http://www.thegrio.com/health/nuclear-plants-and-cancer-epidemics-in-a-poor-black-georgia-town-environmental-racism-in-the-21st-ce.php
This article is a description of a claim of environmental racism in southern Georgia. Since the 1980s, there has been what many are calling a cancer epidemic in Burke County, GA. This poor, mostly black county lies along the fourth-most polluted waterway in the country and currently has three potential radioactive waste sites, one of which is a Superfund site. A 2010 stimulus bill proposal led to the planned creation of two new nuclear reactors- the first since the late 1980s- built in Burke County, and the residents of the town of Shell Bluff are worried. After all, no environmental testing has been done since 2003, yet nearly every family in the town has lost somebody to cancer. The existing nuclear reactors have not fulfilled their economic promises, as the county still remains poor, and residents feel as though they are being put into unnecessary risk.
As I read this, I couldn't help but think of France. Their nuclear program puts out 75.2% of their country's electricity, and yet their cancer rates are attributed to smoking and drinking, not living near nuclear power plants. Nuclear power plants are widely misunderstood by Americans, who are generally poorly educated on the matter. This nation's nuclear program is focused on weapons moreso than power; as such, radiation still remains a frightening prospect and is an excellent scapegoat when looking for the cause of an illness. But is that the case here? Is this environmental racism or is this a relatively harmless addition to a place that is already incredibly toxic due to the old nuclear weapons plant- the one that's now a Superfund site- and the runoff in the river? Is there such a thing as safe radiation, or is it dangerous no matter how it's used?
To me, this case appears to be environmental racism. Burke County does have an abnormally high rate of cancer, and while this could be the result of many other health factors, I think that the rate is so high the environment is probably the most logical explanation. I was shocked by the fact that the DOE had lied about Georgia receiving funds for radiation monitoring. Also, I thought it was disturbing that although this area has been recognized as having such poor conditions, nobody has tested the water since 2004. Whether or not the nuclear plants are the source of the abnormal cancer rates, there is clearly serious neglect for the well being of the residents of Burke County.
ReplyDeleteI think it's interesting that the article mentions that Southern Company claims that they located the plant in Burke County will create jobs and help the economy despite the fact that there is already a nuclear plant in the area and it remains poor. I have to wonder if Southern Company is targeting this area because they believe the residents are powerless. If that is what has happened here, it certainly wouldn’t help Southern Company’s defense against environmental racism.
I agree with you, blueivy. I think this was an opportunity by the government to try to install something that is not guaranteed to succeed in a low-risk neighborhood. If they view the people there as relatively powerless, then even if the plant does fail or cause problems there will not be as serious ramifications as there might be in another area.
ReplyDeleteThe one thing that especially surprised me was the lack of testing of the water and the effects from the other nuclear plants. I know that most other nuclear plants routinely run tests on their property and the surrounding areas, so the fact that Burke County is eight years late is incredibly shocking, and I’m surprised there isn’t an environmental agency—or even a university—pushing for tests to be run. Shouldn’t sites like these, especially Superfund sites, be under slightly more strict control?
Regardless of whether or not it is the plant causing the damage, the lack of study is an injustice in and of itself. Areas that are seeing high rates of cancer, especially near a Superfund site, should be looking into potential environmental causes of these rates. And if the cancer rates could potentially be due to the nuclear plants, government needs to realize that the tradeoffs for this energy are not worth it; there is a big difference between a plant in crowded Georgia versus the fields of New Mexico, particularly the difference in population densities. It is a major environmental injustice to ignore the lives and the health of people living in these sites, all so we can improve our nuclear technology; there are better places for it than the busy Southeast.