The Bennington Banner has just published this letter by Joseph J. Mangano, executive director of the Radiation and Public Health Project based in New York, who has written for The Nation and many other publications.

Vermont Yankee causes harm

 Monday November 1, 2010

 

Health data suggest harm from plant

A recent report by the state health department concluded that the Vermont Yankee nuclear reactor has not harmed local residents (“Yankee gets clean bill of health,” Sept. 23). But a closer look at official government data shows some unusually high death rate near the reactor.

Vermont Yankee is located in Vernon, in Windham County. There are no unusual health risks in Windham; poverty rates and education rates are similar to the state. Residents have access to medical care, locally and in Boston. And the county is not full of industrial pollutants — with the potential exception of the state’s only nuclear reactor.

There are some troubling health patterns among Windham’s residents.

Since the 1970s, the county has the second highest mortality rate among Vermont’s 14 counties for infants dying before their first birthday. It also has the 2nd highest rate of deaths for children and young adults in the past three decades. While many factors can affect infant and child death rates, scientists agree that the youngest are most susceptible to the harmful effects of radiation exposure.

Another disturbing trend is that since 1999, Windham has the highest cancer death rate of any Vermont county. The county’s cancer death rate moved from 5 percent below the U.S. a generation ago to 10 percent above the U.S. currently.

This also should raise a red flag, since radiation is known to cause cancer in humans. Vermont Yankee generates a huge amount of radioactive particles and gases, found only in nuclear weapons and reactors. These include over 100 chemicals like Cesium-137, Iodine-131, and Strontium-90. Much of it is stored at the plant in deep, constantly-cooled pools of water. But every day, a portion is released from the reactor into the local air and water. They enter human bodies through breathing, water, and food.

Federal regulators must soon make a major decision. They will elect either to extend the Vermont Yankee license extension for 20 years, or allow the plant to shut down when the current license expires in just over a year.

This is a critical time to understand all potential health risks, and state health officials should make a thorough review.

JOSEPH J. MANGANO

Radiation and Public Health Project

Ocean City, N.J.

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.

FROM A PRESS RELEASE OBTAINED FROM THE CHARLOTTE DENNETT FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL CAMPAIGN

Date: October 29, 2010
Contact: Kristina Borjesson
Tel: 802 644-5898

CHARLOTTE DENNETT FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL

Dennett: Sorrell Invoked Public Records Law to Keep Yankee “Whitewash” Report on Buried Pipes Secret.

Cambridge, VT, Oct. 29 –  Candidate for Attorney General Charlotte Dennett charged incumbent William Sorrell with deliberate obfuscation and misleading the public in the matter of a report on Entergy's misstatements on buried pipes which a State Commissioner called “whitewash.”  In a Vermont Public Radio debate Sorrell said he never objected to releasing the report. In fact, Sorrell originally withheld it from 7 Days reporter Shay Totten and from the Constitutional Law Foundation.   The Conservation Law Foundation eventually had to go to court to get the report released.

Said Dennett. “He should never have denied requests by the press and the Conservation Law Foundation for the report. In effect, he broke the public records law.”

Commissioner David O’Brien of the Department of Public Service – has publicly criticized the report as a “whitewash.”  The report in essence absolves Entergy of false statements made before a state oversight panel regarding pipes which could be leaking tritium.  The report holds that Yankee officials were only answering questions about a certain kind of pipe in the ground.  The pipes turned out to be of a different kind, according to Yankee's definitions, which were discovered to be leaking tritium.

“First he cited his criminal investigation as a reason for not giving the report to Totten and the Foundation,” said Dennett.  “Then, a few weeks later, he again told Totten that he couldn’t have the report, citing the confidentiality agreement he had made with Entergy. That’s why I used Vermont’s public records law for the confidentiality agreement, to see when it came into effect and what it covered.”

The agreement is dated February 17, 2010 and gives Sorrell “sole discretion” to release the report and any other documents that would be “otherwise required by law or would be in furtherance of the Attorney General’s discharge of his duties and responsibilities.”

This pattern of obfuscation and misleading statements is continuing in Sorrell’s office, Dennett charges, citing Deputy Attorney General Michael McShane’s cover letter to Dennett accompanying the report:  “With regard to the Morgan Lewis (Entergy) report, the attorney general’s office did not object to the public release of the report by Entergy” [Our italics].  “That’s not what I was asking for,” says Dennett, “The issue is not Entergy withholding the report, the issue is Sorrell withholding the report for two whole months after he had received it, despite requests he release it.

