No one can prove that these radiation-linked cancers have a connection to VT Yankee.  But that's not the point.  The question is: What is the wise course for public policy?

Three types of cancer which have been found to have strong links to nuclear radiation are high in VT.  In skin cancer VT is number one in the nation in data combined between 2002 and 2006, male and female.  In thyroid cancer, women in VT have experienced a 400% increase in the years from 1996 to 2005, which is twice the national rate of increase among women overall.  In pediatric cancer (cancer of all types in children ages 0-19,) VT is number one in data combined from 1999 to 2005. (The charts for this data are linked at the Dennett campaign website because direct links are not possible to the charts at the Centers for Disease Control website, only to the main search page.  The data for thyroid in VT women is in an internal document of the VDPH which has not been released to the public.)

While nothing can be proven in terms of cause and effect, it is reasonable to say there may be a connection.  More worrisome, however, is an apparent effort by the VT Public Health Department and the present attorney general,  who has a public health guardianship function, to hide the problem.  Attorney General Bill Sorrell, in a debate last month said with regard to cancer in VT, the state “does not have a bad story to tell.” (about 26 minutes into this VT NPR audio.)  

And although defenders of Yankee point out that cancer rates are lower right next to the plant than in some counties further away, it is well-known that radiation is wind and water-borne, and does not conform to any localized pattern of illnesses.

The official report by which the health department evaluates radiation-related cancers is the annual Yankee Surveillance Report.  The 2008 VT Yankee Surveillance Report states: “The incidence rates for invasive thyroid cancer and leukemia is not different from Vermont, Windham County, or the U.S. white population.”  

2008 Vermont Yankee Surveillance Report

However, VT has experienced increase in thyroid cancer in women which is double the national average between the years 1996 to 2005.  As the below data shows, thyroid cancer in VT women has increased 400% between these years (from 15 cases per 100,000 in population in 1996 to 66 in 2005) while nationally the increase has been about 200% in American women (from 10.4 per 100,000 in population to 17.7.)  The document is one which is closely held by the Department of Public Health, in its own letterhead, obtained and released by a VT nurse to the Dennett campaign.  (Note the yellow highlighted column for “U.S. Women should be “rate” and not the upper confidence level.)

The health department seems to reach its own conclusion by citing the data for both men and women, which pulls the average down.  When the data for women is examined separately, we see women in VT have shown an extraordinarily high increase in the thyroid cancer rate, double the national increase.

The passage stating that “the rate of cancer incidence in the six towns near Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (Brattleboro, Dummerston, Guilford, Halifax, Marlboro and Vernon) is lower than rates in Windham County, the State of Vermont, and the United States white population as a whole.”  This seems to imply that if radiation were a danger, cancer rates would be higher near the station.  But this is not a valid conclusion, as it is well-known that radioactive particles follow wind and water patterns, and radiation-caused cancers can be found in locations which are distant from the plant.  Over a small geographic area, there is little direct correlation between distance from the radiation source and cancers.

On pediatric cancer the 2008 Surveillance Report states: “The pediatric cancer incidence rate in Windham County…was calculated and is not different from Vermont and the United States white population as a whole.”  

2008 VT Yankee Surveillance Report

But between 1999 and 2005, VT had the highest incidence rate of pediatric cancer (all cancers in children between ages 0 to 19) in the nation.

Pediatric cancers, VT, source: Centers for Disease Control

The 2008 Surveillance Report makes no mention of skin cancer, another type of radiation-linked cancer.  But between 2002 and 2006 VT has the highest incidence in the nation.  New Hampshire, which also borders Yankee, is number two.

Vt skin cancer, source: Centers for Disease Control

On Cancer and Radiation

The American Cancer Society (ACS) explains “ionizing radiation” from gamma rays which are emitted by nuclear reactions:

“Ionizing radiation has enough energy to knock electrons off of atoms or molecules. This is called ionization. Ionized molecules are unstable and quickly undergo chemical changes.  If ionizing radiation passes through a cell in the body, it can lead to mutations (changes) in the cell's DNA, the part of the cell that contains its genes (blueprints). This could contribute to cancer, or to the death of the cell. The amount of damage in the cell is related to the dose of radiation it receives. The damage takes place in only a fraction of a second, but other changes such as the beginning of cancer may take years to develop.”

The ACS further notes:

“most scientists and regulatory agencies agree that even small doses of ionizing radiation increase cancer risk, although by a very small amount. In general, the risk of cancer from radiation exposure increases as the dose of radiation increases. Likewise, the lower the exposure is, the smaller the increase in risk. But there is no threshold below which ionizing radiation is thought to be totally safe”

The gubernatorial candidates previously took opposite positions on the closing of Yankee, with Democrat Peter Shumlin saying the plant should be decommission in 2012 as now scheduled, and Dubie wanting to give Yankee a new lease on life, citing its 600 jobs.  The statewide candidate pushing hardest for closure, Attorney General candidate Charlotte Dennett, has made it her business to press the cancer issue as an argument for closing the plant, based on sheer prudence.  When nothing can be proven but a pattern can be seen with worrisome, known correlations, she argues that it is simply better to err on the side of caution.