Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- In Arkansas, Exxon Is Threatening to Arrest Reporters But Otherwise Telling Nobody Nothing
- It’s Official: A Democratic President Proposes to Cut Social Security
- The Corporate Betrayal of America
- Why Would Anyone Celebrate the Death of Margaret Thatcher? Ask a Chilean
- The Elephant in the Room: Militarism
Popular content
Today's Top News
People Died at Three Mile Island
People died--and are still dying--at Three Mile Island.
As the thirtieth anniversary of America's most infamous industrial accident approaches, we mourn the deaths that accompanied the biggest string of lies ever told in US industrial history.
As news of the accident poured into the global media, the public was assured there were no radiation releases.
That quickly proved to be false.
The public was then told the releases were controlled and done purposely to alleviate pressure on the core.
Both those assertions were false.
The public was told the releases were "insignificant."
But stack monitors were saturated and unusable, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission later told Congress it did not know---and STILL does not know---how much radiation was released at Three Mile Island, or where it went.
Using unsubstantiated estimates of how much radiation was released, the government issued average doses allegedly received by people in the region, which it assured the public were safe. But the estimates were utterly meaningless, among other things ignoring the likelihood that high doses of concentrated fallout could come down heavily on specific areas.
Official estimates said a uniform dose to all persons in the region was equivalent to a single chest x-ray. But pregnant women are no longer x-rayed because it has long been known a single dose can do catastrophic damage to an embryo or fetus in utero.
The public was told there was no melting of fuel inside the core.
But robotic cameras later showed a very substantial portion of the fuel did melt.
The public was told there was no danger of an explosion.
But there was, as there had been at Michigan's Fermi reactor in 1966. In 1986, Chernobyl Unit Four did explode.
The public was told there was no need to evacuate anyone from the area.
But Pennsylvania Governor Richard Thornburgh then evacuated pregnant women and small children. Unfortunately, many were sent to nearby Hershey, which was showered with fallout.
In fact, the entire region should have been immediately evacuated. It is standard wisdom in the health physics community that---due in part to the extreme vulnerability of human embryos, fetuses and small children, as well as the weaknesses of old age---there is no safe dose of radiation, and none will ever be found.
The public was assured the government would follow up with meticulous studies of the health impacts of the accident.
In fact, the state of Pennsylvania hid the health impacts, including deletion of cancers from the public record, abolition of the state's tumor registry, misrepresentation of the impacts it could not hide (including an apparent tripling of the infant death rate in nearby Harrisburg) and much more.
The federal government did nothing to track the health histories of the region's residents.
In fact, the most reliable studies were conducted by local residents like Jane Lee and Mary Osborne, who went door-to-door in neighborhoods where the fallout was thought to be worst. Their surveys showed very substantial plagues of cancer, leukemia, birth defects, respiratory problems, hair loss, rashes, lesions and much more.
A study by Columbia University claimed there were no significant health impacts, but its data by some interpretations points in the opposite direction. Investigations by epidemiologist Dr. Stephen Wing of the University of North Carolina, and others, led Wing to warn that the official studies on the health impacts of the accident suffered from "logical and methodological problems." Studies by Wing and by Arnie Gundersen, a former nuclear industry official, being announced this week at Harrisburg, significantly challenge official pronouncements on both radiation releases and health impacts.
Gundersen, a leading technical expert on nuclear engineering, says: "When I correctly interpreted the containment pressure spike and the doses measured in the environment after the TMI accident, I proved that TMI's releases were about one hundred times higher than the industry and the NRC claim, in part because the containment leaked. This new data supports the epidemiology of Dr. Steve Wing and proves that there really were injuries from the accident. New reactor designs are also effected, as the NRC is using its low assumed release rates to justify decreases in emergency planning and containment design."
Data unearthed by radiologist Dr. Ernest Sternglass of the University of Pittsburgh, and statisticians Jay Gould (now deceased) and Joe Mangano of New York have led to strong assertions of major public health impacts. On-going work by Sternglass and Mangano clearly indicates that "normal" reactor radiation releases of far less magnitude that those at TMI continue to have catastrophic impacts on local populations.
Anecdotal evidence among the local human population has been devastating. Large numbers of central Pennsylvanians suffered skin sores and lesions that erupted while they were out of doors as the fallout rained down on them. Many quickly developed large, visible tumors, breathing problems, and a metallic taste in their mouths that matched that experienced by some of the men who dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, and who were exposed to nuclear tests in the south Pacific and Nevada.
A series of interviews conducted by Robbie Leppzer and compiled in a "a two-hour public radio documentary VOICES FROM THREE MILE ISLAND (www.turningtide.com) give some indication of the horrors experienced by the people of central Pennsylvania.
They are
further underscored by harrowing broadcasts from then-CBS News anchor Walter
Cronkite (http://www.youtube.com/watch?
