DOCSLIB.ORG

Occupational Radiation Exposure from U.S. Naval Nuclear Plants and Their Support Facilities

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Occupational Radiation Exposure from U.S. Naval Nuclear Plants and Their Support Facilities REPORT NT-19-2 MAY 2019 OCCUPATIONAL RADIATION EXPOSURE FROM U.S. NAVAL NUCLEAR PLANTS AND THEIR SUPPORT FACILITIES NAVAL NUCLEAR PROPULSION PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20350 This publication was printed on Recycled Paper Report NT-19-2 May 2019 OCCUPATIONAL RADIATION EXPOSURE FROM U.S. NAVAL NUCLEAR PROPULSION PLANTS AND THEIR SUPPORT FACILITIES 2018 Prepared by T. J. Mueller, T. M. Weishar, J. M. Hallworth, CHP, and T. F. Lillywhite Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program Department of the Navy Approved by __________________________________ J. F. CALDWELL, JR. Admiral, U.S. Navy Director, Naval Nuclear Propulsion TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 1 EXTERNAL RADIATION EXPOSURE .......................................................................... 4 Policy and Limits ...................................................................................................... 4 Source of Radiation ................................................................................................. 5 Control of Radiation During Reactor Plant Operation .............................................. 5 Control of Radiation in Support Facilities ................................................................. 6 Dosimetry ................................................................................................................. 6 Physical Examinations ........................................................................................... 10 Shipyard, Tender, and Naval Base Training .......................................................... 11 Nuclear Power Training ......................................................................................... 17 Radiation Exposure Reduction .............................................................................. 18 Radiation Exposure Data ....................................................................................... 20 INTERNAL RADIOACTIVITY ...................................................................................... 33 Policy and Limits .................................................................................................... 33 Source of Radioactivity .......................................................................................... 34 Control of Airborne Radioactivity............................................................................ 34 Control of Radioactive Surface Contamination ...................................................... 35 Control of Food and Water ..................................................................................... 36 Wounds .................................................................................................................. 36 Monitoring for Internal Radioactivity ....................................................................... 37 Results of Internal Monitoring in 2018 .................................................................... 38 EFFECTS OF RADIATION ON PERSONNEL ............................................................ 39 Risks Associated with Radiation Exposure ............................................................ 40 Radiation Exposure Comparisons.......................................................................... 40 Annual Exposure.................................................................................................... 40 Collective Dose ...................................................................................................... 42 Conclusions on Radiation Exposure to Personnel ................................................. 43 Studies of the Effects of Radiation on Human Beings............................................ 43 High-Dose Studies ................................................................................................. 44 Low-Dose Studies .................................................................................................. 46 Numerical Estimates of Risk from Radiation .......................................................... 52 Risk Comparisons .................................................................................................. 53 Low-Level Radiation Controversy .......................................................................... 55 Conclusions on the Effects of Radiation on Personnel .......................................... 55 CLAIMS FOR RADIATION INJURY TO PERSONNEL ............................................... 57 AUDITS AND REVIEWS ............................................................................................. 60 ABNORMAL OCCURRENCES ................................................................................... 62 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 63 i LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 Total Radiation Exposure Received by Military and Civilian Personnel in the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program 1958-2018 ............................ 3 FIGURE 2 Total Radiation Exposure Received by Shipyard Personnel from Work on Naval Nuclear Propulsion Plants 1958-2018 ......................... 27 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 Shipyard First Reactor Plant Operation and First Radioactive Overhaul Work ..................................................................................... 22 TABLE 2 Occupational Radiation Exposure Received by Personnel Assigned to Tenders, Bases, and Nuclear-Powered Ships from Operation and Maintenance of Naval Nuclear Propulsion Plants ................................ 