, that the Strontium-90 levels in 50 baby teeth were collected mostly from San Luis Obispo County, but also from Santa Barbara County, which is downwind from the Diablo Canyon plant, and were 30.8 percent higher than the levels found in the 88 baby teeth from the rest of the state.

In California, the study showed, the average Strontium-90 level found in baby teeth has risen with time, increasing 50.2 percent for children born in 1994-97 from the levels found in children born in 1986-89. After the halt of above-ground atom bomb testing in 1963 over the world, the average Strontium-90 levels fell, but they began to rise again in the 1980s and 1990s. And, according to the Academy study, there is only one source of this isotope not found in nature: the federally-permitted radioactive emissions from all operating U.S. reactors, including the Diablo Canyon plant.

The Academy study's other key findings, the article said, include that the infant mortality and child/adolescent mortality rates in San Luis Obispo County, which were far below California's average rates before the plant began operations, have nearly closed the gap with the state's average. Moreover, the county's overall cancer rate, which was previously below the state's average, is now much greater than the California average. In fact, San Luis Obispo County has the highest rate of cancer incidence of the state's 20 most southern counties, according to the study, and these rising cancer incidences include statistically significant increases in thyroid and breast cancers, which are particularly radiosensitive, Truthout reported.

The Truthout article said Mangano has authored 32 peer-reviewed medical journal articles on the topic of radiation and public health impacts. Mangano noted, the article said, that the nuclear industry, regulators, government health agencies and academics have all neglected to produce studies demonstrating the safety of nuclear plants, so there is no evidentiary basis for what is "permissible."

"[Regulators] just set these permissible limits, measure them, say 'yes, we're below permissible so we're good.' ... As a health researcher, I think that's irresponsible to do, and I think it's misleading to the public because these are not your ordinary chemicals," he said.

Mangano believes his work is just the beginning, the article said. He hopes other researchers will follow up by studying potential health impacts on surrounding communities in more depth. Other medical experts agree that his study is enough to warrant this additional work.
The World Business Academy, the Truthout article said, commissioned the study in the hope it will prompt the replacement of California's last nuclear energy source with renewable energy sources instead. The people behind the Academy and its Safe Energy Project aim to inspire businesses to take responsibility for the environment and the concerns of civil society, it said.

Representatives of the Academy have testified in hearings before the California Public Utilities Commission to shut down the San Onofre nuclear plant in San Diego. The plant closed last June, but the Academy continues to intervene in ongoing legal hearings before the utilities commission for a refund of $1.5 billion in rate-payer dollars charged to consumers, claiming the plant was mismanaged by the utility company that owns it, the article said.

"Obviously our goal is to close down Diablo Canyon, we had that goal before this study was done," Jerry Brown, who directs the Academy's Safe Energy Project, was quoted by Truthout. "However, our hope is this study will inspire all interested parties ... to take a serious look at the health impacts of nuclear power plants, Diablo Canyon, and of all the nuclear power plants in the country."

The article quoted a Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff member as agreeing with the industry that Mangano's latest study lacked credibility. But more than 20 years after a highly cited study claimed there was no increased cancer risk from proximity to nuclear plants, Truthout said, the NRC is finally looking into the matter. The agency has asked National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to perform its own assessment on cancer risk for populations surrounding nuclear reactors, which is still in the works. The NAS has confirmed there are no safe levels of radiation exposure, in contrast with the Environmental Protection Agency's "permissible limits" approach, the article said.

Lara Uselding, NRC public affairs officer, said NRC regulations and licenses require each licensee to establish and maintain a program for monitoring radioactive effluents and report these effluents from their facilities. The staff, she said, has concluded from reviewing reports from both nuclear power plants and fuel cycle facilities that offsite doses to individual members of the public are a small fraction of the annual radiation dose limits.

The offsite dose from an NRC regulated facility to the postulated highest exposed member of the public is generally less than 1 percent of the amount of radiation that the average U.S. citizen receives in a year from all background sources in the environment, such as naturally occurring radioactive materials in soil and rocks and radon in the air, she said. Nonetheless, some stakeholders have expressed concerns about the potential effect of these releases on the health of residents living near nuclear facilities, she added.

To help address these concerns, Uselding said, the NRC staff uses the 1990 National Cancer Institute (NCI) report and other more recent epidemiology reports conducted by various state health departments when responding to questions regarding incidences of cancer in populations near nuclear power facilities. The staff relies on credible health studies to augment its discussions about the NRC's robust regulatory programs to keep offsite doses as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA) by providing public health information that directly applies to the health outcomes that are often of concern (i.e., cancer).

NRC continues to work with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) on a multi-year cancer risk study using the latest information and analysis methods, Uselding said.