Reporter: Higher death rate for people around U.S. nuclear plant? — “The kind of news that makes me stand up and take notice” — Makes me wonder if they’ve known all along

Published: June 18th, 2013 at 4:53 pm ET


Title: Health hazard?
Source: The Hartselle Enquirer
Author: Clif Knight, staff writer
Date: June 18, 2013

[…] unfortunately there are other health hazards looming nearby over which we have no control.

Radioactive emissions from Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant is one of them, according to the results of a study conducted by the Bellefonte Efficiency & Sustainability Team, which was released last week. The study claims that the death rate of residents of Morgan and six other North Alabama counties is 21 percent higher than it is for those living outside a 50-mile radius of the nuclear powered electric generating facility.

It further states that since Browns Ferry’s startup in the mid-70s the local mortality rate for all causes of death steadily rose from 1.7 to 20.7 percent above the U.S average. Nearly one million people live in the affected area.

This is the kind of news that makes me stand up and take notice. And it makes me wonder if TVA has known all along and kept the secret from us for over 35 years.

View the Bellefonte Efficiency & Sustainability Team’s study here

Published: June 18th, 2013 at 4:53 pm ET


Related Posts

  1. Mysterious affliction in Alaska polar bears suffering baldness and lesions; Rate spiked nearly 1,000% after Fukushima began — Gov’t: Ongoing reports of unusual number of ‘hairless seals’ with sores — “Seals continue to be reported with hair loss… it makes us nervous” (PHOTO) March 17, 2015
  2. TV: 8 times more babies than usual born without brain near U.S. nuclear site; Much higher rate than anywhere else in country — “It’s scary the cause is such a mystery” — CNN: Experts speak out over failure of officials to conduct proper investigation — “The lamest excuse I’ve ever heard” (VIDEO) June 23, 2014
  3. TV: Bald eagles dying at rate “much higher than normal” and it’s not from West Nile virus as previously claimed — Now around 60 dead in Utah since December — “We feel helpless, we don’t have a lot of answers” (VIDEO) February 18, 2014
  4. “Horrific environmental mystery… Everyone’s freaked out”: 1,500% normal death rate in whales off West Coast — Gov’t declares unprecedented Unusual Mortality Event — Scientists alarmed, ‘no idea’ what’s happening — Expert: “It’s all going to cascade up to us” — Other die-offs being reported (VIDEOS) August 24, 2015
  5. 100% death rate of baby seals on California coast — “None have survived” — “Many are starving, suffering from shortage of food in Pacific Ocean” — “Extremely thin… all sorts of illnesses, infections” — “Milkless moms immediately abandoning pups” — TV: “The problem is getting worse” (VIDEOS) March 22, 2016

60 comments to Reporter: Higher death rate for people around U.S. nuclear plant? — “The kind of news that makes me stand up and take notice” — Makes me wonder if they’ve known all along

  • getoutwhileyoustillcan

    Wow. Population reduction?

  • THEY have indeed known all along.

    That's why they've came up with things like LOC, DIL, PAG and allowable limits.

    LOC Level Of Concern (no longer used)
    DIL Derived Intervention Level
    PAG Protective Action Guides

    "It's covering the justification for going from their "Levels of Concern" (LOC) model (established in 1982) to the DIL model (established in 1998) currently in use. And applies to food for import as well as domestic."

    IMO – Fancy number crunching to sway to unknowing public into accepting death for electrical power. (and the making of Nuclear bomb material)

    FDA – They make a lot of assumptions.
    (This appears to have some new information

    My LOC = 100% 🙂

    • Mack Mack

      Posting again:

      IMPORTANT —>

      “EPA is seeking public comment on a proposed revision of the current PAG Manual: The update, titled “PAG Manual: Protective Action Guides and Planning Guidance for Radiological Incidents,” includes new science, expands the document's relevancy to more than just nuclear power plants and incorporates recent guidance on re-entry, cleanup and waste disposal. Comments must be received by 07/15/2013.”

      • We Not They Finally

        The PAG was always appallingly off-base. But now they are making it infinitely worse. Before, it was that there were (allegedly) just one death per 10,000 people from radiation in 30 years. Insanely low OBVIOUSLY. But their proposed revision is ONE IN 23. Also insanely low, but 435 times more than it was!! So what undisclosed NEW readings is it BASED on?

        One wants to think that they are inching closer to reality. However, what if the new PAG just makes the "acceptable" levels of radiation outlandishly higher? Can anyone clarify the new funny-math?

