Massive US study finds higher cancer death rates near nuclear power plants Date:
February 24, 2026
Source:
Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
Summary:
A sweeping nationwide study has found that U.S. counties located closer to operating nuclear power plants have higher cancer death rates than those farther away.
Researchers analyzed data from every nuclear facility and all U.S. counties between 2000 and 2018, adjusting for income, education, smoking, obesity,
environmental conditions, and access to health care. Even after accounting for those factors,
cancer mortality was higher in communities nearer to nuclear plants, particularly among older adults.
Link:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/02/260224015537.htm
Paper, free download pdf:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-026-69285-4
So, scaring people or for real?
I thought radiation was used against cancer?
On 2/26/26 07:14, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Massive US study finds higher cancer death rates near nuclear power
plants
Date:
-a February 24, 2026
Source:
-a Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
Summary:
-a A sweeping nationwide study has found that U.S. counties located
closer to operating nuclear power plants have higher cancer death
rates than those farther away.
-a Researchers analyzed data from every nuclear facility and all U.S.
counties between 2000 and 2018, adjusting for income, education,
smoking, obesity,
-a environmental conditions, and access to health care. Even after
accounting for those factors,
-a cancer mortality was higher in communities nearer to nuclear plants,
particularly among older adults.
Link:
-a-a https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/02/260224015537.htm
Paper, free download pdf:
-a https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-026-69285-4
So, scaring people or for real?
I thought radiation was used against cancer?
TLDR.
There was this study that was published in the French popular science periodical "Science & Vie", with the huge headline that they found
triple the normal cancer rate in the neighbourhood of the La Hague
nuclear fuel retreatment plant.
Some closer searching revealed that in the studied area, the expected
cancer rate was statistically 0.3 cases, and the study found one. Not
a word about the statistical significance of that result.
Science & Vie regularly pulls similar stunts and it has been steadily
getting worse over the years. I've stopped reading it long ago.
Jeroen Belleman
On 2/26/2026 2:15 AM, Jeroen Belleman wrote:<snip>
On 2/26/26 07:14, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Massive US study finds higher cancer death rates near nuclear power
plants
Date: February 24, 2026
<snip>Paper, free download pdf:
-a https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-026-69285-4
So, scaring people or for real?
I thought radiation was used against cancer?
TLDR.
There was this study that was published in the French popular science
periodical "Science & Vie", with the huge headline that they found
triple the normal cancer rate in the neighbourhood of the La Hague
nuclear fuel retreatment plant.
Some closer searching revealed that in the studied area, the expected
cancer rate was statistically 0.3 cases, and the study found one. Not
a word about the statistical significance of that result.
I am reminded of a statistically high number of horses suffering from
lead poisoning on ranches surrounding a gasoline refinery in the Bay
Area in Northern California that produced leaded gasoline for
automobiles back in the 20th century.-a The findings resulted in a ban on leaded gasoline in the United States.
On 2/26/26 07:14, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Massive US study finds higher cancer death rates near nuclear power
plants
Date:
February 24, 2026
Source:
Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
Summary:
A sweeping nationwide study has found that U.S.
counties located closer to operating nuclear power plants have higher
cancer death rates than those farther away. Researchers analyzed data
from every nuclear facility and all U.S. counties between 2000 and
2018, adjusting for income, education, smoking, obesity, environmental
conditions, and access to health care. Even after accounting for those
factors, cancer mortality was higher in communities nearer to nuclear
plants, particularly among older adults.
Link:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/02/260224015537.htm
Paper, free download pdf:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-026-69285-4
So, scaring people or for real? I thought radiation was used against
cancer?
TLDR.
There was this study that was published in the French popular science periodical "Science & Vie", with the huge headline that they found
triple the normal cancer rate in the neighbourhood of the La Hague
nuclear fuel retreatment plant.
Some closer searching revealed that in the studied area, the expected
cancer rate was statistically 0.3 cases, and the study found one. Not a
word about the statistical significance of that result.
