backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 53 comment(s) - last by masher2.. on Jun 13 at 2:53 PM


Eliza Johnson and her family lived near the plant. Johnson, now 85, watched as first her husband and then her daughter came down with severe cancer. She helped care for them during their treatment and in the end helped to bury them.  (Source: S.C. Spangler/Tribune-Review)
Nuclear power -- cheap, reliable... and safe? Not always.

Nuclear plants have had their success stories -- for example the plants that survived an earthquake in Japan largely unharmed.  However, despite the fair share of success stories, there are also some grim cautionary tales of what to avoid in nuclear power and why safety precautions, regulations, and adopting modern designs are of an utmost importance to nuclear power plants and nuclear processing facilities.

One largely unnoticed example is gaining big national attention thanks to a hefty $27.5M USD settlement awarded to the 250 plaintiffs who suffered disease and death due to poor regulation and flaws in the technology.  The story begins in Apollo and Parks Township in Armstrong county Pennsylvania, back in the late 1950s.  The Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corp., eager to profit at the booming trend to exploit nuclear energy, jumped at the chance of opening new facilities to process nuclear fuel.  In 1959 they opened two new plants in the respective townships, which processed both uranium and plutonium fuels.

Atlantic Richfield Co. (ARCO) took over the plants in 1967 and reaped the rewards of lucrative contracts during the Cold War.  Afterward, Babcock & Wilcox Co bought out ARCO's stake, assuming responsibility for the plants in 1971.  The plants continued to operate until 1983.

In the late 80s and early 90s, the damages the plants had inflicted on the surrounding communities just began to become apparent.  Between 1990 and 1995 the buildings were destroyed and thousands of tons of radioactive materials were removed in a cleanup project.  However, by then it was far too late for some of the County's citizens; the damage had already been done.

Those living near the plants stated that they had no idea the danger they were in, assuming the government would protect them.  The employees were equally confident.  Gary Walker, 67, who grew up in the area and went to work at Apollo plant in 1959, was among those exposed.  Over the course of his 30 year career, he would later discover he was exposed multiple times to deadly uranium radiation.

Walker states, "Back then, they threw that stuff around like it was nothing.  No one really knew what it could do to you.  They never warned us. Early on, there was a taped line on the floor that divided the contaminated area from the side that wasn't contaminated.  But it was in the air."

Resident Lawrence Frain lived near the plant and recalls that between 1959 and 1963 the plants sooty emissions would often leave a thick gray-white film on his 1960 Ford.  He and other residents had no idea that the smog they were breathing was filled with radioactive waste.  He recalls, "I remember a guy walking around with a meter. Every now and then, he'd say 'They let a lot out last night.' Neighbors thought he was a little off, but maybe he knew something."

The toll was devastating.  The citizens began to develop brain tumors, cancer, and beryllium disease at alarming rates.  Walker is among those who suffered, after giving his life to the plants.  He has severe beryllium disease that destroyed one of his kidneys.  With a transplant he is surviving, but his other kidney is failing now as well, so he must go in for daily dialysis treatments.

Frain, 68, was also afflicted, suffering from melanoma.  And his worst losses were not his own health, but that of his loved ones.  His wife Helen developed colon cancer and after three grueling years of surgeries, treatments, and colostomy bags for waste removal died.  The retired coal miner recalls, "She was full of it.  The doctor who operated on her asked me if we lived close to the plant and when I said that we did, he said, 'I thought so.'"

Frain also lost his daughter to cancer.   Eliza Johnson also lost two family members -- first her husband, and then her daughter, a cancer research nurse.  After months of fighting the disease, it overcame them and they passed on and she helped to bury them.  She mournfully remarks, "I'd have rather it been me instead of them."

Johnson and other plaintiffs received little support from the government.  Despite an expert epidemiologist analysis during the case which concluded that disease levels "[fell] outside the normal range", the state refused to classify the area as a cancer cluster.  With nowhere else to turn the families sued ARCO in federal court.  Eight plaintiffs were represented.  The jury ordered a settlement of $35M USD in 1998, finally promising some relief to the families' suffering.    However to the family's dismay, U.S. District Judge Donetta Ambrose ordered a retrial due to errors in the trial. Says one plaintiff, "All of the verdicts were taken away."

