Nuclear plant leak suspected of causing cancer

[bananas]

Source: WEWS-TV

CLEVELAND - An exclusive 5 On Your Side investigation has uncovered a possible link between a nuclear plant and cancer after an Ohio man died from multiple cancerous tumors throughout his body.

<snip>

The McMurdo Nuclear plant was built in Antarctica in the early 1960s and provided power to the base until it was shut down in 1972. Swinney and an estimated 15,000 other veterans served at McMurdo Station as part of a support team throughout the plant's operation.

<snip>

Though the Navy's report found no evidence of excessive radiation exposure, veterans like Charlie Swinney have emerged across the country with similar concerns after being diagnosed with cancerous tumors.

"Charlie had over 200 tumors in his body," said Swinney's wife Elaine. "He kept saying, this isn't right. Why is there so many of us in this close group getting sick like this."

<snip>

Read more: http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/local_news/investigations/nuclear-plant-leak-suspected-of-causing-cancer

---

Embedded video news story at the link.

[me b zola]

1. I recommended

...but there are those who will defend nuclear energy regardless of its dangers.

[druidity33]

3. +1. nt.

[Rebubula]

4. I defend Nuclear energy

Using a base that was built in the 60s in the harshest environment on Earth as a barometer against nuclear energy is pretty weak.

It has its dangers, but the safety improvements over the last 30 years make it usable. There are over 100 nuclear plants in the US - and hundreds more in the rest of the world. With the exception of the leak at 3 Mile Island (30 years ago) and Chernobyl (25 years ago - built in the Soviet Union with little safety oversight) - there have been no meltdowns or explosions.

Continuing to demonize a safe energy source is myopic and outdated.

I recommend this story because of its human element that the government YET AGAIN denies people the full story and attempts to sweep its responsibility under the rug.

[AndyTiedye]

9. Lots of Incentives to Hide Radiation Leaks When They Occur

When the people running a nuke screw up, they try to hide it.
Since radiation is invisible, and the cancers it produces don't
show up for some time afterward, they usually succeed.

If the plant is privately owned, the profit motive reinforces
this tendency, but the same can happen at a government-owned
plant (like Chernobyl).

[donquijoterocket]

11. If

You're going to defend it,defend the whole process including the extraction and processing of ore for fuel and the long term costs associated with that , and the disposal of high level nuclear waste, and the decommissioning of plants at the end of their useful life, and the costs of indemnifying those installations against possible accidents and hazards.
I see nothing nuclear energy can accomplish that could not be done more responsibly with a very stringent conservation program including the design of more energy efficient structures and modes of transport powered by energy created by appropriately sized technologies deployed at the point of consumption.Wind and solar especially factoring in advances in efficiency and reduction in costs as economies of scale are reached would do the job with much less risk to humans or the environment.

[Nihil]

13. That's why nuclear energy is not needed ...

> I see nothing nuclear energy can accomplish that could not be done
> more responsibly with a very stringent conservation program

... for the 1% of the USA that understands what "a very stringent
conservation program" is and the 0.5% that would go along with it.

No need for that 0.5% to be powered by nuclear energy at all!

:thumbsup:

[Dogtown]

5. I recommended

but there are those that will attack nuclear power under any and all circumstances.

Research is the key.

[SpiralHawk]

2. Mutant Planet, Inc. (R)

[xchrom]

6. recommend

[Javaman]

7. Post this in the Energy/Environmental forum and watch the feeding frenzy

by the pro-nuke crowd.

I rec'd this post but just to be on the record, I support nuke power but don't support nuke waste.

So until the can figure out a nuke power plant that produces no harmful waste, nuke should take a back burner.

[ensho]

8. kick

nt

[plumbob]

10. Can't be! Nukes are so green! That's why nobody else in the fucking

country wants a dump near their home except the idiots who live 30 miles north of me.

So when it finally leaks and ruins our water supply, and five generations of work is lost, someone can explain to me how it's all just human error, not any fault of the waste itself.

Don't need nor want any nuclear plants or dumps near me. At all.

[felix_numinous]

12. If nuclear power plants and companies

would be transparent in their relationship to the public, making it clear about real and present dangers, they would gain more respect. It is not about the technology and how advanced it is, their tragedies are a result of neglecting public responsibilities for spills, leaks and lapses in safety that have killed so many people.