The Michigan Messenger

Top Stories

The Michigan Messenger going forward

By Staff Report | 11.16.11

I am writing today to announce the closure of the Michigan Messenger. After four years of operation in Michigan, the board of the American Independent News Network, has decided to shift publication of its news into a single site, The American Independent at Americanindependent.com. This is part of a shift in strategy, towards new forms [...]

Colorado-based abstinence program provided false and misleading information to Michigan students

HIV-AIDS-small
By Todd A. Heywood | 11.16.11

An abstinence-only presentation provided to numerous school districts in Calhoun and Eaton Counties in October of this year provided false and misleading information to students about HIV, experts allege.

Class action lawsuit filed against MERS over unpaid taxes

foreclosure
By Todd A. Heywood | 11.15.11

Two county registers of deeds filed a class action lawsuit Monday on behalf of Michigan’s 83 counties alleging that the Mortgage Electronic Registration Services owes millions of dollars in property title transfer taxes.

Schuette fights important mercury regulations

epa_logo
By Eartha Jane Melzer | 11.14.11

Despite evidence of the impact of mercury on children and public health, Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette last month joined with 24 other state attorneys general in filing a lawsuit to scuttle new EPA regulations that would reduce mercury emissions from power plants.

Cancer questions grow around Fermi nuclear plant

By Eartha Jane Melzer | 02.17.09 | 7:44 am
Fermi nuclear power plant, Monroe Mich. (Photo:  mandj98 via Flickr.com)

Fermi nuclear power plant, Monroe Mich. (Photo: mandj98 via Flickr.com)

 The cancer rate among people under the age of 25 in Monroe County rose at more than three times the rate of the rest of the state between 1996 and 2005, according to a report generated by the Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH). Between 1996 and 2000, the average rate of cancer cases for this group was 18.5 cases per 100,000 people; between 2001 and 2005, the rate grew to 24.3 per 100,000. Between 1996 and 2000 the statewide rate of cancer for this group was 20.2 per 100,000; between 2001 and 2005, the rate was 21.9.

Monroe is home to DTE Energy’s Fermi II nuclear power plant, which became fully operational in 1988. While industry and government experts dismiss the possibility that local cancer rates are related to the nuclear plant, critics of the plant and nuclear power say more study is needed.

The new report, compiled in response to questions submitted by Michigan Messenger, sheds new light on the issue.

In the 1980s, the cancer rate for young people in Monroe County was below the state average. In the ’90s this rate grew, and in the first half of 2000 the cancer rate for this group in Monroe was greater than the state average. For the period 1999-2004, there is data to compare the Monroe under 25 cancer rate to both the Michigan and U.S statistics. The rate was 23.5 per 100,000 in Monroe County, 21.5 per 100,000 in Michigan and 19.5 per 100,000 nationwide, according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC).

These numbers include all types of cancers reported for this group.

In September, DTE Energy applied for a license to build a new reactor at the Fermi complex. Opponents of the plant say they want more surveillance of local health issues before the project goes forward. They point to North Elementary School (2.2 miles from Fermi) and Jefferson High School, (2.5 miles from the power plant) as reasons for particular concern.

“Anecdotally, there is a lot of cancer,“ said Michael Keegan, a social scientist and spokesman for the group Don’t Waste Michigan, which is one of several groups that object to the development of a new reactor. “We need to have baseline health studies done and monitor for the occurrence of radionuclides in the environment,” he said.

“That is pretty alarming,” Keegan said when told about the cancer stats provided by MCDH. “The question is what is the causal agent.”

The answer is not known.

The federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is responsible for overseeing operations at nuclear plants such as Fermi and has “adopted limits for nuclear emissions and exposure established by the international scientific community,” according to spokeswoman Viktoria Mytling. Agency protocols require that plant operators submit reports about radiation levels at the plant and carry out periodic inspections of the plant.

Levels of radiation above those considered safe by the NRC have never been detected around any of the state’s five reactors, according to Bob DeHaan, chief of the Radiological Assessment Division of the state Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). DeHaan’s division measures radiation in the air, water and cow’s milk near nuclear plants. Small amounts of radioactive iodine, an isotope associated with nuclear power plants, have been detected in cow’s milk around Fermi and across the state, he said.

“None of the environmental levels are in excess of what NRC says is allowable,” DeHaan said.

DeHaan declined to comment on the Monroe cancer statistics, saying, “I am not an epidemiologist.”

