Experts Weigh In: Joseph Mangano Study Hopelessly Flawed

For the nuclear industry, safety is the top priority, and it goes to great lengths to minimize radiation exposure to the public and employees. So exhaustive are these measures that nuclear power plants only account for .1% of the annual radiation that a typical American is exposed to. Nearly half come from medical exposures.

Yet Joseph Mangano seems intent on repeatedly and falsely stating otherwise. Most recently, Mangano published a study that suggests a correlation exists between the closing of Rancho Seco and the decline in cancer rates in the surrounding area. We responded by reminding the media to consider Mangano's lack of credibility when it comes to "scientific findings" before distributing the study to their readers. This week, local Pennsylvania experts came to the same conclusion about his bogus work. An especially compelling statement comes from the state's director of the Bureau of Radiation Protection:

David J. Allard, director of the Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Protection’s Bureau of Radiation Protection, oversees nine active nuclear power plants on five sites throughout the state. DEP also oversees licensing for medical, academic, industrial type of sources of radiation including nearly 30,000 pieces of x-ray equipment in facilities, half of which are used by dentists.

“The technical reality with these nuclear power plants is that under the federal regulations, Title 10, Part 50, in the code of federal regulations, these power plants can’t emit liquid and airborne radiation that cause greater than three millirem of radiation,” says Allard.

“We see lots of background (radiation) and it’s only when you have Chernobyl or Fukushima where you actually see material on our samples other than the natural background and some residual fallout from the 50s and 60s. We monitor this and quite honestly at those kinds of levels, it’s really, really difficult to measure.”

According to Allard, radon, chemical exposures, genetics and lifestyles may have more impact on the prevalence of cancer rates.

“The problem is that correlation does not mean causation just because people live next to a power plant,” he says. “People are moving in and out. There are other major sources of radiation exposure that the public gets that really swamp whatever little radiation does come from the nuclear plant. The big one is the medical screenings…In these studies, whether by the NRC or Mr. Mangano, you have to control for those other sources of exposure.”

If his word isn't good enough, check out our past coverage of Mangano's sloppy research (a generous phrase for his work). The fact remains that America's nuclear plants are proven to be safe and continue to operate according to rigorous and comprehensive safety standards.

Read More

Fair and Unfair Nuclear Editorials

Two recent editorials grapple with nuclear energy issues relevant to their states. The York (Penn.) Record becomes disturbed about some corrosion discovered on used fuel containers.

A Nuclear Regulatory Commission report said that some of those casks could leak. It cited water-damaged containers that held spent fuel from both of our local nuke plants - TMI and Peach Bottom.

It's nothing to be too alarmed about right now.

No radiological material leaked.

The terse style is unusual – feels like someone on the board has internalized Hemingway. Anyway, its recommendation:

Leaving this radioactive material lying around at hundreds of sites across the country is just not an acceptable disposal solution.

Do we have leaders capable of making the tough political decisions to resolve this issue?

Well, it’s not exactly lying around and, of course, the problem with the containers was found and fixed without further incident. But, it’s true. Whether by following the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future or some other set of policy directives, the development of an integrated fuel cycle, one that would include end-to-end management of uranium-based fuel, is a needed thing. It feels closer to realization than I’ve ever seen it, but that’s a relative judgment. 

NEI has an interesting page on this topic. Many of the policy prescriptions on the page have been taken up by the federal government or mirror the commission’s findings.

But we shouldn’t leave the impression that York has an animus on for nuclear energy.

Nuclear power has some huge benefits. It can produce a tremendous amount of electricity - and it does not produce greenhouse gases, a huge benefit as we grapple with climate change.

It goes on to list perceived drawbacks, but it’s judicious all-in-all.

---

A short glimpse of an op-ed over at the Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger, written by Joseph Mangano, the executive director of the Radiation and Public Health Project. Get the idea this one might not be positive?

The reason given by [Exelon CEO Christopher] Crane and other executives for closing nuclear plants is that they are too expensive, and more costly than growing sources of power such as natural gas and wind. But nowhere can one find any explanation of why reactors are expensive. The reason — reactors are unsafe and dangerous.