In March
of 1980, I went into the region and compiled a range of interviews clearly
indicating widespread health damage done by radiation from the accident.
The survey led to the book KILLING OUR OWN, co-authored with Norman
Solomon, Robert Alvarez and Eleanor Walters (www.ratical.org/radiation/
My research at TMI also uncovered a plague of death and disease among the area's wild animals and farm livestock. Entire bee hives expired immediately after the accident, along with a disappearance of birds, many of whom were found scattered dead on the ground. A rash of malformed pets were born and stillborn, including kittens that could not walk and a dog with no eyes. Reproductive rates among the region's cows and horses plummeted.
Much of this was documented by a three-person investigative team from the Baltimore News-American, which made it clear that the problems could only have been caused by radiation. Statistics from Pennsylvania's Department of Agriculture confirmed the plague, but the state denied its existence, and said that if it did exist, it could not have been caused by TMI.
In the mid-1980s the citizens of the three counties surrounding Three Mile Island voted by a margin of 3:1 to permanently retired TMI Unit One, which had been shut when Unit Two melted. The Reagan Administration trashed the vote and re-opened the reactor, which still operates. Its owners now seek a license renewal.
Some 2400 area residents have long-since filed a class action lawsuit demanding compensation for the plague of death and disease visited upon their families. In the past quarter-century they have been denied access to the federal court system, which claims there was not enough radiation released to do such harm. TMI's owners did quietly pay out millions in damages to area residents whose children were born with genetic damage, among other things. The payments came in exchange for silence among those receiving them.
But for all the global attention focused on the accident and its health effects, there has never been a binding public trial to test the assertion by thousands of conservative central Pennsylvanians that radiation from TMI destroyed their lives.
So while the nuclear power industry continues to assert that "no one died at Three Mile Island," it refuses to allow an open judicial hearing on the hundreds of cases still pending.
As the pushers of the "nuclear renaissance" demand massive tax- and rate-payer subsidies to build yet another generation of reactors, they cynically stonewall the obvious death toll that continues to mount at the site of an accident that happened thirty years ago. The "see no evil" mantra continues to define all official approaches to the victims of this horrific disaster.
Ironically, like Chernobyl, Three Mile Island Unit Two was a state-of-the-art reactor. Its official opening came on December 28, 1978, and it melted exactly three months later. Had it operated longer, the accumulated radiation spewing from its core almost certainly would have been far greater.
Every reactor now operating in the US is much older---nearly all fully three decades older---than TMI-2 when it melted. Their potential fallout that could dwarf what came down in 1979.
But the Big Lie remains officially in tact. Expect to hear all week that TMI was "a success story" because "no one was killed."
But in mere moments that brand new reactor morphed from a $900 million asset to a multi-billion-dollar liability. It could happen to any atomic power plant, now, tomorrow and into the future.
Meanwhile, the death toll from America's worst industrial catastrophe continues to rise. More than ever, it is shrouded in official lies and desecrated by a reactor-pushing "renaissance" hell-bent on repeating the nightmare on an even larger scale.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


16 Comments so far
Show AllHere come the nuke huggers.
edit: On further reflection since work is slow right now...it would be nice to see figures of how many people have died from it.
For this and other related history, see "Secret Fallout, 1981) by Ernest Sternglass - if you want to learn about the history of deceit and cover-up by the nuclear industry (as it morphed out of the nuclear bomb testing industry). He worked out statistics pretty rigorously to estimate deaths from radioactive fallout.
Some studies (like Wing, et al) do suggest that the TMI Krypton gas releases remained as concentrated plumes downwind, and may have resulted in high doses at certain locations downwind. The epidemiologists certainly needed more input from meterological experts on the subject.
Some people probably died as a result of cancers related to radiation dose from the plumes that blew downwind of TMI. But:
1. Considering all the other aspects of industrial society that affect human health and mortality; and,
2. Considering that this was a worst-case accident for a light-water reactor; then,
It seems that the health risks of nuclear electricity generation are pretty small to me, and could be reduced even further with better emergency planning. The electricity itself from whatever source kills far more poeple in their homes than nuclear generation. There are carciniogens in many products in homes and garages. Then, there are the fully acceptted tens of thousands who die in car accidents (including completely "innocent" pedestrians) in the US every year, etc, etc.
Even if we limit the discussion to electric generaton, every other form of power generation has comparable or worse hazards. Even solar and wind require chemical and industrial processes that are hazardous. And there are many widely used and far less regulated chemical products and processes that entail far more health risk than handling radioactive materials (I swore-off off teflon cookware a while back).
So, I remain confused why some people key on the hazards of nuclear power when there are clearly much bigger hazards out there.
There are more than just radiation hazards with nuclear reactors that worry people like me who think nuclear is not the future. It is a finite resource, and does leave wastes that must be watched over longer than humanity has had any sort of civilization. As well, it does lead to nuclear weapons production, that's what it was designed for, plain and simple. Especially in the last case, it may in fact be the deadliest hazard produced by humanity ever, if they are ever used...again.