Though the radiation levels may be low, they are a source of concern for some in the area.

“Sometimes we hear from patients that there are other people with similar cancers in their area,” said Dr. Jeffrey Taub, a leukemia specialist at Children’s Hospital in Detroit, “but it is hard to link cancer to environmental causes.”

Dr. Janette Sherman, adjunct professor at Western Michigan University’s Environmental Institute and author of “Life’s Delicate Balance: Causes and Prevention of Breast Cancer,” has spent her career researching environmental causes of cancer. She said that cancer among young people should be viewed as an indicator for radiation problems associated with nuclear plants.

Radioactive isotopes such as iodine 131, cesium 137 and strontium 90 are passed on to people through cow’s milk, she said. “They come out of the stack and fall on the ground. They permeate the water and are eaten in food.”

Michigan cow (Photo: Technically Nina via Flickr.com)

Michigan cow (Photo: Technically Nina via Flickr.com)

Children are particularly vulnerable to this radiation, she said. “It doesn’t take 40 years to get leukemia if you are a kid.”

Sherman said that her analysis of leukemia statistics in the United States indicates that kids living near power plants are more likely to get the disease.

Sherman said that the rise in cancer rates around Fermi is significant.

“I think people ought to be concerned,” she said. “We don’t need to have nuclear power. We have solar and wind and conservation.”

Sherman’s findings relate to those of a 2007 German study that was touted by that country’s Federal Office for Radiation Protection as “the most painstakingly designed and most exhaustive survey worldwide.”

This study, published by the German Childhood Cancer Registry in 2007, found that the rate of leukemia for children under 5 years old who live within 3.1 miles of nuclear reactors is twice the rate experienced by children in the region as a whole. But the study concluded that the increase could not be directly attributed to nuclear activity.“People in our research division have reviewed the study and concur with its conclusions,” said NRC spokeswoman Mylting.

Dr. Rebecca Head, health officer for the Monroe County Health Department, said that the health department is not involved with cancer cases.

“If there really is an increase in the rate of cancer then I would expect the state to either do their own study or call in the federal agency associated with the CDC,” she said.

The CDC’s Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry “can sometimes come in and do studies to find out what is going on and whether they can attribute it to any factor,” she said “We don’t have money to do our own program much less to take on an expensive survey.”

MDCH spokesman James McCurtis said that his agency is not involved in investigating cancer trends in Monroe County and that agency epidemiologists generally only initiate investigations when asked to do so by county health departments.

John Austerberry, a spokesman for DTE Energy, told Michigan Messenger that he was unaware that state data shows rising cancer rates among young people in Monroe.

“I had not heard of that,” he said. “I don’t think that we undertake studies of that nature because it is being done by a number of government agencies.”

In comments submitted to the NRC at a recent open house about plans for a new reactor, Joe Mangano, a New Jersey-based public health expert with the Radiation and Public Health project, urged an investigation of cancer rates in Monroe County.

“Those who create a poison are responsible for demonstrating that it is safe (this is the Precautionary Principle in public health),” Mangano told Michigan Messenger in an e-mail exchange. “But instead of utilities and the NRC conducting studies, they set an arbitrary limit of radiation emissions and exposure, and declare any levels below this to be ‘safe.’ Neither utilities nor the NRC conducts health studies — they don’t even monitor local cancer rates near reactors — and they strongly criticize any studies that suggest harm.”

Comments

  • DavidKraft

    It is of great importance to pay attention to the careful language used by officials and agency representatives in this article, all of which are designed to assuage public concern and deflect any responsibility for action and without acknowleding anything but the “official line”.
    Utility spokesperson Austerberry was “unaware.”
    “MDCH spokesman James McCurtis said that his agency is not involved in investigating cancer trends…” and would only do so only if and when asked.
    “Dr. Rebecca Head, health officer for the [MCHD], said that the health department is not involved with cancer cases,” and “would expect the state…or…the federal agency ” to do the work — i.e., it's somebody else's problem.
    Bob DeHaan, chief of the Radiological Assessment Division of the state Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) says “None of the environmental levels are in excess of what NRC says is allowable.”
    Exposure to ionizing radiation has been linked to all but two cancers known to humankind, as well as a huge inventory of other non-cancer related conditions. That the public officials charged with protcting the public health and safety are content to play “pass the buck” and hide behind what is “allowable” rather than what is SAFE as a standard is despicable and unconscionable. And it comes at a time when what levels are considered “allowable” by the NRC are coming under serious criticism as being far too lax.
    It is time to implement the precautionary principle with KNOWN carcinogenic agents like ionizing radiation. This calls for errring on the side of public safety, and not on the side of nuclear utility profiteering.