It’s certainly true that natural gas has put price pressure on other types of generating facilities, but no nuclear facility has closed – or will close to date – for that reason. Could happen, I suppose, but nuclear facilities tend to be relatively inexpensive to run once they’re operational. I think Mangano just needs a way to get around to “unsafe and dangerous.” He’s smooth enough doing it, but of course, he doesn’t explain why his configuration of “expensive” has only now resulted in closed plants.

It gets worse:

Oyster Creek has had several near-miss meltdowns. Routine emissions may have raised local cancer rates; Ocean County experienced a child cancer cluster in the 1980s and 1990s, and still has the sixth-highest child-cancer incidence of the largest 306 counties nationwide.

Should we point out that this is New Jersey we’re talking about? Beautiful state in many places – even a garden state – but you can create correlations all over the place for increased incidents of illness. Nuclear energy facilities really don’t spew radiation all over the place in the course of operation and many, many studies have not found causal links. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has a good page, though it’s a little dated.

Mangano’s an old hand at this kind of thing – see this earlier post about his antics. Hint: It’s about 14,000 deaths caused by the Fukushima Daiichi accident – here in the United States.

Read More

Penn. Polls High on Nuclear Energy

We don’t see a lot of polls on nuclear energy taken in individual states. Support nationally is usually above 50 and sometimes 60 percent in most big polls taken about it (this Gallup poll from March has it at 57 percent). But the states?

Well, The Pennsylvania Energy Alliance has tried a poll and found that nearly 90 percent “believe the use of nuclear power is an important part of meeting the United States' electricity needs.” That’s as close to a consensus as you can get.

"It's quite apparent that people recognize the benefits of nuclear power as a clean, safe and reliable source of energy," said PA Energy Alliance Executive Director Melissa Grimm. "The state needs to have a reliable source of electricity, especially now with summer approaching and our energy demands increasing." 

I’m not enough of a poll wonk to know how to determine the value of a poll taken by an interested party – but I am enough of one to know what to look for. The polls done by Bisconti and Associates for NEI, for example, are done to a high standard and transparent enough (which, in part, guarantees that high standard) that dyed-in-the-wool poll watchers can review the methodology and questions and llok for loaded and leading questions or sequences of questions.

I took a look over at the PEA (nice acronym there – I think it prefers PAEA). This is how it describes itself:

The Alliance promotes the use of nuclear energy as a clean, safe, reliable and affordable way to produce electricity.

The goal of the PA Energy Alliance is to increase public awareness of the environmental and economic benefits of nuclear energy and provide a forum through which members can express their support for the continued safe operation of Pennsylvania’s five nuclear energy plants.

So it is an interested party. The questions are available – you can download the report here. It’s a very straightforward poll:

How important is the use of nuclear power in terms of meeting our country’s electricity needs – very important, somewhat important or not at all important?

That solicits an opinion.

Nuclear power helps reduce the effects of global warming because it emits no emissions or greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

You agree or disagree with this one. This tests knowledge, I guess, so the alliance can determine what messages need more work. 59 percent knew that nuclear energy does not produce carbon emissions.

But - I probably would have rethought that “emit no emissions” phrase – because if there’s no emissions there’s no emitting – and because nuclear facilities do emit (steam, for example) – just not greenhouse gases.

The point is, you can do this with the poll – decide whether the questions work and are fair. So see what you think.

The results of the poll make sense to me, even with Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania’s background. That accident frightened people, of course, but it harmed no one and released no radiation. Many people now in the state were not alive at the time and many others have left the state one way or another.

So there’s that. There’s also the prevalence of nuclear energy’s contribution to the state – there are nine reactors at five sites arrayed pretty evenly across the bottom two-thirds of the state. That means a lot of Pennsylvanians work at nuclear plants or are aware of their presence. Bisconti’s polls have shown on a national level that neighbors of plants like them a lot – they provide good careers and contribute to their local communities materially and financially. That bolster, in my mind, the results of this poll.

So – as with any poll, view it with as many factors in mind as possible. But this one seems good – and it’d be great to see other states try the same thing.

The PAEA logo.

Read More