Babcock & Wilcox then filed bankruptcy and the cases were not retried.  Finally after years of inaction, a new suit against Atlantic Richfield Co. with 250 plaintiffs has succeeded securing a settlement of $27.5 million. Another new suit is pending against Babcock & Wilcox in federal court, but due to the company's uncertain financial status it is unclear how much damages could be collected. 

Average payouts from the settlement will be about $35,000 and a few of the sicker plaintiffs will get as much as $500,000.  Park and other plant employees may soon also be eligible for $150,000 in relief offered by the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act passed by Congress in 2000.  The final approval for the plants' eligibility designation will be made sometime next year.

While the settlement brings some relief to residents and allows them to pay their medical bills, nothing compares to their losses.  Says Johnson, 85, talking about her daughter and former husband, "They meant more to me than if I got a million dollars.  My daughter ... that's one in my life that I'll never get over."

Obviously a plethora of advancements have made nuclear plants safer in recent years.  The context: stories like these are cautionary tales to the resurgent nuclear industry of just how important it is to pay the extra money for the new state-of-the-art designs and to not skimp on cleanup efforts when the plant finally closes.  If not, the damages done on citizens may be irreparable, as in the case of the residents of Armstrong County.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Good god, what a disgrace
By masher2 (blog) on 6/10/2008 10:53:12 AM , Rating: 4
Mick, this article is reprehensible. You attempt to link all this to nuclear power, yet the entity in question isn't a commercial power plant: it's a fuel processing facility. Worse, its most dangerous work by far from an emissions perspective was performed for the military, not civilian power plants.

Furthermore, in this case there was no evidence the public at large was even exposed. There were exposures for plant workers and -- as they carried particles home on their skin and clothes -- sometimes their immediate family, but any data demonstrating a risk to the community as a whole is sketchy, at best.

Finally, and worse of all, this entire incident is half a century old, at the dawn of the nuclear era. Attempting to link it to any modern-day risks is truly abominable.




RE: Good god, what a disgrace
By grshopr on 6/10/2008 10:56:59 AM , Rating: 4
Took all 134 words right out of my mouth.


RE: Good god, what a disgrace
By sirdowny on 6/10/2008 11:17:14 AM , Rating: 1
Good God people - quit whining about everything you read and get a life. Did you realize that this is posted as a BLOG? It's not categorized as "Latest Headlines," nor is it intended to be read as breaking news. It's a blog.

From Merriam-Webster: "Blog: a Web site that contains an online personal journal with reflections, comments, and often hyperlinks provided by the writer."

Mick is simply commenting on a bit of information. I think this is most evident in his concluding paragraph. Try understanding the intention of a writer before you assume he or she is in error and you tear them apart.


RE: Good god, what a disgrace
By masher2 (blog) on 6/10/2008 11:29:10 AM , Rating: 4
> "Did you realize that this is posted as a BLOG?"

It wasn't posted as a blog when I replied to it.


RE: Good god, what a disgrace
By TomZ on 6/10/2008 8:19:31 PM , Rating: 2
It's written like a news article, in any case.

Blogs are typically used to express opinions. News pieces are used to convey facts. Twisting a news story in order to spread FUD about the nuclear power industry is wrong, regardless of whether it says "Blog" at the top or not.


RE: Good god, what a disgrace
By Murst on 6/10/2008 11:22:34 AM , Rating: 5
Why do you find it reprehensible? Is there anything in that article that's not really valid?

Yes, we've made mistakes in the past, and we've learned from them. This article is about one of those mistakes.

If he wrote about the dangers of coal plants (and we've made a ton of mistakes there as well), how would you view that article?

I do think that nuclear power is probably the best way to move forward in terms of power generation. However, that certainly doesn't mean that we should forget the mistakes from the past. In fact, we should keep bringing up the mistakes we've made, and bring it up often, so that they are not repeated.