  • KatlinB

    I am a member of Don't Waste Michigan and we are fighting Fermi 3. I just added a link to our website about fermi.
    There is a lot of info on the site to help in fighting Fermi 3.
    http://www.fermi.homestead.com

  • KatlinB

    ps. this article is listed on the resource page of the website with other articles about cancer and fermi.
    http://www.fermi.homestead.com
    please visit the site to see how you can help stop fermi 3. We don't need another nuclear power plant.

  • jhv1

    First of all I am pro nuclear, anti nuclear groups will ie and deceive you over a bunch of bull. Anti's use scare tactics for helping to sway people to their way of thinking, which is usually incorrect because of insufficient study or back up. Monroe county has alot of industry which is harmful to your health (Steel, Coal Fire, Ford Plant) this coupled with the flow of water and air from Detroit plays an additional part in anthing above normal. First off, what is normal? where is this normal derived from? did we mention run off of pesticides and fertilizers from farms. To scare the people into thinking Fermi alone is the lone cause is CRIMINAL on this articles part. A thourough study needs to find a culprit, should one exist. Now for the buble popper….I have been involved in many environmental sudies including nuclear industry near communities and additional industrial hazards in confines of communities….after 30 years I would rather live by a nuclear plant than a papermill….trust me, this has been long studied and at various plants in different parts of the country, do not listen to these anti wackos with this unfounded dirt. LONG LIVE FERMI III

    • Rayne1

      First, let’s point out for people who are not familiar with Michigan that there are a lot of other municipalities in this state that are quite similar to Monroe, having the same kinds of industries and agriculture (the lack of diversity in industry has been a problem for this state’s economic prospects). The two things that truly differentiate Monroe from these other municipalities are cancer rates and an active nuclear power plant.

      Second, as editor I’m going to point out that the commenter here is employed by a power generation company, as evidenced by their email address and the IP address from which they posted their comment. They have a vested interest in the status quo and have not shared their conflict of interest clearly.

      Michigan Messenger stands by the reporting in this article.

    • http://www.michiganmessenger.com Managing Editor

      First, let’s point out for people who are not familiar with Michigan that there are a lot of other municipalities in this state that are quite similar to Monroe, having the same kinds of industries and agriculture (the lack of diversity in industry has been a problem for this state’s economic prospects). The two things that truly differentiate Monroe from these other municipalities are cancer rates and an active nuclear power plant.

      Second, as editor I’m going to point out that the commenter here is employed by a power generation company, as evidenced by their email address and the IP address from which they posted their comment. They have a vested interest in the status quo and have not shared their conflict of interest clearly.

      Michigan Messenger stands by the reporting in this article.

  • jhv1

    Thirdly, as I do work in the power generation industry, hence, (thats how people perform studies and come to conclusions based upon what they do!!!) I however have basis formed on studies, findings and scientific information. Unlike, reporters or anti's that fabricate stories or try scare tactics for interest in their own personal adgenda's. Further more, I was not always an employee to the power industry I have employed by special interest groups, I hope the people will llisten to someone who has actually been part of these concerns instead of the ones who really, have no clue. I still find it criminal that the people are being led to think that a nuclear plant is the cause. To actually perform a study, you have to cover all bases, and then come to the correct conclusions based upon findings. To not do this, especially if it is a health risk and could cause death (which I really believe this article is based to scare people) is especally criminal. I have performed studies for special interest, government and privitized industry at 23 different nuclear plants (not as an employee to the utility) and have found that the radiation levels (above background, natural decaying radiation) was not any more than the natural decaying radiation sources (such as food, soil elements, water, etc.) and yes, radiation is nothing more than energy. I have found residential closest to the plants offer the above findings. I have also found that workers in plants, who receive industrial doses, way above the normal people who do not work there have no more cancer than the people in the surrounding areas. Nuclear plant workers actually have less cancer ratings than, say, someone who works with chemicals, molting steels, industrial epoxies, insulation, etc. So the next question is? whay have none of the prior questions been answered? what studies have you performed to associate the true cause (if one exists?), If all you can say is, this is a case of vested interest or I currently work for a power organization then you are truley criminal and your story has no merit. Most anti's will blow off the truth or reasoning in such cases.