        • Mack Mack

          TO ALL:

          1. fOR THE PAGS, Go to this link

          2. Click: "Draft PAG Manual for Intern Use and Public Comment (PDF)"

          3. See Charts on Pages 14, 54, 55, 56

          There is a lot of information, but here’s an overview, although I recommend everyone view the entire PDF:

          Shelter in place or evacuation
          Public: 10-50 mSv projected over four days
          Emergency Responders: 50/100/250 mSv incurred over response duration
          Administration of prophylactic drugs: 50 mSv projected child thyroid dosed from radioactive iodine

          INTERMEDIATE PHASE: (first 30 days and up to a year)
          Public: 20 mSv
          Reentry For Use of Critical Infrastructure: 20 mSv
          Radiation Worker: 50 mSv plus
          Reentry for Use of Roads and Walkways: 20mSv first year; 5 mSv per year in subsequent years
          Rentry for Access to the Relocation Zone: 5 mSv over one year for temporary access…
          Food interdiction: 5 mSv/year projected dose or 50 mSv year to any individual organ or tissue
          Relocation of the Public: 20 mSv projected dose first year; 5 mSv/year subsequent years
          Administration of prophylactic drugs: 50 mSv projected child thyroid dosed from radioactive iodine

          "In general, sheltering-in-place should be preferred to evacuation whenever it provides equal or greater protection"

          • Mack Mack


            "EPA is not proposing a specific drinking water PAG at this time. EPA has established enforceable drinking water standards for radionuclides under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). EPA recommends that to the extent practicable, emergency measures for drinking water be based on the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR) for Radionuclides.

            …the NPDWR provide for a regulatory standard of 4 mrem/year (beta, photon emitters) based on life-time exposure"

            • Mack Mack

              THESE ARE THE CHANGES:

              "What’s new in this updated Manual—

              o The PAGs in this Manual are implemented using the calculations and methods in the FRMAC Assessment Manual. Dosimetry in that Manual has been updated using the ICRP Publication 60 series (ICRP 1991).

              o EPA adopts the FDA guidance issued in 2001 that recommended lowering the projected thyroid dose at which the administration of KI is warranted as a supplementary protective action.

              o EPA adopts the 1998 FDA Food PAGs.

              o Planning guidance has been provided for reentry, late phase cleanup and waste disposal."

              • Mack Mack


                Remember Jeff McMahon/Forbes had this article:

                "Why Does FDA Tolerate More Radiation than EPA?"

                Well, now it seems they'll be the same.

                NIRS has a good analysis of the new PAGs:

                • Mack Mack

                  Note that leukemia has been seen in radiation exposure as low as 10 mSv, and the PAGs start at 10 to 50 mSv.

                  • Mack Mack


                    The EPA now says average annual radiation dose per person in the U.S. is 620 millirem (6.2 milliSieverts).

                    This is interesting because the NRC just last year raised the background radiation to 620 millirem, which doubled it from the previous level of 320.

                    From the book "Nuclear Roulette: The Truth About the Most Dangerous Energy Source on Earth" by Gar Smith

                    Page 58:

                    "Meanwhile, the NRC has found another way to downplay radiation risks—by increasing the estimate of 'background radiation.'

                    The NRC has upped its assessment of 'normal' radiation several times, most recently from 360 millirem to 620 millirem."

                    So the NRC ups the "NORMAL" background to the amount the EPA just happens to say people in the U.S. are getting?

                    Is anybody reading this? 🙂

                    This is good information 🙂

    • Trawling4Trolls

      "THEY have indeed known all along."

      That they have. Not to sound too fantastic, but these nukers conduct literal Orwellian Hate Celebrations on those who find them out.

  • Mack Mack

    If you do a search on increases in cancers around nuclear power plants, you will find so many independent bloggers/sites who are researching and writing about increases in cancers, etc. around nuclear power plants in their geographical areas.

    It can't all be coincidence.

  • irhologram

    Jay, that's not what your link seems to say…and I'm searching for the relevance here? Your post seems to be dividing…saying "parents" and not "the love of money" is the root of all evil. So now, in addition to divisions between races, and country, we're dividing parent from child? I don't feel that's good logic. As far as population reduction, getoutwhileyoustillcan, yes, they have known, just like they have known about the clusters of child leukemia next to the St. Lucie nuclear plant in FL. What they may not have known is that the "welds" would now start to give way in NPPs everywhere.

    • Time Is Short Time Is Short

      "What they may not have known is that the "welds" would now start to give way in NPPs everywhere."