23 TABLE 3 Occupational Radiation Exposure Received by Shipyard Personnel from Work Associated with Naval Nuclear Propulsion Plants .............. 25 TABLE 4 Shipyard and Fleet Distribution of Personnel Radiation Exposure ...... 28 TABLE 5 Distribution of Total Lifetime Radiation Exposure Associated with Naval Nuclear Propulsion Plants ......................................................... 30 TABLE 6 Personnel Radiation Exposure for Commercial Nuclear-Powered Reactors Licensed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ........ 31 TABLE 7 Occurrences of Radioactive Skin Contaminations and Internal Radioactivity Depositions in Shipyard Personnel and Fleet Personnel Assigned to Tenders, Bases, and Nuclear-Powered Ships ................. 39 TABLE 8 Yale Study Results .............................................................................. 51 TABLE 9 New York University (NYU) Study Results .......................................... 52 TABLE 10 Lifetime Occupational Risks ................................................................ 54 TABLE 11 Some Commonplace Lifetime Risks .................................................... 54 TABLE 12 Claims for Radiation Injury to Personnel .............................................. 57 ii SUMMARY This report summarizes the radiation exposures to Navy and civilian personnel monitored for radiation associated with U.S. naval nuclear propulsion plants. As of the end of 2018, the U.S. Navy operated 71 nuclear-powered submarines, 11 nuclear- powered aircraft carriers, and 2 moored training ships. Facilities that build, maintain, overhaul, or refuel these nuclear propulsion plants include six shipyards, two tenders, and six naval bases. The benefits of nuclear propulsion in our most capable combatant ships have long been recognized, and our nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines form the strongest element of the U.S. strategic deterrent. Figure 1 shows that the total radiation exposure in 2018 is about 3 percent of the amount in the peak year of 1966, even though today there are 18 percent more nuclear- powered ships in operation and approximately 3.5 times the number of ships in overhaul. Total radiation exposure in this figure is the sum of the annual exposure of each person monitored for radiation. In 2018, the number of ships in overhaul was approximately the same as in 2017 but the total shipyard radiation exposure decreased from 489 Rem in 2017 to 461 Rem in 2018 (shipyard average annual radiation exposure per person decreased from 0.017 Rem in 2017 to 0.016 Rem in 2018). The total Fleet radiation exposure decreased from 157 Rem in 2017 to 153 Rem in 2018 (Fleet average annual radiation exposure per person remained the same as in 2017 at 0.009 Rem). The current Federal annual occupational radiation exposure limit of 5 Rem established in 1994 came 27 years after the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program’s (NNPP’s) annual exposure limit of 5 Rem per year was established in 1967. (Until 1994, the Federal radiation exposure lifetime limit allowed an accumulation of exposure of 5 Rem for each year of age beyond 18.) From 1969 to 1994, no civilian or military personnel in the Program exceeded its self-imposed 5 Rem annual limit, and no one has exceeded that Federal limit since then. In fact, no Program personnel have exceeded 40 percent of the Program’s annual limit between 1980 and 2018 (i.e., no personnel have exceeded 2 Rem in any year in the last 39 years). And no civilian or military Program personnel have ever, in over 60 years of operation, exceeded any Federal lifetime limit. Personnel operating the Navy’s nuclear-powered ships receive much less radiation exposure in a year than the average U.S. citizen does from natural background and medical radiation exposure. For example, the occupational exposure received by the average nuclear-trained sailor living onboard one of the Navy’s nuclear-powered ships in 2018 was less than
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Urban Megaprojects-Based Approach in Urban Planning: from Isolated Objects to Shaping the City the Case of Dubai
    Université de Liège Faculty of Applied Sciences Urban Megaprojects-based Approach in Urban Planning: From Isolated Objects to Shaping the City The Case of Dubai PHD Thesis Dissertation Presented by Oula AOUN Submission Date: March 2016 Thesis Director: Jacques TELLER, Professor, Université de Liège Jury: Mario COOLS, Professor, Université de Liège Bernard DECLEVE, Professor, Université Catholique de Louvain Robert SALIBA, Professor, American University of Beirut Eric VERDEIL, Researcher, Université Paris-Est CNRS Kevin WARD, Professor, University of Manchester ii To Henry iii iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My acknowledgments go first to Professor Jacques Teller, for his support and guidance. I was very lucky during these years to have you as a thesis director. Your assistance was very enlightening and is greatly appreciated. Thank you for your daily comments and help, and most of all thank you for your friendship, and your support to my little family. I would like also to thank the members of my thesis committee, Dr Eric Verdeil and Professor Bernard Declève, for guiding me during these last four years. Thank you for taking so much interest in my research work, for your encouragement and valuable comments, and thank you as well for all the travel you undertook for those committee meetings. This research owes a lot to Université de Liège, and the Non-Fria grant that I was very lucky to have. Without this funding, this research work, and my trips to UAE, would not have been possible. My acknowledgments go also to Université de Liège for funding several travels giving me the chance to participate in many international seminars and conferences.
