Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Florida
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-19-2008, 09:12 AM
 
1 posts, read 9,149 times
Reputation: 16

Advertisements

I am interested in moving to Port St. Lucie. There were previous concerns of the nuclear plant that was giving people cancer. Has the issue been resolved was it proven to be true?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-19-2008, 10:08 AM
 
2,143 posts, read 8,031,415 times
Reputation: 1157
A lot of people live in PSL. I don't believe the plant was ever proven to affect anyone.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2008, 10:43 AM
 
17,291 posts, read 29,397,659 times
Reputation: 8691
Quote:
Originally Posted by sopway View Post
I am interested in moving to Port St. Lucie. There were previous concerns of the nuclear plant that was giving people cancer. Has the issue been resolved was it proven to be true?
I think the "cancer" issue had to do with some houses where builders back in the day would "bury" materials and "cattle vats" that used to be on the lands.

I haven't heard of any correlation between the nuclear plant and cancer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2008, 01:49 PM
 
398 posts, read 1,409,448 times
Reputation: 250
there is nothing safer than a nuclear power plant. Remember hundreds of people work there every day of the year and they do not work dressed as astronauts every day. None of them has died from radiation related cancer. Those rumors are spread by the drive by media and communists.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2008, 05:12 PM
 
656 posts, read 1,375,121 times
Reputation: 1266
A lot of people are terrified of nuclear fuel. I am more worried about staying addicted to fossil fuels, especially the kind we have to buy from people who want to chop our heads off and air it on Al Jazeera. Coal is a nice "blood diamond" too though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2008, 06:45 PM
 
17,291 posts, read 29,397,659 times
Reputation: 8691
Fossil fuel burning plants may actually more negatively affect your health through increased air pollution, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2008, 06:47 PM
 
2,313 posts, read 3,191,340 times
Reputation: 471
Quote:
Originally Posted by eaglecall View Post
there is nothing safer than a nuclear power plant. Remember hundreds of people work there every day of the year and they do not work dressed as astronauts every day. None of them has died from radiation related cancer. Those rumors are spread by the drive by media and communists.
I still would not live near one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2008, 07:10 PM
 
1,770 posts, read 8,247,966 times
Reputation: 484
I have heard stories of children getting brain tumors from this plant. I would not risk it if I were you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2008, 08:12 PM
 
17,291 posts, read 29,397,659 times
Reputation: 8691
Quote:
Originally Posted by macguy View Post
I still would not live near one.
Guess you'd never be able to live in England then!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2008, 08:25 PM
 
17,291 posts, read 29,397,659 times
Reputation: 8691
Quote:
Originally Posted by PBCboy View Post
I have heard stories of children getting brain tumors from this plant. I would not risk it if I were you.
There have been studies both proving and disproving a link between increased leukemia risks and proximity of nuclear plants.

But, Port St. Lucie is huge. The plant itself is actually on Hutchinson Island, on the ocean. Again, many of the so-called "cancer cluster" cases took place in the extreme Western parts of the city, where cattle was raised back in the day. Buried cattle dipping vats were suspected to be the culprits. Not the nuclear plant.

A study, however, even studied the "cancer cluster" phenomena, finding n "cancer cluster":

Port St. Lucie Cancer in Children Study Update

In 1996, there appeared to be an increase of brain cancer, central nervous system cancers and neuroblastomas (8 different cancers in all) in children. Actually, there were 28 cases in the time period 1981-1996.


The St. Lucie county Health Department, along with the Florida Department of Health, Centeres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry (ASTDR) and several other national agencies, began an epidemiological study which is ongoing at this writing.

The St. Lucie County Health Department conducted what appears to be one of the nation's largest residential environmental samplings for 561 different chemicals, chemical compounds and radiologicals in air, water, soil and dust. If effect, this investigation sampled for indicators of everything possible. The sampling and testing took over a year (1997-1998). Since there was no tolerance for questionable laboratory results, numerous re-samplings were conducted to assure unquestioned and accurate results.

No direct links from chemicals to childhood cancers and no differences between chemicals present in case homes versus control homes have been found. Nor have we found evidence of a "cancer cluster." If you have any other questions, please e-mail: James_MosesAt sign for email addressdoh.state.fl.us.

Port St. Lucie Cancer in Children Study Update - St. Lucie County Health Dept. (http://www.stluciecountyhealth.com/epi/cancer.asp - broken link)



Similarly, from another study:

Abstract. An unusual county-wide excess of childhood cancers of brain and other nervous tissue in the late 1990s in St Lucie County, Florida, prompted the Florida Department of Health to conduct a case–control study within the county assessing residential chemical exposures. No clear associations were found, but claims were then made that the release of radioactive substances such as strontium 90 from the St Lucie nuclear power station, which began operating in 1976, might have played a role. To test the plausibility of this hypothesis, we extended by 17 years a previous study of county mortality conducted by the National Cancer Institute. Rates of total cancer, leukaemia and cancer of brain and other nervous tissue in children and across all ages in St Lucie County were evaluated with respect to the years before and after the nuclear power station began operation and contrasted with rates in two similar counties in Florida (Polk and Volusia). Over the prolonged period 1950–2000, no unusual patterns of childhood cancer mortality were found for St Lucie County as a whole. In particular, no unusual patterns of childhood cancer mortality were seen in relation to the start-up of the St Lucie nuclear power station in 1976. Further, there were no significant differences in mortality between the study and comparison counties for any cancer in the time period after the power station was in operation. Relative rates for all childhood cancers and for childhood leukaemia were higher before the nuclear facility began operating than after, while rates of brain and other nervous tissue cancer were slightly lower in St Lucie County than in the two comparison counties for both time periods. Although definitive conclusions cannot be drawn from descriptive studies, these data provide no support for the hypothesis that the operation of the St Lucie nuclear power station has adversely affected the cancer mortality experience of county residents.

Childhood cancer mortality in relation to the St Lucie nuclear power station
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Florida
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top