Can living near a nuclear reactor increase the risk of getting cancer?

Deer Park

I'm doing an essay on nuclear proficiency in Australia. I'm wondering if it's true that living near a nuclear reactor could increase the risk advised about cancer? I beget heard antagonistic stories in spite of, so what's the truth? Also, if you duff be able observations, case studies or tip-off to support your announcement that would betray superior.



Belcourt

I tried to find a clear cut report but this might be helpfulhttp://www. nrc. gov/reading-rm/doc-collec…If I had more time, then I would find a report don't by the International Council for Radiation Protection (ICRP). I would have to hunt in my books. You have to buy those reports. As far as the US is concerned, I doubt you find conclusive statistics. The yearly dose limits for radiation workers is 5 rems (0.05 Sv). That's still not significant and there are a lot policies and systems in place that I wouldn't let me even get that high (NRC would put down some government might).For the public dose rates cannot exceed 0.1 rem (1 mSv) in a year. Thats pretty dang low. BEIR V report has some conservative estimates on cancer rates from radiation dose, but it's not conclusive due the fact the cancer rate in general is so high. If I had just found out I have tumor, then doctors couldn't tell me if it was formed by radiation, chemicals, a virus, or just some mistake as the cell was multiplying. NOTE: The guy above me is also correct and makes a valid point. I am sure someone will give me a thumbs as well.



Elk Mountain

In theory it shouldn't, because nuclear reactors dispose a impassable system plus the only real emissions are warmer water. Nuclear waste is encased in a heavy shell when it is removed, with the addition of doesn't dodge win the indigenous area. Unless they were dumping the wasteland handy (doubtful, they have rules on that increased by it's just as easy to take it distant away), or you in the land of the living somewhere charge out of Chernobyl... technically coal power would bring into being another bet on the underpinning knowledgeable about radiation alone since burning coal liberates honect radioactive deposits such as uranium. This talks about the different risks. http://physics. isu. edu/radinf/np-risk. ht…



Groesbeck

We in Ireland believe that Sellafield in England is causeing cancer amongst towns and cities along the East coast of Ireland...Sellafield AKA or previously known as Windscale has being known for cover up after cover up regarding Radiation leaks on a vast scale..The British Government has lied and has been proven to have lied about near disasters at its plant for decades.. You just cannot trust them...They dump waste material into the Irish sea and when challanged about high readings of radiation levels found in the sea they say its within legal international limits...They have no respect for their neighbours or health...We in Ireland have been campaigning for years to get it closed and we believe its starting to work.. There is plans now to phrase out sellafield but the damage it caused will be felt for generations to come..



Cloverdale

yes, because its waste is very dangerous in our health like its radioactive material wastes