    [Show full text]
  • Harbor Management Plan January 2021
    Town of Harwich Harbor Management Plan Adopted by the Board of Selectmen: January 26, 2004 Effective Date: February 9, 2004 Amendment Dates: 2004: March 15, April 12, August 16 2005: January 18, March 7, July 5, October 11 2006: March 27, October 30 2007: December 17 2008: January 14, May 19 2009: March 30, September 21, November 23 2011: February 28, September 26, October 24 2012: July 23, October 15 2013: February 19, July 29 2014: January 6, March 10, July 14, December 1 2015: May 18, May 26, August 24 2016: January 4, May 9, November 28 2017: January 9, September 11, December 11 2018: August 6, August 20, December 3 2019: May 28, September 9 2020: March 9 2021: January 4 This document is available in PDF format on the Town of Harwich website: www.harwich-ma.gov Town of Harwich Harbor Management Plan Table of Contents Section Heading Page 1.0 Purpose 2 2.0 Definitions 2 3.0 Mooring and Slip Permits and Regulations 6 4.0 Mooring Tackle and Equipment 10 5.0 Waiting List, Policy and Ownership Limitation 12 6.0 Town-Owned Dockage Refund Policy; Liens; Collections; Interest 13 7.0 Slip Regulations at Town-Owned Marina 13 8.0 Offloading Permits and Regulations at Town-Owned Facilities 15 9.0 Fueling Area Regulations 18 10.0 Speed Zones and Mooring Areas 19 11.0 Wet bikes and Jet Skis 20 12.0 Long Pond - Regulations for Motorboats 20 13.0 Boat Ramps 20 14.0 Wastes/Trash Disposal and Use of Dumpsters 21 15.0 Waterways and Ponds 22 16.0 Emergency Haul Outs 22 17.0 Sport fishing Boats: Tuna Buyer Permits and Regulations (T-Permits) 23 18.0 Hurricane
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Review of Nuclear Technology As the Advanced Ships Propulsion
    Asian Journal of Applied Sciences (ISSN: 2321 – 089) Volume 04 – Issue 03, June 2016 Technical Review of Nuclear Technology as the Advanced Ships Propulsion 1M. Badrus Zaman, 2Hadi Prasutiyon, 1Hari Prastowo and 1*Semin 1Departement of Marine Engineering, Faculty of Marine Technology Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember, Surabaya 60111, Indonesia 2Marine Technology Graduate Program, Faculty of Marine Technology Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember, Surabaya 60111, Indonesia *Corresponding author’s email: semin [AT] its.ac.id _________________________________________________________________________________ ABSTRACT--- Advance Ships Propulsion Nuclear Technology as The Answered. With the development of technology, the need for breakthrough in the of Maritime, especially the advance ship propulsion. Results : There have been more reactor concepts investigated in the naval propulsion area by different manufactures and laboratories than in the civilian field, and much can be learned from their experience for land applications. Conclusion: For these two considerations, it is recognized that a nuclear reactor is the ideal engine for naval advanced propulsion Keywords--- Advanced ship propulsion, diesel engine as an prime mover, nuclear technology _________________________________________________________________________________ 1. INTRODUCTION Marine transport has generally been seen as having a lower environmental impact than other forms of transport. The increasing demand for economical yet rapid movement of both passengers and freight has brought renewed momentum to the development of marine propulsion systems. New technologies are aiding the production of propulsion systems that are capable of driving vessels at higher speeds; that are more efficient; that provide better maneuverability; and are quieter, with less vibration. Here, the latest developments in marine propulsion are brought into focus [1]. Mechanical transmission from energy source to thruster, e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Moorage Tariff #6 – Port of Seattle Harbor Island Marina