      They've known from the very beginning, irhologram, when the Materials Science engineers were helping in the original NPP design phases. Any objections were overruled, if brought up at all, with everyone figuring progress in materials science technology would allow for new and safer plants. No engineer thinks his design will last forever. They always factor in the MTBF, or Mean Time Before Failure. These plants were never designed to run as long as they have, they were only designed to last a couple of decades until full decommissioning, and no one in authority wants to decommission.

      And apparently we are now seeing the truth that no one in charge gives a damn how many people die because of it.

      We don't need an Edward Snowden to tell us what we can see with our own eyes.

      • irhologram

        Time is Short. So….I dunno, but the research I (very briefly) saw seemed to suggest they thought they had it "knocked"…as far as razzle dazzle nuke plant weld material. I'm just bringing up the possibility, however small, that a new corrosive element may be involved….as I have been posting….and that this escalation, all at once on NPP facilities manufactured as various times (although, yes, all too old)… Could possibly be caused…by a new atmospheric corrosive….and if true…they'll all go. The point in addressing such a nebulous unknown is…if true, they KNOW. And all NPP would need to go offline, right now. Yes, it's a far out possibility. But…common sense would tell me that if "Flash" is true, it would affect NPP, as well as anything else.

        • Trawling4Trolls

          "a new corrosive element …. this escalation … by a new atmospheric corrosive …."

          This rambling of yours, is it a product of an “EMO”? It seems to have an "adjunctival" quality to it,


          • irhologram

            H2S. I've posted this link six times now, but here ya go. Hydrogen sulfide is reactive with copper, especially electrified copper, it corrodes metal, and it is a heavier-than-air gas that will tend to accumulate in bodies of water and in low-lying areas, like underground electrical facilities. There have been many underground electrical fires and explosions in the past year or so and they are accelerating, as one would expect of an atmosphere that is being increasingly contaminated… The hypothesis is: "…chemical plants of all types will burn and/or explode, including biofuels plants, fertilizer plants, specialty chemical plants, petroleum-related facilities…and I can't see why nuclear facilities would be exempt. IF "Flash" is true. We shall see. I'm just suggesting that there is too much going on for the escalation to be coincidental… So "something" probably connects the dots.

            • Trawling4Trolls

              "..suggesting that there is too much going on for the escalation to be coincidental … "

              Time is Short's explanation is far more likely than your "new atmospheric corrosive".

              "So something probably connects the dots." That it does, and it always does. Metals are quite subject to electrolytic effects so the "something" in metal welds is most likely to be defective materials. The chances of a "new" atmospheric effect is not "nebulous" it is actually 'vanishingly small', as they say.

              So here is what you do, u r hologram. In the future, u will resist this urge to take possible explanations to the far-flung reaches of possibility and rather seek much more mundane, *Experiential* explanations, as creatures of scientific dispositions are wont to do.

              The urge to lift 'goings on' to 'carrying-on' to be disciplined.


            • Trawling4Trolls

              You can't be serious with this jumpinjackflash link, right?
              If you are serious I'll say it 'cuz no one else will: Stop Posting the Link.

              You have a very damning report on Browns Ferry and you're posting a trash link to jumpinjack in response to it?
              Care to tell us how you wandered to such a site?
              R u perchance tasked to diverting the attentions of others? Slow day at GE Media??

            • Trawling4Trolls

              "I've posted this link six times now,"

              Yes, yes you have. And we Hear You, here, in this, your latest "cry for help". 🙂

        • Time Is Short Time Is Short

          You might be very close to a truth, irhologram. Here's a paper from the International Symposium on the Ageing Management & Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants (2010):

          Metallographic Characterization of Stress Corrosion Cracking of High Nickel Alloys in High Temperature and High Pressure Water Environment – Evaluation Technologies for Integrity in Repair Welding of Ageing Plants, and for Reliability of Repaired Welds (Part 4):

          One possibility is that at some point, a large number of repairs were performed, on NPP's of various ages and designs, with sub-par materials, and now the improper welds are all starting to go at the same time. Couple this with the apparently widespread use of non-approved, counterfeit replacement parts over many years and there is a virtual stew of problems waiting to boil over.


          of austenitic alloy weldments, such as 304 stainless
          steel and Alloy 600, has been observed for decades,
          and continues to be a primary maintenance concern
          with both pressurized water and boiling water reactors.
          Intergranular SCC was observed in several partial J-
          weld penetrations of both heater sleeve and pressurizer
          nozzles in nuclear pressure vessels."