Science & Vie regularly pulls similar stunts and it has been steadily
getting worse over the years. I've stopped reading it long ago.
I am reminded of a statistically high number of horses suffering from
lead poisoning on ranches surrounding a gasoline refinery in the Bay
Area in Northern California that produced leaded gasoline for
automobiles back in the 20th century. The findings resulted in a ban on leaded gasoline in the United States.
On 2/26/26 07:14, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Massive US study finds higher cancer death rates near nuclear power
plants
Date:
-a February 24, 2026
Source:
-a Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
Summary:
-a A sweeping nationwide study has found that U.S. counties located
closer to operating nuclear power plants have higher cancer death
rates than those farther away.
-a Researchers analyzed data from every nuclear facility and all U.S.
counties between 2000 and 2018, adjusting for income, education,
smoking, obesity,
-a environmental conditions, and access to health care. Even after
accounting for those factors,
-a cancer mortality was higher in communities nearer to nuclear plants,
particularly among older adults.
Link:
-a-a https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/02/260224015537.htm
Paper, free download pdf:
-a https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-026-69285-4
So, scaring people or for real?
I thought radiation was used against cancer?
TLDR.
There was this study that was published in the French popular science periodical "Science & Vie", with the huge headline that they found
triple the normal cancer rate in the neighbourhood of the La Hague
nuclear fuel retreatment plant.
Some closer searching revealed that in the studied area, the expected
cancer rate was statistically 0.3 cases, and the study found one. Not
a word about the statistical significance of that result.
Science & Vie regularly pulls similar stunts and it has been steadily
getting worse over the years. I've stopped reading it long ago.
Jeroen Belleman
[F'up2 sci.physics]
Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 2/26/26 07:14, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Massive US study finds higher cancer death rates near nuclear power
plants
Date:
February 24, 2026
Source:
Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
Summary:
A sweeping nationwide study has found that U.S.
counties located closer to operating nuclear power plants have higher >>> cancer death rates than those farther away. Researchers analyzed data >>> from every nuclear facility and all U.S. counties between 2000 and
2018, adjusting for income, education, smoking, obesity, environmental >>> conditions, and access to health care. Even after accounting for those >>> factors, cancer mortality was higher in communities nearer to nuclear >>> plants, particularly among older adults.
Link:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/02/260224015537.htm
Paper, free download pdf:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-026-69285-4
So, scaring people or for real? I thought radiation was used against
cancer?
*Focused* (usually particle) radiation (protons, electrons) is used in the treatment of cancer because a *focused* beam is targeted at tumor cells *only* (its energy is chosen such that it deposits most of its energy at the depth where the tumor is). (For that reason, particle accelerators are
often involved in the treatment.)
Widespread, *uncontrolled*, ionizing radiation (e.g. gamma radiation)
affects non-tumor cells as well.
In summary, ionizing radiation damages or destroys DNA, and is thus hostile to life as we know it, because e.g. by ejecting electrons it destroys molecular bonds. It depends on which cells and how many are affected by it whether that has a positive or negative effect on an individual's health.
For example, it is quite possible that a low dosage of ionizing radiation leads to mutations (due to errors when duplicating DNA) that turn out to be evolutionary advantageous. But that is not the case here.
TLDR.
So you are merely arguing from your own ignorance.
There was this study that was published in the French popular science
periodical "Science & Vie", with the huge headline that they found
triple the normal cancer rate in the neighbourhood of the La Hague
nuclear fuel retreatment plant.
Some closer searching revealed that in the studied area, the expected
cancer rate was statistically 0.3 cases, and the study found one. Not a
word about the statistical significance of that result.
Cite evidence.
Science & Vie regularly pulls similar stunts and it has been steadily
getting worse over the years. I've stopped reading it long ago.