    Port of Seattle Moorage Tariff #6 HIM – 2019.1 Effective January 1, 2019 MOORAGE TARIFF #6 – PORT OF SEATTLE HARBOR ISLAND MARINA ITEM 1 TITLE PAGE NOTICE: The electronic form of the Moorage Tariff will govern in the event of any conflict with any paper form of the Moorage Tariff. If you have printed an older version of this tariff, you need to print this version in its entirety. NAMING: RATES, CHARGES, RULES AND REGULATIONS APPLYING TO HARBOR ISLAND MARINA ISSUED BY Port of Seattle 2711 Alaskan Way Seattle, Washington 98121 ISSUING AGENT ALTERNATE ISSUING AGENT Stephanie Jones Stebbins Kenneth Lyles Managing Director, Maritime Division Port of Director, Fishing and Commercial Operations Seattle Port of Seattle PO Box 1209 PO Box 1209 Seattle, WA 98111 Seattle, WA 98111 Phone: 206-787-3818 Phone: 206-787-3397 FAX: 206-787-3280 FAX: 206-787-3393 [email protected] [email protected] ALTERNATE ISSUING AGENT Tracy McKendry Sr. Manager, Recreational Boating Port of Seattle PO Box 1209 Seattle, WA 98111 Phone: 206-787-7695 FAX: 206-787-3391 [email protected] Page 2 of 22 QUICK-REFERENCE RATE TABLE * ~ LEASEHOLD TAX IS IN ADDITION TO NAMED RATES ~ MONTHLY MOORAGE RATES - COMMERCIAL Rate per lineal foot is $13.09 MONTHLY MOORAGE RATES – NON-COMMERCIAL Berth Size Rate Per Foot Up to 32 feet $11.03 33 feet to 40 feet $11.27 41 feet and above $11.47 GRANDFATHERED MONTHLY LIVEABOARD FEE $95.00 NEW MONTHLY LIVEABOARD FEE $117.35 Incidental Charter and Guest Moorage Accommodation by Manager Approval Only *For complete rate details, please see ITEM 3100 - RATES Page 3 of 22 Table of Contents ITEM 1 TITLE PAGE .......................................................................................................................1 ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Estimation of the Collective Effective Dose to the Population from Medical X-Ray Examinations in Finland
    Estimation of the collective effective dose to the population from medical x-ray examinations in Finland Petra Tenkanen-Rautakoskia, Hannu Järvinena, Ritva Blya aRadiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK), PL 14, 00880 Helsinki, Finland Abstract. The collective effective dose to the population from all x-ray examinations in Finland in 2005 was estimated. The numbers of x-ray examinations were collected by a questionnaire to the health care units (response rate 100 %). The effective doses in plain radiography were calculated using a Monte Carlo based program (PCXMC), as average values for selected health care units. For computed tomography (CT), weighted dose length product (DLPw) in a standard phantom was measured for routine CT protocols of four body regions, for 80 % of CT scanners including all types. The effective doses were calculated from DPLw values using published conversion factors. For contrast-enhanced radiology and interventional radiology, the effective dose was estimated mainly by using published DAP values and conversion factors for given body regions. About 733 examinations per 1000 inhabitants (excluding dental) were made in 2005, slightly less than in 2000. The proportions of plain radiography, computed tomography, contrast-enhanced radiography and interventional procedures were about 92, 7, 1 and 1 %, respectively. From 2000, the frequencies (number of examinations per 1000 inhabitants) of plain radiography and contrast-enhanced radiography have decreased about 8 and 33 %, respectively, while the frequencies of CT and interventional radiology have increased about 28 and 38 %, respectively. The population dose from all x-ray examinations is about 0,43 mSv per person (in 1997 0,5 mSv).