          We may be seeing the general breakdown of every NPP that has ever had a weld or replacement part installed – so all of…

      • getoutwhileyoustillcan

        So, "they" knew what they were building. Knew that it would eventually fail. They aren't doing anything to stop it. People are dying from it, and they know it. Japan is one of the most seismically active places on the planet. They knew that before they built them there. I seem to remember they transferred a bunch more spent fuel to Fukushima, shortly before 3/11. This isn't looking too good.

  • Mack Mack

    Nuclear Power Causes Cancer: What Industry Doesn't Want You To Know

    By Dr. Samuel S. Epstein

  • razzz razzz

    @34:20 Dr. Caldicott talks about Germany and Italy doing the same test with the same test results concerning children living in a radius of 2.5 miles of older working nuclear power plants and their 'routine' releases doubles the chances for children under five years old for coming down with cancers esp. leukemia.

    As she goes on to point out that the test have never been done here in the US. This leaves bloggers to be ridiculed and plausible denial by the nuclear industry with no hard evidence available except in Europe.

    • nedlifromvermont

      or, more likely, tests (epidemiological) were conducted, but corrupted by a flawed data set, for instance, mix data from a known plume release area with populations unexposed, … one million ways to manipulate data …

      anything to promote the false nuclear God, who pays three times the going local wage, in blood money, to people eager to share in the bounty of excess American consumerism, at the expense of those living nearby (increased cancer and childhood leukemias, confirmed by post-Goebbels, honest German government studies, as opposed to American government, which is complicit in Goebbels-level official lying games) ('ze Master vould be proud, ja!) not to mention increased tumors among the nuclear workforce … see Tumrgrowr comments in other threads … great comments, man … love and hope out to you in your battle … the water here in southern Vermont is good, and a sub-letter on my farm battled back from multiple tumors, a connective tissue cancer, in the 1990's … but, full disclosure … Vermont Yankee's (Fukushima-1 twin) just got relicensed and is owned by nuclear cut rate, low ball, run-to-failure Entergy Corp on,ly ten miles due south, from my Windham County farm … oh weh oh weh …

      what a world, what a world …

      peace, u. Frieden an Euch allen!!!


  • TheBigPicture TheBigPicture

    You don't want to be within a hundred miles of a nuclear plant. Or anywhere down wind.

    • mairs mairs

      Well I'm 30 miles from Los Alamos. During the last fire that threatened the labs, they supposedly deployed over 70 radiation monitors, including stationary ones, and in vehicles, helicopters and planes. They said there was absolutely no danger of any radiation releases, but of course no one believed them. No reason to.

      The local scrub plants called chamisa have been shown to draw up radiation by their deep taproots, so buried nuclear waste gets burned off into the atmosphere via plants burning in fires.

      They finally built a "relief route" around Santa Fe, NM so that the trucks carrying nuclear materials wouldn't go through the city on their way to the interstate anymore. I remember when it was finished, the city officials didn't want any development along that route because of the very reason they built it, but of course it opened up a lot of land and they are starting to put housing developments along it.

  • Trawling4Trolls

    "Altogether, the three [Browns Ferry] reactors have suffered over 270 emergency SCRAMs."

    Sheet metal roofing for SFPs in a tornado corridor? ok

    There appears to be terrorists resident in the contiguous U.S. and they are located at the Tennessee Valley Authority.

    ".. a 49% rise in Sr-90 for children born in the late 1990s vs. the late 1980s."
    A time period with no atmospheric testing.

    "In 2000 and 2002 .. Joseph Mangano .. published articles for the Radiation Public Health Project showing that when nuclear power plants shut down, deaths of infants under one year and cancer cases of children under five years in local downwind
    counties decline rapidly immediately after shutdown."
    This must be truly disturbing to the pro-nukers as it can only mean, what?, that the infants and children, deprived of the limitless 'privilege' of living next to an operating reactor, mystically decide in unison to stop 'celebrating' the death machines .. and cure themselves of cancers??? wtf!
    Dark is the vision of the nukers.

    Excellent report by the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League.