The confidentiality agreement is actually a letter to Sorrell from Entergy’s Robert D. Sloan outlining the terms of their document exchange.   It is attached to this press release. It states in part, “Entergy understands that the Attorney General’s Office will maintain the confidentiality of the Confidential Information and will not disclose it to any third party, except to the extent that the Attorney General in his sole discretion determines that disclosure is otherwise required by law or would be in furtherance of the Attorney General’s discharge of his duties and responsibilities.”

“The truth of the matter is this,” Dennett said. “Vermont’s public records law and the Vermont Constitution require a state agency to turn over documents, with some exceptions that are not applicable here. The central purpose of 1VSA Section 315, the public records law, is to allow the public to ‘review the action of a governmental officer even though such an examination may cause inconvenience or embarrassment.’

 RESPONSE TO VT PUBLIC RECORDS LAW REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT BETWEEN ATTORNEY GENERAL AND ENTERGY.

FROM A PRESS RELEASE OBTAINED FROM THE CHARLOTTE DENNETT FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL CAMPAIGN

Date: October 29, 2010
Contact: Kristina Borjesson
Tel: 802 644-5898

CHARLOTTE DENNETT FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL

Cambridge, VT, Oct. 29 –  Candidate for Attorney General Charlotte Dennett charged incumbent William Sorrell with deliberate obfuscation and misleading the public in the matter of a report on Entergy's misstatements on buried pipes which a State Commissioner called “whitewash.”  In a Vermont Public Radio debate Sorrell said he never objected to releasing the report. In fact, Sorrell originally withheld it from 7 Days reporter Shay Totten and from the Constitutional Law Foundation,  citing a confidentiality agreement.  The Conservation Law Foundation eventually had to go to court to get the report released.  Dennett has obtained a copy of the confidentiality agreement between Sorrell and Entergy under the VT Public Records Law.

Said Dennett. “He should never have denied requests by the press and the Conservation Law Foundation for the report. In effect, he broke the public records law.”

Commissioner David O’Brien of the Department of Public Service – has publicly criticized the report as a “whitewash.”  The report in essence absolves Entergy of false statements made before a state oversight panel regarding pipes which could be leaking tritium.  The report holds that Yankee officials were only answering questions about a certain kind of pipe in the ground.  The pipes turned out to be of a different kind, according to Yankee's definitions, which were discovered to be leaking tritium.

 The story was picked up by the New York Times last February when it reported:

Plant officials had testified under oath to two state panels that there were no buried pipes at Vermont Yankee that could leak tritium, although there were.

“First he cited his criminal investigation as a reason for not giving the report to Totten and the Foundation,” said Dennett.  “Then, a few weeks later, he again told Totten that he couldn’t have the report, citing the confidentiality agreement he had made with Entergy. That’s why I used Vermont’s public records law for the confidentiality agreement, to see when it came into effect and what it covered.”

The agreement is dated February 17, 2010 and gives Sorrell “sole discretion” to release the report and any other documents that would be “otherwise required by law or would be in furtherance of the Attorney General’s discharge of his duties and responsibilities.”

This pattern of obfuscation and misleading statements is continuing in Sorrell’s office, Dennett charges, citing Deputy Attorney General Michael McShane’s cover letter to Dennett accompanying the report:  “With regard to the Morgan Lewis (Entergy) report, the attorney general’s office did not object to the public release of the report by Entergy” [Our italics].  “That’s not what I was asking for,” says Dennett, “The issue is not Entergy withholding the report, the issue is Sorrell withholding the report for two whole months after he had received it, despite requests he release it.

The confidentiality agreement is actually a letter to Sorrell from Entergy’s Robert D. Sloan outlining the terms of their document exchange.   It is attached to this press release. It states in part, “Entergy understands that the Attorney General’s Office will maintain the confidentiality of the Confidential Information and will not disclose it to any third party, except to the extent that the Attorney General in his sole discretion determines that disclosure is otherwise required by law or would be in furtherance of the Attorney General’s discharge of his duties and responsibilities.”

“The truth of the matter is this,” Dennett said. “Vermont’s public records law and the Vermont Constitution require a state agency to turn over documents, with some exceptions that are not applicable here. The central purpose of 1VSA Section 315, the public records law, is to allow the public to ‘review the action of a governmental officer even though such an examination may cause inconvenience or embarrassment.’

 RESPONSE TO VT PUBLIC RECORDS LAW REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT BETWEEN ATTORNEY GENERAL AND ENTERGY.

