> study shows that Hanford workers were 11 times more likely to develop mesothelioma, a cancer of the lungs strongly tied to asbestos exposure, than in the general population.
I know that Hanford was an exceptionally bad Nuclear Plant, but it is also a plant which was build in the laxer regulatory environment of the military with an excuse that appeals to "national security". But that is kind of the point though, without the regulations I would expect these plants to be at least as bad as Hanford.
This rhetoric about nuclear power plants being to heavily regulated is starting to feel a bit conspiratorial.
How many people working in that facility, too? Without ignoring safe working environments, his is a somewhat rare cancer and making precise statements about incidence may be tricky.
Finally, regardless of any of this, I’d probably rather work at a nuclear plant than a coal mine or oil platform.
For what it’s worth. You might only be saying that because the nuclear industry is regulated. Nuclear workers aren’t dying of new asbestos exposures any more (but the would be barring regulations). The coal and the oil industry are notorious for their lax regulations. Environmental disasters and bad working conditions are aplenty.
What does this have to do with nuclear energy? This was almost certainly due to asbestos, which affected tons of other industries equally.
Cancer risk is not the only thing that made Hanford a terrible site. They also systematically leaked radioactive water into the Columbia river for over 25 years. The cleanup effort is now one the the biggest employer in the region and the cost is estimated at $113.6 billion
I would expect that if the nuclear industry wasn’t as regulated that we would see numbers like these (including the deaths by asbestos) throughout the country.
So personally, I'd be happy to trade the small risk of a nearby industrial accident for the small risk of a massive fucking bomb exploding in my general vicinity.
Do nuclear power plants cause pollution in the surrounding territory?