The report is from ScienceDaily, not "Science & Vie"; the referred paper was published in Nature Communications, a peer-reviewed open-access scientific journal with a high quality rating.
x <x@x.net>wrote:
On 2/26/26 01:15, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 2/26/26 07:14, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Massive US study finds higher cancer death rates near nuclear power
plants
Date:
-a February 24, 2026
Source:
-a Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
Summary:
-a A sweeping nationwide study has found that U.S. counties located
closer to operating nuclear power plants have higher cancer death
rates than those farther away.
-a Researchers analyzed data from every nuclear facility and all U.S.
counties between 2000 and 2018, adjusting for income, education,
smoking, obesity,
-a environmental conditions, and access to health care. Even after
accounting for those factors,
-a cancer mortality was higher in communities nearer to nuclear plants, >>> particularly among older adults.
Link:
-a-a https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/02/260224015537.htm
Paper, free download pdf:
-a https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-026-69285-4
So, scaring people or for real?
I thought radiation was used against cancer?
TLDR.
There was this study that was published in the French popular science
periodical "Science & Vie", with the huge headline that they found
triple the normal cancer rate in the neighbourhood of the La Hague
nuclear fuel retreatment plant.
Some closer searching revealed that in the studied area, the expected
cancer rate was statistically 0.3 cases, and the study found one. Not
a word about the statistical significance of that result.
Science & Vie regularly pulls similar stunts and it has been steadily
getting worse over the years. I've stopped reading it long ago.
Jeroen Belleman
There is also the reality that persons who live near a nuclear plant
might include persons who work in the plant. Some of them might
have been exposed to ionizing radiation due to work related accidents.
If you do not subtract those out then you could have a source of the
increase there. If you do, then is that subtraction viable?
There are vast differences in intensities and times of exposure for
various concentrations of toxins as well as ionizing radiation. I am >thinking that radon gas in basements has been known to be a long term
source of exposure. How significant is it? Well it might not be
obvious because these measurements might have highly different
magnitudes of intensity or concentration.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>wrote:
Ho Li Phuc wrote:
I am reminded of a statistically high number of horses suffering from
lead poisoning on ranches surrounding a gasoline refinery in the Bay
Area in Northern California that produced leaded gasoline for
automobiles back in the 20th century. The findings resulted in a ban on
leaded gasoline in the United States.
Interesting. However, the idea of this ban was probably not only to protect >horses. Lead, a heavy metal, is poisonous for almost all life, certainly >humans. So it makes a lot of sense to avoid any chance of it getting in the >air and ground water, for example.
Similar regulations exist outside the USA, at the latest since the end of
the 1990s.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead#Biological_effects>
I'm not totally ignorant of radiation and its effects. I've been
a radiation worker for 30 years myself.
What most people do not know is that we are all exposed to natural radiation at a rate of roughly 10 uSv/day.
The added effect of artificial radiation on
the general population is usually negligible.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>wrote:
Ho Li Phuc wrote:
I am reminded of a statistically high number of horses suffering from
lead poisoning on ranches surrounding a gasoline refinery in the Bay
Area in Northern California that produced leaded gasoline for
automobiles back in the 20th century. The findings resulted in a ban on >>> leaded gasoline in the United States.
Interesting. However, the idea of this ban was probably not only to protect >> horses. Lead, a heavy metal, is poisonous for almost all life, certainly
humans. So it makes a lot of sense to avoid any chance of it getting in the >> air and ground water, for example.
Similar regulations exist outside the USA, at the latest since the end of
the 1990s.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead#Biological_effects>
:-)
I have been working with 60/40 solder (lead/tin) as a kid since the early fifties.
Almost 80 now, still using it:
https://panteltje.nl/pub/soldering_iron_tip_cleaning_IMG_6610.JPG
There was an interesting article on the effect of lead on the Neanderthals a while back,
those died out because of lead exposure, we survived:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/10/251015230952.htm
Lead in water pipes..
https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/basic-information-about-lead-drinking-water
Traffic is more dangerous... kills more..
Medical errors do too
COVID, trump using Fauci's illegal bat experiments,
It's a wild world!!!
Kennedy stopping vaccinations ..
nutcase leaders committing genocide...
