Closing Nuclear Reactors Means Big Improvements in Local Infant Health

Not long ago, the U.S. nuclear power industry was in freefall. Only two reactors had been ordered since 1978, meaning the existing reactors were aging. Old mechanical parts require costly maintenance; and rather than pay for these upgrades, nuclear plant owners chose to shut reactors (13 out of 104 in the U.S. closed from 2013-2022). Many more closings seemed imminent, as two-thirds of reactors had operated more than 40 years, the expected lifespan. The dream that nuclear power would dominate the U.S. electrical market with 1,200 reactors was ending.

But just recently, industry and government combined to postpone nuclear power’s sundown. State governments took the first step; legislatures in five states passed laws giving billions of dollars to bail out utilities, and keep old reactors operating. The federal government then passed the Inflation Reduction Act, which included pledges of up to $135 billion for keeping old reactors open, and supporting new ones.

The mantra of pro-nuclear forces was nuclear power was “green” and “emission-free” – and would address climate change. But that mantra is not based in fact. The processes of developing uranium for reactors (mining, milling, enrichment, fabrication, and purification) consume large amounts of greenhouse gases. And reactors are NOT “emission-free” as they routinely release over 100 highly toxic radioactive chemicals – the same found in atom bomb explosions – into the air and water.

Federal regulators helped keep the nuclear dream alive by rubber-stamping applications to extend licenses beyond the original 40 years. Currently, 12 reactors are approved to operate up to 80 years, and dozens more applications are expected. An 80-year-old reactor means staggering amounts of highly radioactive waste stored at each site, and the growing chance of a catastrophic meltdown.

Preserving antiquated reactors was the original focus of a nuclear revival. A never-attempted strategy to restart closed reactors has also surfaced. Proposed restarts include:

Palisades: Palisades, in western Michigan, closed in 2022 after 51 years; it only supplied 5% of the state’s electricity. But enormous (mostly federal) government pledges of support led Holtec International to apply for restart, which may be granted as soon as late 2025.

Three Mile Island: The largest U.S. reactor meltdown destroyed one of the plant’s reactors in 1979; its other unit closed in 2019 after 45 years. Constellation Energy recently signed an agreement to restart the reactor in 2028, to power Microsoft’s AI operations.

Duane Arnold: Iowa’s only reactor, which generated only 8% of the state’s electricity, closed in 2020 after 46 years. Several months ago, NextEra Energy filed a licensing change request to federal regulators, with a goal of restarting the plant in 2028.

Still another aspect of an envisioned nuclear revival focuses on building Small Modular Reactors. Proponents claim SMRs would be speedier to build, cheaper, more efficient, and cleaner than larger reactors of the past. But these claims are unproven, and proposed SMRs at several sites have thus far been scrapped due to spiraling cost estimates.

Discussion of nuclear power’s future has been mostly about costs. The 1954 prediction by federal official Lewis Strauss that nuclear reactors would produce energy “too cheap to meter” has failed miserably, as nuclear is now much more costly than wind, and solar power. The most crucial reactor issue – health hazards – has been largely ignored by industry and government.

Numerous articles and reports have documented rising rates of cancer near reactors (www.radiation.org). But recent reactor shutdowns and their proposed restart have raised another issue – does shutdown (and the end of routine radioactive exposures) mean improved health?

A 2002 journal article showed local infant deaths fell more sharply than the U.S. decline near eight closed nuclear plants two years after closing (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12071357/). Infants are more susceptible to radiation effects than adults, and any reduction in exposure after shutdown suggests health of infants would be most likely to improve.

A review of CDC data updates this study for recently-closed plants, including some slated for restart. The table below shows the decline in infant death rates (< 1 year) and low-weight births under 3.3 pounds, in the five years before/after shutdown, for the local county(ies) and the U.S.

Near each closed plant, the local reduction was larger than the nation’s for both infant deaths and low-weight births. Some gaps are especially large, amounting to hundreds more healthy infants.

Palisades is the reactor in line to be the first to restart after permanent shutdown. In the last five years of operation (2018-2022), 15 babies of mothers living in Van Buren County MI, where the reactor is located, died. But in the 2½ years after, only four infants died, a decline of almost 50%. 

Restart of closed reactors, or startup of new ones, must address health risks. Evidence of infant health improvements near closed reactors suggests no such actions be taken, and funds to prop up nuclear power instead be allotted for safe, renewable, less costly energy sources such as wind and solar.

The post Closing Nuclear Reactors Means Big Improvements in Local Infant Health appeared first on CounterPunch.org.