    [Show full text]
  • Inland Port 95 Logistics Center
    GROUNDBREAKING IN 2019 DELIVERY IN 2020 INLAND PORT 95 LOGISTICS CENTER DILLON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA 29536 PLANNED SPECULATIVE WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT 373,100 SF PHASE I PROJECT DETAILS Architecture Engineering Environmental Land Surveying • 373,100 SF of Class A warehouse/logistics space 1100 First Avenue, Suite 104 King of Prussia, PA 19406 (610) 337-3630 • Located on I-95 in Dillon County, South Carolina (610) 337-3642 Fax • 5 miles south of NC/SC state line PHASE I • 1 Mile from Newly Constructed Inland Port Dillon 2020 DELIVERY • All Utilities To Site • 2020 Delivery • 373,100 SF • Industrial Zoning 32’ Clear, ESFR Sprinkler • 7” concrete floors, concrete wall panels FARLEY DRIVE & SC-34 DILLON, SC DILLON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA • 50’95 INLAND PORT LOGISTICS CENTER x 50’ column spacing DEVELOPMENT SNAPSHOT • 180’ truck court with 64 trailer parking stalls Located on I-95 in Dillon County, South Carolina, the 95 • Up to 58 Dock Doors Inland Port Logistics Center is strategically located to take • UpDesc. to 189 automobile Date REVISIONS No. advantage of the states’s new inland port facility, which Surveyed Drawn J.W.Z Reviewed D.R.S. parkingScale N.T.S. spaces Project No. 18CXXXX Date 03/20/2019 Field Book CAD File: was completed in April 2018. Inland Port Dillon (IPD) is CP-1900043-LAYOUT 5 - Rendering Title CONCEPT PLAN- TRACT 3 served by direct rail access from the Port of Charleston Sheet No. CP-01 Mar 22, 2019 1:08pm jziegler G:\JOBS19\00\1900043\DWG\CP-1900043-LAYOUT 5 - Rendering.dwg Layout: CP-TRACT 3 (2) No.
    [Show full text]
  • Ports and Harbours
    1 Unit 14 PORTS AND HARBOURS Basic terms • port, harbour, haven • Port Authority • port structures • Harbour(master’s) Office • wharf • port areas • berth • storage facilities • quay • port facilities • pier • maritime administration • jetty • bething accommodation • dock • dock basin • mole • port regulations • breakwater • dock basin • port facilities • terminal • port dues Ports and harbours conduct four important functions: administrative (ensuring that the legal, socio-political and economic interests of the state and international maritime authorities are protected), development (ports are major promoters and instigators of a country’s or wider regional economy), industrial (major industries process the goods imported or exported in a port), and commercial (ports are international trade junction points where various modes of transport interchange; loading, discharging, transit of goods). A port is a facility for receiving ships and transferring cargo. They are usually situated at the edge of an ocean, sea, river, or lake. Ports often have cargo- handling equipment such as cranes (operated by longshoremen) and forklifts for use in loading/unloading of ships, which may be provided by private interests or public bodies. Often, canneries or other processing facilities will be located near by. Harbour pilots and tugboats are often used to maneuver large ships in tight quarters as they approach and leave the docks. Ports which handle international traffic have customs facilities. (Source: Wikipedia) The terms "port" and " seaport " are used for ports that handle ocean-going vessels, and "river port" is used for facilities that handle river traffic, such as 2 barges and other shallow draft vessels. Some ports on a lake, river, or canal have access to a sea or ocean, and are sometimes called "inland ports".