Dennett Facebook

Dennett website

Dennett for Attorney General Campaign Video

Unleashing a barrage of hard-hitting radio ads across the state, Attorney General candidate Charlotte Dennett has taken her opponent Bill Sorrell to task for a string of what she says are improper dealings with Yankee, including advice 2 years ago to the Dept. of Public Health to avoid hearings on a 20% radiation increase, Sorrrell's defense of that radiation increase based on a discredited study paid for by Entergy, Yankee's owner, and entering into a confidentiality agreement with Entergy as a part of a criminal investigation of false statements made by Entergy concerning buried pipes now discovered to be leaking tritium and other radioactive substances. 

 As well, Dennett has accused both Sorrell and the VT Dept. of Public Health (VDPH) of hiding alarming rates of three radiation-linked cancers in VT, include childhood cancers.  Dennett has produced internal data not released by the VDPH on women's thyroid cancer, as well as Centers for Disease Control (CDC) data on pediatric cancer and skin cancer, three of the six types of cancer associated with ionizing radiation damage, according to the American Cancer Society.  The other types are stomach, lung, and breast.  Dennett stresses that, although there is no way to establish a direct correlation between the cancers and VT Yankee particle contamination, the presence of not just one but three out of six radiation-induced cancers should seal the fate VT Yankee.

Regarding his alleged help for and defense of the 20% radiation increase which came to light in 2008, Dennett wrote in a 2009 Times-Argus piece (reprinted here in ChelseaGreen.com):

“This past year, Vermonters learned that the Health Department had failed to contact (as required by law) the Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules about a change in the way it evaluated low level radiation emissions at the plant. By avoiding the Rules Committee, VDPH also avoided public hearings. Had the hearings occurred, an important issue of public health would have emerged: Once the plant increased its power output (beginning in 2006) by 20 percent, radiation levels at the plant's fence line also increased, surpassing acceptable legal limits…

When public hearings finally occurred last fall, the Rules Committee asked Dr. William Irwin of VDPH: “Who advised you not to contact us?” His response was barely audible: “Counsel.””

Dennett says both Dr. Irwin and Assistant Attorney General Dixie Henry confirmed that “counsel” referred to Bill Sorrell, and also refered reporter to the office of State Senator Mark MacDonald, who told Dennett:

“If you’re going to investigate employees of Entergy for not being truthful with the public, you should also investigate their regulators because they have not been forthcoming and are part of a pattern of knowledge not being shared.”

Dennett has since filed a public records request for communications between the VDPH, Entergy, and Sorrell's office regarding hearings on the radiation increase.  

In a debate on VT Public Radio last month,  Sorrell explained that he believed the absence of hearings for the 20% radiation increase to be proper because “the Department of Public Health spent $150,000 for an organization to come up with a conversion factor” which, Sorrell said, distinguished between different definitions of radiation and allowed an adjustment to radiation readings.  However, the methodology adopted by the study on the conversion factor was officially withdrawn by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) in 2001.  Moreover, Dennett discovered through a public records request that the study had actually been paid for by Entergy, Yankee's owner, through a reimbursement to the VDPH of the $150,000 paid for the study.  The study was performed by Oak Ridge Associates, a research group with close ties to the nuclear industry.  

 The confidentiality agreement between Sorrell and Entergy came to light in an article in Seven Days, when journalist Shay Totten reported that since “the report is covered by a confidentiality agreement signed by Sorrell, he refuses to release it publicly.” Sorrell also refused a public records request for the report made by the Conservation Law Foundation [CLF]. The Foundation eventually forced the Vermont Public Service Board to release the report after Entergy failed in its bid to have a court order to suppress it.

In the same VPR debate, Sorrell denied Entergy’s report was ever covered by the confidentiality agreement, a direct contradiction of what he told Totten of Seven Days. “There was never an agreement on our part not to release the investigative report,” he said. Dennett is filing a public records request for the confidentiality agreement to find out what exactly it covered.

The Dennett Campaign has composed a presentation “What is VDPH Hiding?” outlining the ways in which three cancers with links to radiation have been dismissed and underplayed by the VDPH and Attorney General Sorrell.  In the VPR last month Sorrell said that, with respect to cancers relative to the rest of the country, Vt does “not have a bad story to tell.”   But in three types of cancer which have been found to have strong links to nuclear radiation, according to the American Cancer Society, VT is high.  In skin cancer VT is number one in the nation.  In thyroid cancer, women in VT have experienced a 400% increase in the years from 1996 to 2005, 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 Dennett campaign found that the data on womens' thyroid cancer was being withheld by the VDPH from the public, when a VT nurse leaked the document with the data to the Dennett campaign.  

The presentation “What is VDPH Hiding?” highlights ways in which cancer rates are mistated by, in the case of thyroid, combining men and women's data, when in fact much grimmer picture emerges when the data for women alone is examined. 

Dennett Facebook

Dennett website