Spotlight
THE FATE OF OYSTER CREEK; A CHANCE TO REDUCE CANCER
Joseph J. Mangano and Edith Gbur

Asbury Park Press
July 18, 2007

The clock is ticking until the license of the Oyster Creek nuclear reactor, the oldest in the U.S., expires. Federal regulators face a decision on whether to accept or reject an application to extend the license for 20 years. Legal actions to block approval have been taken by the state of New Jersey and a coalition of citizens groups.

A large-scale release of radioactivity after mechanical failure or terrorist attack would constitute the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history – especially if it occurred at Oyster Creek, just 60 miles from both New York City and Philadelphia. But is Oyster Creek just a potential health threat, or has it actually harmed humans in the 38 years it has operated?

Companies that operate nuclear reactors, along with federal officials, claim that while routine releases of radioactivity into the air and water are too small to cause any harm. But a growing body of evidence suggests that toxic releases from Oyster Creek are linked with high cancer rates in the local area. This information should be a critical aspect of whether the reactor license is extended, or whether Oyster Creek is closed permanently.

The only national study of cancer near U.S. nuclear plants, by the National Cancer Institute, showed that the local cancer death rate rose for most types of cancer during the 1970s and early 1980s, after Oyster Creek began operating. Although the report called for further investigation, neither the NCI nor any other federal agency ever updated this report, now nearly two decades old.

An examination of current health statistics raises troubling questions.

• Ocean County has the highest cancer incidence rate of any New Jersey county, followed by Monmouth County (located directly downwind, to the north).
• Ocean and Monmouth County death rates are below the U.S. for all causes but cancer.
• Local breast cancer death rates are elevated for young, middle aged, and elderly women.
• Local childhood cancer rates are elevated (partially due to the cluster in Toms River).

There is no obvious explanation for these high cancer rates. The area’s population has above-average levels of income and education, and below-average levels of poverty and non-English speakers. It also has access to world-class medical care in New York City and Philadelphia. While many factors can contribute to cancer rates, Oyster Creek must be considered as one.

Routine releases from reactors are actually a cocktail of over 100 chemicals, similar to those in atomic bomb test fallout from a half century ago. These chemicals enter the body through breathing and the food chain, and each kills and injures healthy cells in various parts of the body. Iodine-131 seeks out the thyroid gland. Strontium-90 attaches to bone and penetrates into the bone marrow. Cesium-137 disperses throughout the soft tissues. These chemicals are especially harmful to the fetus, infant, and child.

Oyster Creek’s emission levels during its lifetime are the highest of any U.S. reactor, with a total five times greater than at Three Mile Island during the 1979 accident. Even today, Oyster Creek’s emission totals consistently ranks in the highest 10 of the 104 U.S. reactors.

Research recently published in five medical journal articles suggests strongly that these emissions are entering local bodies. The research was based on lab testing of over 500 New Jersey baby teeth, most near Oyster Creek, and found that average levels of Strontium-90 doubled from the late 1980s to the late 1990s.

Other research has shown that when nuclear reactors close, local infant mortality and childhood cancer rates plunge immediately after shutdown. These studies offer further evidence that Oyster Creek poses an actual health threat to local citizens.

Oyster Creek emissions are probably not the only reason for high local cancer rates. But with the population of Ocean and Monmouth Counties now exceeding 1.2 million, and with 8000 of them being diagnosed with cancer each year, the situation has reached crisis proportions. The possibility of Oyster Creek operating for another 20 years brings this crisis to a head, and demands that precautionary policies be followed.

There are some, including Dr. Letty Lutzker (“Scientific evidence doesn’t support ‘Tooth Fairy Project’ claims”, July 10), who call the facts presented above a “medicine show.” But this is anything but a show, and those who declare Oyster Creek “safe” have no evidence proving their claim. Too many are suffering from cancer, experts have no explanation, and a dangerous technology continues to add toxins to our bodies. We challenge Dr. Lutzker and others who dismiss these facts to publicly debate the matter, so that the people can better understand this crucial issue.

Joseph J. Mangano MPH MBA is Executive Director of the Radiation and Public Health Project in New York. Edith Gbur is Director of the Jersey Shore Nuclear Watch in Toms River NJ.

APPENDICES – DATA USED IN EDITORIAL
(not published with the editorial, but included as a reference).

Back to the article: Educating New Jersey:
On The Risks of The Oyster Creek Nuclear Reactor

< Back to Spotlight