Darwin rules
One ant heap against the other
What will come of WW3?
There were claims by "experts" in the post World War II era that
inner-city African-American children would eat the chips of falling
apart plaster in old houses that contained lead from paint due to
hunger.
It was claimed by these "experts" that the lead exposure from eating
the paint flakes lowered the IQ of these inner city children by 10 to
20 points.
On 2/26/26 01:15, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 2/26/26 07:14, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Massive US study finds higher cancer death rates near nuclear power
plants
Date:
-a February 24, 2026
Source:
-a Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
Summary:
-a A sweeping nationwide study has found that U.S. counties located
closer to operating nuclear power plants have higher cancer death
rates than those farther away.
-a Researchers analyzed data from every nuclear facility and all U.S.
counties between 2000 and 2018, adjusting for income, education,
smoking, obesity,
-a environmental conditions, and access to health care. Even after
accounting for those factors,
-a cancer mortality was higher in communities nearer to nuclear
plants, particularly among older adults.
Link:
-a-a https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/02/260224015537.htm
Paper, free download pdf:
-a https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-026-69285-4
So, scaring people or for real?
I thought radiation was used against cancer?
TLDR.
There was this study that was published in the French popular science
periodical "Science & Vie", with the huge headline that they found
triple the normal cancer rate in the neighbourhood of the La Hague
nuclear fuel retreatment plant.
Some closer searching revealed that in the studied area, the expected
cancer rate was statistically 0.3 cases, and the study found one. Not
a word about the statistical significance of that result.
Science & Vie regularly pulls similar stunts and it has been steadily
getting worse over the years. I've stopped reading it long ago.
Jeroen Belleman
There is also the reality that persons who live near a nuclear plant
might include persons who work in the plant.-a Some of them might
have been exposed to ionizing radiation due to work related accidents.
If you do not subtract those out then you could have a source of the
increase there.-a If you do, then is that subtraction viable?
There are vast differences in intensities and times of exposure for
various concentrations of toxins as well as ionizing radiation.-a I am thinking that radon gas in basements has been known to be a long term
source of exposure.-a How significant is it?-a Well it might not be
obvious because these measurements might have highly different
magnitudes of intensity or concentration.
x <x@x.net>wrote:
On 2/26/26 01:15, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 2/26/26 07:14, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Massive US study finds higher cancer death rates near nuclear power
plants
Date:
-a February 24, 2026
Source:
-a Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
Summary:
-a A sweeping nationwide study has found that U.S. counties located
closer to operating nuclear power plants have higher cancer death
rates than those farther away.
-a Researchers analyzed data from every nuclear facility and all U.S. >>>> counties between 2000 and 2018, adjusting for income, education,
smoking, obesity,
-a environmental conditions, and access to health care. Even after
accounting for those factors,
-a cancer mortality was higher in communities nearer to nuclear plants, >>>> particularly among older adults.
Link:
-a-a https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/02/260224015537.htm
Paper, free download pdf:
-a https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-026-69285-4
So, scaring people or for real?
I thought radiation was used against cancer?
TLDR.
There was this study that was published in the French popular science
periodical "Science & Vie", with the huge headline that they found
triple the normal cancer rate in the neighbourhood of the La Hague
nuclear fuel retreatment plant.
Some closer searching revealed that in the studied area, the expected
cancer rate was statistically 0.3 cases, and the study found one. Not
a word about the statistical significance of that result.
Science & Vie regularly pulls similar stunts and it has been steadily
getting worse over the years. I've stopped reading it long ago.
Jeroen Belleman
There is also the reality that persons who live near a nuclear plant
might include persons who work in the plant. Some of them might
have been exposed to ionizing radiation due to work related accidents.
If you do not subtract those out then you could have a source of the
increase there. If you do, then is that subtraction viable?
There are vast differences in intensities and times of exposure for
various concentrations of toxins as well as ionizing radiation. I am
thinking that radon gas in basements has been known to be a long term
source of exposure. How significant is it? Well it might not be
obvious because these measurements might have highly different
magnitudes of intensity or concentration.