    [Show full text]
  • 600 Technology (Applied Sciences)
    600 600 Technology (Applied sciences) Class here inventions See also 303.48 for technology as a cause of cultural change; also 306.4 for sociology of technology; also 338.1–338.4 for economic aspects of industries based on specific technologies; also 338.9 for technology transfer, appropriate technology See Manual at 300 vs. 600; also at 363 vs. 302–307, 333.7, 570–590, 600; also at 363.1 vs. 600; also at 583–585 vs. 600 SUMMARY 601–609 Standard subdivisions and technical drawing, hazardous materials technology, patents 610 Medicine and health 620 Engineering and allied operations 630 Agriculture and related technologies 640 Home and family management 650 Management and auxiliary services 660 Chemical engineering and related technologies 670 Manufacturing 680 Manufacture of products for specific uses 690 Construction of buildings 601 Philosophy and theory 602 Miscellany Do not use for patents; class in 608 Class interdisciplinary works on trademarks and service marks in 929.9 Interdisciplinary collections of standards relocated to 389 .9 Commercial miscellany Class commercial miscellany of products and services used in individual and family living in 640.29; class commercial miscellany of manufactured products in 670.29; class interdisciplinary commercial miscellany in 381.029 603 Dictionaries, encyclopedias, concordances 604 Technical drawing, hazardous materials technology; groups of people 657 604 Dewey Decimal Classification 604 .2 Technical drawing Including arrangement and organization of drafting rooms, preservation and storage of drawings; specific drafting procedures and conventions (e.g., production illustration, dimensioning; lettering, titling; shades, shadows, projections); preparation and reading of copies Class here engineering graphics, mechanical drawing For architectural drawing, see 720.28.
    [Show full text]
  • THE COLLECTIVE EFFECTIVE DOSE RESULTING from RADIATION EMITTED DURING the FIRST WEEKS of the FUKUSHIMA DAIICHI NUCLEAR ACCIDENT Matthew Mckinzie, Ph.D
    THE COLLECTIVE EFFECTIVE DOSE RESULTING FROM RADIATION EMITTED DURING THE FIRST WEEKS OF THE FUKUSHIMA DAIICHI NUCLEAR ACCIDENT Matthew McKinzie, Ph.D. and Thomas B. Cochran, Ph.D., Natural Resources Defense Council April 10, 2011 The Magnitude 9.0 earthquake off Japan’s Pacific Coast, which was the initiating event for accidents at four of the six reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, occurred at 14:46 local time on March 11th. At 15:41 a tsunami hit the plant and a station blackout ensued. A reconstruction of the accident progression by Areva1 posited that the final option for cooling the reactors – the reactor core isolation pumps – failed just hours later in Unit 1 (at 16:36), failed in the early morning of March 13th in Unit 3 (at 02:44), and failed early in the afternoon of March 14th in Unit 2 (at 13:25). Radiological releases spiked beginning on March 15th and in the Areva analysis are attributed to the venting of the reactor pressure vessels, explosion in Unit 2, and – significantly – explosion and fire in Unit 4. Fuel had been discharged from the Unit 4 reactor core to the adjacent spent fuel pool on November 30, 2010, raising the possibility of a core melt “on fresh air.” The Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) has posted hourly dose rates by prefecture2 on its website. We do not currently know the geographic coordinates of these radiation monitoring sites. The English language versions of the hourly dose rate measurements by prefecture begin in table form at 17:00 on March 16th, and hourly dose rates are provided as charts3 beginning at 00:00 on March 14th.