  • nedlifromvermont

    keep it comin' guys and gals … it's fun to be on the right side of history … try this … point out the Nuclear Fraud to your local elected official and ask why they supported the Price-Anderson re-up under Shrub II (for twenty years as opposed to the usual ten) and watch them squirm … because smart people who are paid to look intelligent in front of an audience hate to be made to look like fools in front of strangers … it really gets to them hard, and then change happens, because these politician types do not want this to happen again …

    stupid pro-nukers, so bloodthirsty and child molesting, don't they realize this makes them look ugly … Mr. Southern Company guy with the hard hat and the tiny dick, why do you want to kill children??? Oh yeah, because you can charge twelve per cent profit on top of a huge number, like eighteen billion, get a fat bonus, get paid in advance, and not ever need to fire the damn thing up!!!! Brilliant, Coffin! Way to go Georgia (I can't even bring myself to address South Carolina (where my grandparents owned property, so there must be some good people there,) though I did drive through it twice) … stream of consciousness …

    rant off/ …

  • Jebus Jebus

    Yes, Lets sit up and take notice…
    and while were at it, lets ask questions.

    I'm asking, are we really getting a return on investment in 50+ years of nuclear power?

    I mean you have to admit, these numbers are pretty piss poor for electricity that's "too cheap to meter" after 50+ years.

    Look at wind, halfway there in how few years. That seems like a much better ROI to me.

    Keep in mind how the 2013, and onward, numbers will look in light of the recent closures of a few of these aging nuclear relics and all of the new wind generation slated to come online…

    Epic Fail, is what I would label nuclear power after all these years of contamination.

  • Jebus Jebus

    Seems to me, the only reason to have nuclear power, is so that each country, can eventually have it's own "no go zone"…


    I live right at 50 miles away from this plant. It has had a very checkered past. Someone help me with the details, they voluntarily shut all three of these down years ago. They stayed shut down for a very long time, reasons? This news is very disturbing but not surprising.

    • Trawling4Trolls

      At one point they were raising the river water temperature to unacceptable levels, but there's probably far worse reasons. I'd attempt to contact your area's NRC rep.
      You could also contact the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League.

      Tornados are known for their vacuum effect caused by the swirling air. I've seen smokestacks for industrial facilities exploded by a tornado's vacuum. A tornado strike on a spent fuel pool could Easily lift fuel assemblies and launch them for miles thru the air, so a sheet metal roof over a SFP is a PRIME example of Industrial Strength Stupid.

      • KDM KDM

        What really blows my mind is they are about to reach the 40 year life expectancy and the NRC extends their license for another 20 years? What kind of lodgic is that? Where did these guys learn their math skills? I guess they can only add dollars. Not only are these scrape piles out of date the fuel pools are bursting at the seams they're so full. I'm so pissed I'm about to melt down!

    • Trawling4Trolls

      A fact sheet on some of the safety deficiencies at Browns Ferry

  • many moons

    makes me wonder if TVA has known all along…..
    And now that the cat is out of the bag are things going to change?
    Know or not know…is not the question….will they care?????
    No they don't care!
    They don't care how many people get sick and die.
    We need to care, we need to stand up for each other and protest!

  • enoughalready45 enoughalready45

    Thanks for the primer on the EPA changes.

  • enoughalready45 enoughalready45

    Back to the H2S
    This issue also raises concerns about plans for small nuclear reactor plans. As I understand it they will be built underground. With the sinking quality of H2S I would imagine such below ground nukes would be more susceptible to the Flash problem. Just FYI…Some plans include a complex or series of many small reactors overseen by a relatively smaller staff than now oversees larger reactors.

  • lam335 lam335

    Thanks for bringing this to our attention. This quiet raising of exposure benchmarks is deeply corrupt.

    A sad reality, however, is that background radiation levels probably ARE rising–and have been since the Manhattan project. The phrase "natural background radiation" is now an anachronism, because some much unnatural, manmade radioactivity has been spewed into the environment for so many decades.

    We need to point that out anytime people tell us not to worry because we're constantly exposed to radiation in nature. There are measurably higher levels of radiaoactivity in our "nature" today than there were in that of our great-great-grandparents.


    Unearthing things not meant to be is the devils temptation.


  • ftlt

    Where there is smoke applies here..

    But, is this a typical of public health samples around other USA nuke sites???…

    Many other factors could be diminishing public health in just one sites area…

    It would be nice to see all the nuke sites nationally overlaid in one study… Then we would see more clearly… Does anyone have this info???

  • Baha 2012 Baha 2012

    I can’t help but see this as a plan put in place a long time ago to do just what it’s doing today … genocide of the American people

  • JimmieAllison

    You needs to be legal citizen of US as we grow old above 18 years
    <a href="">my website</a> for
    others it's the opportunity to perform something which they could not otherwise have done,
    like going away to get a holiday of a lifetime.