Yes
I moved house a few years ago:
https://panteltje.nl/pub/background_radiation_from_one_place_to_the_other.gif
background radiation is higher here.
I log radiation 24/7
We had Chernobyl fallout here (Netherlands) and you were advised not to eat stuff from your garden.
Where I worked in those days the filters in the aircos had to be replaced as those were 'hot'.
Imagine what you were breathing all day outside!
In an other place where I worked many years later (large accelerator in Amsterdam) the whole place got contaminated
lucky a few years after I left there.
There is a whole story about that, 'carelessness' a reason in my view.
Anyways I decided a make a small radiation logger with GPS recorder so as to be able to see where I was and where the Uranium was .. (joke).
But you could use it for prospecting.
https://panteltje.nl/panteltje/pic/gm_pic2/
It is an interesting subject.
Have designed an build a gamma spectrometer (PMT based) too, to see just what is radiating.
Played with that stuff in the past:
https://panteltje.nl/panteltje/pic/sc_pic/
There is also a discussion group on that topic GammaSpectroscopy in groups.io:
https://groups.io/g/GammaSpectroscopy
Anyways, will be 80 years old in a few month from now,
still running around.
There was an interview with some guy in Chernobyl who had shot some deer and mounted the head of it on the wall, it was very radioactive.
Reporter asked him:
"Are you not afraid to sit under that radiating thing?"
His reply was:
"It is good for your cancer"
So, and all the astronauts who have been exposed to high energy particles, some got really old..
Pilots flying at high altitudes,
Some lifeforms have survived outside of the ISS.
Life is everywhere, we are stardust
On 2/26/2026 10:58 PM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>wrote:
Ho Li Phuc wrote:
I am reminded of a statistically high number of horses suffering from
lead poisoning on ranches surrounding a gasoline refinery in the Bay
Area in Northern California that produced leaded gasoline for
automobiles back in the 20th century. The findings resulted in a ban on >>>> leaded gasoline in the United States.
Interesting. However, the idea of this ban was probably not only to protect
horses. Lead, a heavy metal, is poisonous for almost all life, certainly >>> humans. So it makes a lot of sense to avoid any chance of it getting in the
air and ground water, for example.
Similar regulations exist outside the USA, at the latest since the end of >>> the 1990s.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead#Biological_effects>
:-)
I have been working with 60/40 solder (lead/tin) as a kid since the early fifties.
Almost 80 now, still using it:
https://panteltje.nl/pub/soldering_iron_tip_cleaning_IMG_6610.JPG
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>wrote:
Ho Li Phuc wrote:
On 2/26/2026 10:58 PM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>wrote:
Ho Li Phuc wrote:
I am reminded of a statistically high number of horses suffering from >>>>> lead poisoning on ranches surrounding a gasoline refinery in the Bay >>>>> Area in Northern California that produced leaded gasoline for
automobiles back in the 20th century. The findings resulted in a ban on >>>>> leaded gasoline in the United States.
Interesting. However, the idea of this ban was probably not only to protect
horses. Lead, a heavy metal, is poisonous for almost all life, certainly >>>> humans. So it makes a lot of sense to avoid any chance of it getting in the
air and ground water, for example.
Similar regulations exist outside the USA, at the latest since the end of >>>> the 1990s.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead#Biological_effects>
:-)
I have been working with 60/40 solder (lead/tin) as a kid since the early fifties.
Almost 80 now, still using it:
https://panteltje.nl/pub/soldering_iron_tip_cleaning_IMG_6610.JPG
Lead poisoning in combination with old age might explain your mindbogglingly >stupid behavior, such as crossposting without Followup-To, as well as your >other stupid claims :->
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 59 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 03:47:28 |
| Calls: | 810 |
| Files: | 1,287 |
| D/L today: |
4 files (10,048K bytes) |
| Messages: | 203,128 |
