Small-scale US nuclear reactor blamed for spiking cancer rates

[kristopher]

Small-scale US nuclear reactor blamed for spiking cancer rates, casting pall over Russia’s FNPP fetish

AMSTERDAM – A small nuclear power plant operated the United States at Antarctica’s McMurdo Sound has been implicated in dozens of cases of an unusual cancer in personnel who worked at or near the station between the years 1964 and 1973, US and New Zealand media have indicated. Charles Digges, 07/03-2011

Newspapers and television stations from San Diego, Ohio, Florida, Idaho and other states have charged that former naval personnel who worked on an Antarctic military action called “Operation Deep Freeze” contracted their cancers from working at or near the station during it’s short nine-year operational period.

The reactor, a PM-3A 1.75 Megawatt installation that also provided heating and water desalinization, was used to power the McMurdo US Naval Station.

The PM-3A reactor operated on uranium-235 fuel of 93 percent enrichment, according to official US Navy documents...

http://www.bellona.org/articles/articles_2011/McMurdo_leaks



The PM-3A reactor at the US Navy's base in McMurdo Sound, Antarctica, before it was dismantled. The frequency of its radioactive leaks earned it the nickname "nukey poo" among workers, dozens of whom are battling terminal cancer.
wikimedia commons

[dixiegrrrrl]

1. On top of that, the ice is melting and the sea is rising in the Sound up there.

So what happens to all the nuclear stuff lying around?
Or did they remove every last mega-particle of it?
And if so, to where?

[GliderGuider]

2. The high level stuff all went back to Georgia. 8,000 tons of dirt were sent to Hueneme in CA.

The plant and all soil was completely removed by 1979. It looks as though the whole project was a fuckup from the word go. Crappy design, poor construction, lots and lots and lots of problems. It makes a tritium leak look like pretty small beer.

You can read "The Story of Nukey Poo" to get an idea of how bad this thing was.

[phantom power]

3. Nukey Poo?

oopsie woopsie!

[dixiegrrrrl]

4. Whoa!!! Excellent link.

I had all but forgotten that magazine.

Thanks.

[madokie]

5. I thought that it was so popular around here that Nukes haven't killed anyone, ever

That that was all our imagination, no truth to it. Any given day that sort of message can be found in these E/E forum pages.

What gives??? I'm shocked, shocked I'm telling ya

As I've said all along the nuclear industry can't be trusted to be honest with us period.

Rec

[jpak]

6. I worked with a guy that had dozens of slide photos of the POS from the early days of that reactor

fascinating stuff

but

It puts the lie to the pro-nuke argument that the Navy has consistently operated reactors safely.

in this case - they did not

yup

[madokie]

7. I'll have to kick this for another pass through

Beings as how we're told over and over on here how safe nuclear energy is and how the navy manages to get it right all the time.

[GliderGuider]

8. Nice pair of straw men.

Nobody says "Nuclear energy is safe". Nobody with half a brain, anyway. What we say is things like, "Nuclear energy is safer than you believe it is," and "Nuclear energy is safer than burning fossil fuels."

Similarly, I never heard anyone say "The navy manages to get it right all the time." They manifestly don't. They do run a lot of modern reactors in modern warships without too many apparent problems, but that's because the reactors are small, the risk tolerance of the military is relatively high, and the level of information security aboard warships prevents much information about problems from leaking out.

Nukey Poo proves as much about the overall safety of the nuclear industry as the Tenerife crash proved about the overall safety of the airline industry.

[madokie]

9. Your first sentence is anything but truthful

why should I go any further? But, I will, you start your second paragraph with yet another mis-truth.
Have a good day
I'm sure you deserve one :shrug:
peace

[GliderGuider]

10. Prove it.

You made a couple of assertions assertion, now you're trying to back them up by making another one. That's a terrible standard for debate.

Can you point to an instance of someone making the statements you claimed? Or are your beliefs simply colouring your perceptions? That used to happen to me all the time, back when I saw the collapse of civilization and human die-off lurking behind every minor dip in oil production and every dollar rise in its price. Painting the facts with the colour of our beliefs is a natural human tendency when we're dealing with a subject we care passionately about.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GliderGuider]

12. If we "routinely make the claims attributed to us"...

it should be the work of just a moment to find an example or two. The reason you can't is that we don't make claims like those. Those are simply words shoved into our mouths by people who are mendaciously trying to discredit our argument.

Put up or shut up.

[madokie]

13. All I can say is you aren't paying any attention then

Or you want to continue the falsehood of what you claimed, in that case carry on, don't let me get in your way.
Have fun playing with your imaginary friend.

The thing of it I don't see a conspiracy around every bush nor have I ever. I see the world as it is not as someone who has something to convince me of or sell me something wants me too. I wasn't born yesterday nor did I just start paying attention this morning. Take your false argument and play with someone else I'm not interested.

Oh I spoke the truth earlier too, prove me wrong if you want to try but good luck with that.

Peace and have fun

[NickB79]

14. I wonder what the cancer rates are in this population vs. the population as a whole

It's very difficult to prove any individual cancers were caused by exposure to this nuclear reactor, just like it's very difficult to prove any individual hurricane or extreme weather event was caused by global warming. Only by checking to see if they're a statistical increase in the rate of cancer in those exposed can we determine if this reactor caused a spike in cancers.

So far, I haven't seen one mentioned in the media, though I wouldn't be surprised if it were found eventually. From all indications, this reactor was an absolute disaster.

[diane in sf]

15. read the article re: doctor's comment on the type of cancer at least one person had

[GliderGuider]

16. In scientific terminology, one case is an anecdote

To prove Nukey Poo did it there would need to be a careful epidemiological study with a good statistical evaluation. That's how TPTB get around paying claims for stuff like this - they do everything they can to keep the medical records of those affected "private", then they can say the linkage is unproven when the studty results don't rise to the level of statistical significance due to inadequate sample size. In this case it may or may not be the reactor, but without more than one case to go on it's hard to say. Individuals get cancer of all sorts all the time.

[joshcryer]

17. Is this the longest thread where the numbering was completely consecutive despite time of reply?

I think it's awesome (if anyone else sees the trend I mean).