Children who lived near a St. Louis creek polluted with radioactive atomic bomb waste from the 1940s through the 1960s were more likely to be diagnosed with cancer over their lifetimes than children who lived farther from the waterway, a new study has found.
Those who lived within one kilometer of the creek as children were 44% more likely to report having cancer than those who lived more than 20 kilometers away. Even more striking, those who lived within one kilometer of the creek were 85% more likely to have radiosensitive cancers, cancers believed to be caused by radiation.
The study's release comes shortly after passage of the "One Big Beautiful Bill" which contained a little-known provision to help people sickened by exposure to nuclear waste in Missouri and elsewhere. It provides payments of $25,000 to families of people who died as a result of radiation-linked cancers in the St. Louis area and $50,000 to those who developed the cancers and survived.
This has no relation to nuclear power. This is radioactive waste from nuclear bomb creation that was stored completely wrong and in a way that doesn't fit any current standards.Don’t play in radioactive waste, kids. But seriously, the federal government has done a piss poor job of cleaning up after itself as it relates to radioactive waste. Another reason expanding nuclear power is a bad idea.
People post threads without realizing what they are posting, nothing new..........This has no relation to nuclear power.
Maybe there are a few Righties out there that are going woke, who knows?Also, you're citing NPR? Wasn't your repeated position that NPR and PBS should be defunded?
And besides, there's still coal and oil in the ground, unsold.Don’t play in radioactive waste, kids. But seriously, the federal government has done a piss poor job of cleaning up after itself as it relates to radioactive waste. Another reason expanding nuclear power is a bad idea.
This has no relation to nuclear power. This is radioactive waste from nuclear bomb creation that was stored completely wrong and in a way that doesn't fit any current standards.
Radiation is all around us, so that woman claiming that radiation is carcinogenic is a major issue. Higher doses of radiation definitely can be, but I'm also willing to bet that they were exposed to actual contamination, not just radiation, that had possibly seeped into their soil and around the area.
Hanford is another example of environmental catastrophe (and probably cancer hot spots) because the government is negligent with nuclear waste and still hasn’t cleaned it up.I just did some more reading and found that there was some radium in the uranium ore Mallinckrodt was processing. That's another story. Very dangerous indeed.
Don’t play in radioactive waste, kids. But seriously, the federal government has done a piss poor job of cleaning up after itself as it relates to radioactive waste. Another reason expanding nuclear power is a bad idea.
Indeed. The short sightedness or the "i don't care" attitude of politicians is quite alarming.Also a good reason why removing science departments and gutting the EPA is a bad idea.
What about fossil fuel or chemical industries which pollute and destroy the environment regularly? Funny how you try to single out nuclear power, which has nothing to do with what you're trying to discuss. Or perhaps there's a clear bias there?Hanford is another example of environmental catastrophe (and probably cancer hot spots) because the government is negligent with nuclear waste and still hasn’t cleaned it up.
Too late, but there is compensation for the families in the Big Beautiful Bill.Don’t play in radioactive waste, kids. But seriously, the federal government has done a piss poor job of cleaning up after itself as it relates to radioactive waste. Another reason expanding nuclear power is a bad idea.
You’re comparing CO2 emissions to allowing radioactive waste to contaminate soil and rivers for decades?What about fossil fuel or chemical industries which pollute and destroy the environment regularly?
Well, do you know of any other source of power that has led to the government dumping its radioactive waste? And it does have to do with the topic because the government is just as negligent.Funny how you try to single out nuclear power, which has nothing to do with what you're trying to discuss. Or perhaps there's a clear bias there?
Sure, there are responsible ways of handling it and cleaning up contaminated areas but our government doesn’t do that.Too late, but there is compensation for the families in the Big Beautiful Bill.
You can expand nuclear power with out these issues. Example: France
And gutting research into cancer treatments.Also a good reason why removing science departments and gutting the EPA is a bad idea.
Radioactive waste can come from fossil fuel, coal plants.You’re comparing CO2 emissions to allowing radioactive waste to contaminate soil and rivers for decades?
Well, do you know of any other source of power that has led to the government dumping its radioactive waste? And it does have to do with the topic because the government is just as negligent.
You’re comparing CO2 emissions to allowing radioactive waste to contaminate soil and rivers for decades?
Well, do you know of any other source of power that has led to the government dumping its radioactive waste? And it does have to do with the topic because the government is just as negligent.
Radioactive waste can come from fossil fuel, coal plants.
Radioactive Wastes From Coal-fired Power Plants | US EPA
Like all rocks, coal contains small amounts of radioactive elements that are found naturally in the environment. Generally, wastes from coal-fired power plants are only slightly more radioactive than the average soil in the United States.www.epa.gov
Our government does a better job at handling radioactive waste from its nuclear reactors than most civilian operators. You can't compare what went on with radioactive waste 80 years ago to what we do today because we have taken measures to change it now. The cleanup of that creek began in 1997. It takes time.Sure, there are responsible ways of handling it and cleaning up contaminated areas but our government doesn’t do that.
And Hanford?Our government does a better job at handling radioactive waste from its nuclear reactors than most civilian operators. You can't compare what went on with radioactive waste 80 years ago to what we do today because we have taken measures to change it now. The cleanup of that creek began in 1997. It takes time.
Is also being cleanedup, as long as some people don't take money from that effort and oversite.And Hanford?
Has RFK taken his grand kids swimming there yet?Don’t play in radioactive waste, kids. But seriously, the federal government has done a piss poor job of cleaning up after itself as it relates to radioactive waste. Another reason expanding nuclear power is a bad idea.
Not true. Our government has been promising for fifty years to build a permanent repository for nuclear waste. They still don't know how to accomplish that.Our government does a better job at handling radioactive waste from its nuclear reactors than most civilian operators. You can't compare what went on with radioactive waste 80 years ago to what we do today because we have taken measures to change it now.
The nation doesn't believe in science or cleaning up the environment any longer. I'm surprised this wasn't found long ago and corrected.Don’t play in radioactive waste, kids. But seriously, the federal government has done a piss poor job of cleaning up after itself as it relates to radioactive waste. Another reason expanding nuclear power is a bad idea.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?