|
 The research links the shut down of two nuclear power plants in the
Tennessee Valley during the 1980s to decreased birth weights among
babies in the area, and pins the blame on increased pollution from
coal power plants.
"Clearly there was an effect of coal emissions driving pollution and
- in turn - infant health," said the study's author Edson Severnini,
of Carnegie Mellon University's Heinz College in Pittsburgh.
Severnini writes in Nature Energy that nuclear accidents are often
followed by backlash against the power source. Three Mile Island
Unit 2 reactor near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, partially melted down
in March 1979.
Inspections following that incident led to long shutdowns of nuclear
power plants around the U.S., including the Tennessee Valley
Authority's Browns Ferry and Sequoyah plants in 1985, he adds.
Coal-fired power plants picked up the slack in the areas that had
been served by the two nuclear plants. For the new study, Severnini
used several data sources to look at whether increases in air
pollution from the coal power plants had negative effects on infant
health.
He found air pollution measured by particles in the air increased
from about 40 micrograms per cubic meter to about 50 micrograms in
communities closest to one of the coal power plants that increased
production to compensate for the idle nuclear plants.
Babies born between March 1985 and September 1986, after the nuclear
plant shutdowns, were 0.30 pounds (134 grams) lighter at birth than
those born between September 1983 and March 1985, before the
shutdowns.
Severnini said the difference in birth weights between the two time
periods is roughly the difference in birth weights between a baby
born to a mother with a disadvantaged background who received
supplemental nutrition during pregnancy and a baby born to a similar
mother who didn't get that help.
"If you compared these effects to the effect of supplementary
nutrition to women with a disadvantaged background, the magnitude is
comparable in different directions," he said.
Frank Gilliland, of the Division of Occupational and Environmental
Health at the University of Southern California's Keck School of
Medicine, expressed concern about the validity of the results
because the magnitude of pollution's effect on birth weight is
larger than previously reported.
[to top of second column] |
In addition, air pollution in the study was assessed using an
outdated measure that includes all particles, including those too
big to reach the respiratory tract, he said.
Nonetheless, there is an established body of literature that shows a
link between increased air pollution and decreased birth weight,
said Gilliland, who was not involved with the new study.
"The choices in terms of modes of energy production are important,"
he said. "They have consequences."
Severnini said there are a number of ways air pollution can affect a
developing fetus, including by altering its mother's inflammation
levels, blood coagulation and blood pressure. The exact mechanisms
are still under evaluation, however.
He told Reuters Health the new study shows it isn't just the
intended consequences of energy choices that matter. "The ultimate
goal was to protect public health, but by not taking into account
this response, public health was being affected in another way." The
unintended consequences matter, too, Severnini said.
Gilliland said there could be other unintended health consequences
to look at including the entire population's heart and respiratory
health and the health impact of climate change.
"I think further research in this area is probably warranted to
quantify the other risks associated with the trade off between
air-polluting power generation and non-polluting power generation,"
he said.
SOURCE: http://go.nature.com/2nBnVFN Nature Energy, online April 3,
2017.
[© 2017 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2017 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. |