I am aware that the production of solar panels results in toxic waste, it's a problem in an area in China where some companies just dump the waste near peoples' homes. Not all solar energy depends on PV panels though, solar thermal uses reflective material to focus heat on water/molten salt, Stirling engines use mirrors to focus heat on a mechanism positioned just above them and can be mounted on home rooftops, and solar water heaters simply compose of pipes filled with water set in a dark material to absorb heat from the sun. As for wind, as far as I am aware the metal used by them is fully recyclable and does not leave any specific wastes by itself, other than that produced by anything made of metal.
Lastly, nuclear energy has proven to be the most expensive and riskiest form of energy, plain and simple. Florida utilities FPL and Progress Energy are only able to pursue new reactors by the outrageous law passed a few years ago that allows them to start charging customers decades in advance of the reactors starting construction, and they do not have to pay back the increased charges if the reactors are never built...and those higher charges started in January. We should not use an energy source that even the waste has to be guarded against possibility of a group of people stealing the waste to use in a device designed to kill people.
"Ironically, like Chernobyl, Three Mile Island Unit Two was a state-of-the-art reactor."
It's a real stretch to compare these reactors. Completely different designs whether they were "state-of-the-art" when they were constructed or not.
I sense a lot of unsubstantiated claims in this article.
secrets secrets secrets
Sandy
To see how many have died from the nuclear waste in our weapons used, one only has to look at our vets from the first gulf war, and the ones returning from the Middle East now. Take a look at the cancer rates all over the Middle East and especially the Iraqis...our vets are committing suicide, not because of PTSD, but because our Pentagon, Defense Dept. and VA will not treat them for radiation poisoning. They would have to admit that depleted uranium is radiation, and that would be too expensive. So, tell them they are mentally ill and continue to pretend they all take their lives as a result. DU is the new agent orange... and when did vets get recognition of that cancer?
He says: "there is no safe dose of radiation, and none will ever be found."
In fact we live with radiation all the time, and some populations live with quite a lot, for example at higher altitudes (e.g., Denver), and their mortality and sickness is no different than those living lower down. The linear extrapolation to zero for health problems from radiation has no evidence to back it up; in fact there is much contrary evidence. So, one has to discount much of the alarmist, grossly unscientific (on the basis of epidemiology) assertions of this article.
Read my post - that says it all. We simply need better information BEFORE we proceed. And wouldn't it be better to explore alternatives before taking on a risk so high that no insurance company (and we know what heavy bettors they are) will take on the risk?
When I lived in Europe, the scariest thing was seeing all those reactors - everywhere - and knowing how governments (business) lies to get what THEY want.
Tell that to the families of workers in nuclear power plants who can't have more than 1 or 2 kids, permanently, without either major disfigurements/birth defects or repeated miscarriages.
..
Are you serious?
My father, uncle and dozens of friends work at a nuclear power plant. Almost every single family has 3 children, and not one with any type of disfigurements/birth defects or has experience repreated miscarriages.
As far as the NRC, the company, and the goverment having secrets, and each group saying somethign different, was to pull the wool over the publics eyes and cover things up, which seems to be what the US governemtn has and continues to do.
As far as the deformaties and radioactive exposure, there surely was, I do no disagree with that either. But now adays in the day and age of cell phones and microwaves, we have exposed ourselves to much greater levels that what was released.
Maybe Florida has particularly unsafe reactors then.
Ernest Sternglass thinks otherwise. See "Secret Fallout", 1981 as an example of how the fallout from prevailing winds has shown definite patterns with very specific illnesses from radioactive fallout. He studied this for decades, and is currently involved with a project to collect baby teeth for Strontium 90 tracking - since the government doesn't think it is important. The real danger is in the concentration of radioactive isotopes in body organs from ingestion of contaminated milk (mainly), water, grains, and meat that fed on contaminated grass and grains. Helen Caldicott has documented quite a bit also. Then, we have the late Walter Russell, who predicted the hole in the upper atmosphere ozone. Tesla said he was "1,000 years ahead of his time." Russell claimed the ozone and even oxygen is destroyed by nuclear fission on the surface of the planet. He said we should look 10-12 miles up in the atmosphere where the radioactive gases are vented from nuclear power plants to see what is happening. NOAA officials allegedly admitted to the danger, but hid the information (during bomb testing and later).
You can't build a positive opinion based on lies. This government (does any?) never tells the truth - and that's the problem. Better safe than sorry. There are other ways to live.
Just saw this study after reading the article and thought that it would be interesting to add to the conversation:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/nuclear-facilities
If everyone who the article claims is a liar really is, one is nearly compelled to ask what the point in trying is. We ought to have a little more faith in humanity than that.