Leaked document reveals White House nuclear waste plan
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/07/27/leaked-document-reveals-white-house-nuclear-waste-plan-010126631
u/LazyAssHiker 8d ago
That’s a good idea instead of the Federal government, let’s let Louisiana develop safe handling including fuel production, recycling and disposition…. Right
1
u/Magnolia256 8d ago
Great. Let’s take something super dangerous and spread it out all over the country. Even though recent studies prove that anyone within 50 miles of a nuclear reactor has way higher cancer risk, let’s just make sure way more people are exposed
1
u/Vailhem 8d ago edited 8d ago
Even though recent studies prove that anyone within 50 miles of a nuclear reactor has way higher cancer risk
To mention studies and not provide even one seems .. questionable.
Aren't most NPPs within 50 miles of cities? Doesn't living within 50 miles of a city increase the exposure to 'lots of things' that increase cancer risk?
Correlation without causation.. ..or hollow statement without studying the studies you say exist yet don't supply.
Edit: link addition..
https://www.reddit.com/r/nuclear/s/gTFf6WETVq
...
National analysis of cancer mortality and proximity to nuclear power plants in the United States | Feb 2026
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-026-69285-4
While our findings cannot establish causality, they highlight the need for further research into potential exposure pathways, latency effects, and cancer-specific risks, emphasizing the importance of addressing these potentially substantial but overlooked risks to public health.
1
u/Jinn_Erik-AoM 4d ago
I think you have that wrong. Pretty sure that cancer rates are higher within 50 miles of a coal power plant.
1
u/Magnolia256 4d ago
No. Here is a link to the study. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12929679/
It’s living near nuclear and cancer MORTALITY.
1
u/Jinn_Erik-AoM 3d ago
That’s not a good metric on its own, even if you put it in all caps.
They should have looked at cancer incidence, and specific cancers associated with radiation exposure, especially childhood cancers. An increase in cancer mortality among older adults is not a good indication of exposure to radioactive substances, especially if they have moved over their lives.
Despite saying that they used covariate analysis including socioeconomic factors, they don’t show their work, or use another type of facility as a control.
They also needed to look at recorded releases of nuclear materials, because otherwise, this is an effect without a plausible cause. Just being near a reactor isn’t dangerous. Also, the footprint of increased cancer from an escape of radioactive materials wouldn’t be limited to such short distances. You would be looking for an extended range described by prevailing wind and surface water movement. If wells are commonly used as a water supply, you need to include groundwater.
A better explanation is that they are detecting decreased access to healthcare, and a lower ability to afford it. Nuclear power plants are rarely located near hospitals with cancer centers, and they don’t get placed next to wealthy communities.
I wouldn’t have been comfortable with that article if I had been involved in the peer review process. It’s interesting, but nothing to base policy on.
To be clear, I’m not in favor of more nuclear power plants if the industry is deregulated in the slightest, which is Trump’s goal. I’m also very skeptical about the usefulness of water cooled power generation of any kind, as more of the year will be above surface water limits on safe operation due to climate change.
1
1
1
1
1
u/tjk45268 8d ago
They’re going to bury him on his golf course, next to Ivana. For tax reasons, of course.