    [Show full text]
  • Individual and Collective Dose Limits and Radionuclide Release Limits
    UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 April 29, 1991 r' Mr. Robert M. Bernero, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards u.s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Dear Mr. Bernero: SUBJECT: INDIVIDUAL AND COLLECTIVE DOSE LIMITS AND RADIONUCLIDE RELEASE LIMITS The Advisory Committee . on Nuclear waste has been developing comments, thoughts, and suggestions relative to individual and collective dose limits and radionuclide release limits. Since we understand that your staff is reviewing these same topics, we wanted to share our thoughts with you. In formulating these comments, we have had discussions with a number of people, including members of the NRC staff and Committee consultants. The Committee also had the benefit of the documents listed. Basic Definitions As a basic philosophy, individual dose limits are used to place restrictions on the risk to individual members of the public due to operations at a nuclear facility. If the limits have been properly established and compliance is observed, a regulatory agency can be confident that the associated risk to individual members of the pUblic is acceptable. Because the determination of the dose to individual members of the pUblic is difficult, the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) has developed the concept of the "critical group" and recommends that it be used in assessing doses resulting from environmental releases. As defined by the ICRP, a critical group is a relatively homogeneous group of people whose location and living habits are such that they receive the highest doses as a result of radio­ nuclide releases.
    [Show full text]
  • July/August 2004 Newsletter
    Environmental Defense Institute News on Environmental Health and Safety Issues ")··..--~~~~~~~~~-,-~~~~~~--"--~~~ I July/August 2004 Volume 15 Number 3 Idaho Cancer Rates Continue to Rise at Record Levels According to the Cancer Data Registry ofldaho Dr. Thomas Pigford which was commissioned by the US there is a steady increase in Idaho cancer rates from the District Court hearing the Hanford Downwinders suit, beginning of data collection through 2002 (the latest both showed that causation for the high rate of cancer in report issued by the Registry). The 2000 report notes an the Northern Idaho Panhandle and Health District 3 increase of 3 59 cancer cases in recent years. "This was (Lewiston area) can be attributed to Hanford emissions one. of the largest single-year increases in cancer following wind patterns up the Columbia and Snake incidence in the history of the Cancer Data Registry of River drainage canyons. Idaho. Cancer sites with notable increases from 1999 to The Hanford· Downwinder litigation won two 2000 were lung, melanoma (in-situ), oral cavity and significant legal wins; 1.) the US 9th District Court of pharynx cancer counts increased over 1999 levels. The Appeals overruled the 1998 Spokane District Court number ofin-situ melanoma cases is 65% higher than for ruling by Judge McDonald that previously rejected the any previous year. The prostate cancer incidence rate is claims of most of the plaintiffs, and remanded the case the highest it has been since the spike in prostate cancer back to District Court for trial, based on Plaintiffs rates in 1990-1993 due to prostate-specific antigen scientific briefs showing significantly more particulate screening.
    [Show full text]
  • Interim Guidelines for Hospital Response to Mass Casualties from a Radiological Incident December 2003
    Interim Guidelines for Hospital Response to Mass Casualties from a Radiological Incident December 2003 Prepared by James M. Smith, Ph.D. Marie A. Spano, M.S. Division of Environmental Hazards and Health Effects, National Center for Environmental Health Summary On September 11, 2001, U.S. symbols of economic growth and military prowess were attacked and thousands of innocent lives were lost. These tragic events exposed our nation’s vulnerability to attack and heightened our awareness of potential threats. Further examination of the capabilities of foreign nations indicate that terrorist groups worldwide have access to information on the development of radiological weapons and the potential to acquire the raw materials necessary to build such weapons. The looming threat of attack has highlighted the vital role that public health agencies play in our nation’s response to terrorist incidents. Such agencies are responsible for detecting what agent was used (chemical, biological, radiological), event surveillance, distribution of necessary medical supplies, assistance with emergency medical response, and treatment guidance. In the event of a terrorist attack involving nuclear or radiological agents, it is one of CDC’s missions to insure that our nation is well prepared to respond. In an effort to fulfill this goal, CDC, in collaboration with representatives of local and state health and radiation protection departments and many medical and radiological professional organizations, has identified practical strategies that hospitals can refer
    [Show full text]