RE: Good god, what a disgrace
By FITCamaro on 6/10/2008 12:14:23 PM , Rating: 2
Yes but often times cases (and articles) like this are exploited by the media and environmentalists as why nuclear power should not be used. "We made mistakes before and we'll make them again." is the argument. Nevermind the advancements we've had.

Any company contemplating building a nuclear reactor today is fully aware of the mistakes of the past. Both from an engineering standpoint and a legal one. The last thing they want, should they decide to build one, is to leave something for the EPA or anyone else to complain about. Or to get sued.

And I'm sorry but three things here. First, it was the 50s. We didn't know of all the effects and possible problems working with nuclear material had. Second, I'm sure the workers were briefed about the danger of the materials they were working with. Third, we didn't have the advanced materials and anti-radiation suits that we have today.

It'd be like expecting to work in a coal mine and not go home covered in soot or possibly have lung issues in the future. Even with a mask.


RE: Good god, what a disgrace
By Murst on 6/10/2008 12:33:32 PM , Rating: 3
I completely agree w/ the points you've made.

However, my point wasn't necessairly w/ nuclear power. For example, I doubt that something exactly like the Hollocaust will happen again (at least I certainly hope it won't happen). However, I still think that we need to keep reminding ourselves (and our children, children's children, etc) that it did happen, so that if they see something that even remotely resembles it in the future, they'll be able to avoid it.

Technology is always pushing forward. Hopefully we'll make more advancements in fusion in the coming years. Who knows, there may be lessons that we can take out from our mistakes with nuclear that will allow us to avoid new mistakes w/ fusion.


RE: Good god, what a disgrace
By JasonMick (blog) on 6/10/08, Rating: 0
RE: Good god, what a disgrace
By masher2 (blog) on 6/10/2008 11:34:01 AM , Rating: 5
> "Your weapons grade point was a fair one, but nuclear plant fuel is also relatively dangerous when the proper precautions are not taken."

But proper protections are taken, not only today but even in the 1950s -- for plants that didn't also perform military weapons processing.

Yet your very tagline itself says "Nuclear Power Safe? Not always!" Clearly a irresponsibly misleading attempt to link a half-century old event to today's industry.

> "Obviously there was pretty good evidence if the plaintiffs were awarded such a large settlement"

Err, what?? Awards are given by juries, often driven by emotion. Your statement is akin to saying O.J. Simpson was "obviously" innocent, simply because a jury found him so.

> "I am a supporter of expanding nuclear power here in the U.S. "

So why spread damaging, misleading anti-nuclear prograganda?


RE: Good god, what a disgrace
By FITCamaro on 6/10/2008 12:17:09 PM , Rating: 2
Jury's have found in favor of thieves breaking into someones home, getting hurt, and suing.


RE: Good god, what a disgrace
By Murst on 6/10/2008 12:41:25 PM , Rating: 4
However, in this case I think it is pretty clear that the plant had something to do w/ the cancer.


RE: Good god, what a disgrace
By Keeir on 6/10/2008 1:13:40 PM , Rating: 2
Yes,

But the real cause is not Nuclear! The cause is negligant owners. These types of owners have business is many different industries and probably cause many unneeded deaths each year.

Better safeguards should have been taken. Even in 1960. And if the plant had been producing something else or in a different business, there still could have been excess deaths (even cancer) due to negligance.


RE: Good god, what a disgrace
By JasonMick (blog) on 6/10/08, Rating: 0
RE: Good god, what a disgrace
By masher2 (blog) on 6/10/2008 11:44:24 AM , Rating: 5
> "Be glad I'm making it clear that these are not your run of the mill problems"

I repeat: the first line of the story says: "nuclear power safe? ...not always", right next to a picture of a modern nuclear power plant. The fact that this was a processing facility that also performed weapons-grade processing is certainly not evident to a casual reader.

The classic hallmarks of effective propaganda, disguised as journalism. Bury the truth deep enough the average reader will never notice it, to give one plausible deniability, without actually reducing the bias in the article itself.


<