Title:
Assessing the Health Impacts of Nuclear Testing
and Water Contamination in Nevada
1. Introduction
The Nevada Test Site (NTS) played a significant role in nuclear weapons testing in the United States between 1951 and 1992. The consequences of these tests extend beyond their cessation, with Nevada residents facing higher risks of cancer compared to neighboring states. This blog may be considered a digital white paper, which examines the health impacts of nuclear testing in Nevada and highlights concerns related to water contamination in Las Vegas.
2. Health Concerns in Nevada
2.1 Cancer Incidence and Mortality
Nevadans have a higher likelihood of developing and succumbing to cancer compared to residents of neighboring states. Particularly, Nevada women, especially white women, have among the highest death rates for lung, colorectal, and liver cancers in the country. In 2023, an estimated 17,370 new cancer cases and 5,850 deaths are expected in Nevada.
2.2 Regional Comparison
Nevada had a higher cancer incident rate (457 per 100,000 people) compared to Utah (397) and Arizona (394). Utah has observed a general decrease in age-adjusted cancer mortality rates over the past three decades. Conversely, cancer remains a leading cause of illness, disability, and death in New Mexico, indicating regional variations in cancer prevalence.
3. Radiation-related Risks
3.1 Fallout and Health Effects
Between 1945 and 1962, researchers detonated approximately 200 aboveground nuclear bombs, with 100 detonations occurring in Nevada. Fallout from these tests led to the appearance of radiation-caused cancers, such as leukemia and thyroid cancer, in residents of Utah, Arizona, and Nevada within three to five years. Increased risks of other solid tumors were observed in subsequent years.
3.2 Monitoring Radiation Levels
Given the potential health risks associated with radiation exposure, it is crucial to carefully monitor levels, particularly in areas like Las Vegas where drinking water comes into contact with rocks and minerals. While any radioactive material diluted in surface or ground water sources should be safe for personal use, monitoring efforts are essential for public health.
4. Water Contamination in Las Vegas
4.1 Disinfectants
Disinfectant chemicals, although added to water treatment plants to reduce contaminants and bacteria, can react with other substances to form harmful compounds. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may occasionally miss the byproducts of combining these chemicals together during testing.
4.2 Chromium
Hexavalent chromium, which may occur naturally or result from industrial pollution, is a known carcinogen associated with cancer at high levels of exposure.
4.3 Industry Waste Chemicals
Dumping of chemicals such as dibromochloromethane and dichloroacetic acid, either illegally or legally, into public water sources poses risks such as increased cancer risk, birth complications, and reproductive hormone disruption.
4.4 PFAs
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), a category of contaminants not yet regulated, can enter water systems and pose health hazards even in trace amounts.
4.5 Lead
While lead contamination in Las Vegas' tap water is extremely low, there is no universally accepted safe level of lead in drinking water. Corroding plumbing pipes containing lead are the primary source of lead contamination.
4.6 Radiation
Las Vegas' exposure to rocks and mineral deposits increases the likelihood of radiation entering drinking water sources. Trace amounts of uranium and radon found in certain geological formations can lead to elevated radiation levels if water becomes condensed.
5. Conclusion
The Nevada Test Site's nuclear testing legacy continues to impact the health of residents, with higher cancer rates observed in Nevada compared to neighboring states. Moreover, water contamination concerns, including potential radiation exposure, highlight the need for ongoing monitoring and stringent measures to ensure public safety. Further research and actions to mitigate these risks are necessary to protect the well-being of affected communities.
Information was gathered using the Google a.i. artificial intelligence search tool and various articles that it sources the information from. Prompts for a.i. were created by George Ohan, U.S. Army veteran
Yucca Mountain is unequivocally unsuitable for housing the nation's high-level nuclear waste and spent nuclear fuel.
ReplyDeleteHere's why:
Geology and Location: Numerous unresolved scientific concerns plague the Yucca Mountain site. Issues such as hydrology, repository design, and volcanic activity cast doubt on its suitability. The site is seismic, prone to volcanic activity, and lacks the geological capacity to contain the waste. Adding to the risk, Yucca's aquifer drains into the vital Amargosa Valley and sits adjacent to Nellis Air Force Base and Las Vegas, just 90 miles away.
Limited Space: Yucca simply cannot accommodate the nation's nuclear waste. With over 70,000 metric tons already stored in 77 reactor sites across the country, and an annual accumulation of over 2,000 tons, Yucca's design capacity of 77,000 metric tons falls far short. Even if no new plants are built, by 2036, there will still be an equivalent amount of spent fuel stored at reactor sites.
Transportation: Transporting waste to Yucca Mountain poses significant risks to the American public. More than 123 million people reside near the proposed truck and train routes, which pass through 703 counties in 44 states. A single accident or deliberate attack along these routes could result in the loss of thousands of innocent lives.
National Security: Constructing the Yucca Mountain repository does not enhance America's safety. On the contrary, it presents terrorists with attractive and vulnerable targets. The Department of Energy (DOE) expects over 100,000 shipments of spent fuel to be transported to Yucca Mountain, creating 100,000 mobile targets. Furthermore, the DOE plans to store high-level nuclear waste and spent fuel above ground at the site for a minimum of 100 years, making it the world's largest storage target.
In light of these compelling reasons, it is clear that Yucca Mountain is entirely unsuitable for housing the nation's high-level nuclear waste and spent nuclear fuel.
The risks posed by its geology, limited capacity, transportation vulnerabilities, and potential threats to national security far outweigh any perceived benefits. It is imperative to explore alternative, safer solutions for the long-term storage of nuclear waste.
Reference:
The Fight Against Yucca Mountain
The state's official position is that Yucca Mountain is a singularly bad site to house the nation's high-level nuclear waste and spent nuclear fuel for several reasons
https://ag.nv.gov/Hot_Topics/Issue/Yucca/
What’s going on in Idaho with Nuclear waste?
1. https://www.energy.gov/em/articles/history-buried-waste-idaho-national-laboratory-site
2. https://www.nrc.gov/waste/incidental-waste/wir-process/wir-locations/idaho-national-lab.html
Stay Alert, Stay Alive.