    • Rayne1

      You said,

      Nuclear plant workers actually have less cancer ratings than, say, someone who works with chemicals, molting steels, industrial epoxies, insulation, etc.

      This article is about data showing an increase in cancer rates among youth under 25 years of age; this should not be conflated with adults, whether nuclear plant employees or chemical industry workers. The data has yet to be disputed by other studies; we'll happily look at other legitimate studies as they become available.

      In the mean time, accusing us of criminal behavior is not rational; please point to local, state or federal law which says that exercising a First Amendment right to report on data provided by a public entity is a criminal act.

  • jhv1

    I contacted a friend in the Michigan Health Center, he was a long time scientist who has worked for special interest groups developing industry based information pertaining to hazards. he has performed many studies linked to radiation, asbestosis, and mesothelioma. Fortunately, he is also a long time resident of the Monroe area, as was I. I grew up in Monroe and left in the early 1980's due to the economy and returned in the early 1990's for an additional 8 years, before moving south. He said that actually Monroe is NOT in “cancer concern” stage and actually Monroe is lower than alot of the counties in Michigan…..read it for your selves, the link he gave me is www. mqthealth.org. Isnt the internet great for doing your own research, this is what was missing from the 1980's when the anti's preyed heavily on the unknowing, and with little ways to perform research.

    • Rayne1

      As a news outlet our aspiration is that public and corporate entities alike take a closer look at what is a documented, disconcerting and unusual increase in cancer among youth and develop an effective action plan to halt the trend. To point to an opportunity for improvement in our public health monitoring is an essential role of the Fourth Estate, hardly “criminal”.

      The internet is indeed great for research but only if one knows what they're doing and they can vet their sources. The link provided in your comment is not relevant; it's for Marquette County Health Department, located at the other end of the state of Michigan, and as far as I can see, contains no info related to the cancer rates in youth in Monroe.

      “Michigan Health Center” — care to be a bit more specific? is that a state agency, a nonprofit, a for-profit, what? because that doesn't come up as a recognizable standalone agency. Perhaps you might consider contacting the Michigan Department of Community Health in Lansing and ask about the data used in this report, rather than trying to avoid it.

  • VOR94

    Interesting…

    I've heard similar statements about the Adrian area, in Lenawee County. Has anyone ever done studies of the cancer rates around the Adrian Chemical plants? Especially down wind…

    PS – jhv1 – God Bless America, and the right to question a nuclear plant. You've got some good points, but you sound like a borderline wacko, thinking that you know it all yourself. Scientific studies don't prove something is safe. They show evidence that the criteria evaluated are safe. Perhaps your blind obedience has over looked a thing or two. There may be more going on here than measurable ionizing radiation.

    What about particulates from the cooling towers, from Lake Erie, which are ejected into the surrounding air?

    Not to mention that WE ARE CREATING NUCLEAR WASTE WHICH WILL EXIST FOR 10,000 YEARS. You're placing stewardship and management of that waste as a burden onto our children, and 1000's of generations afterwards. Currently, you're storing it on our lakeshore!

    • jhv1

      Speaking of wackos, excuse me but, scientific studies are better than firing from the hip. Its like listening to your neighbor about being sick or do you go to a doctor who has an educated point of view on things? Not only that but, would you form an opinion from someone who does not do their homework or someone who does. But, let me tell you, the stuff coming from the cooling towers is not particulate, it is steam only, there can be nothing more. It is the secondary cooling side to the reactor….maybe you should do your homework???

      • VOR94

        I guess we shouldn't listen to jhv1, because you don't do your homework.

        I know for a fact that there are particulate concerns with the cooling tower. I know for a fact that EPA and DEQ have been asked to evaluate these particulates. The cooling water contains particulates, which are released as the water is evaporated.

        What's your answer to nuclear waste, jhv1? Oh wait, you don't have one. You're foisting your toxic, radioactive wastes on 1000's of generations afterwards… Nice.

        • jhv1

          I am glad the responses are as they are. If you really think there is particulate contamination from the cooling towers, it just goes to show, you are not educated enough on the subject to discuss it. If you would further read or “do your homework” you would find that not only do we have solutions to waste such as processing and burning the by product waste in other forms of reactors but, we do have storage places that politicians keep playing games with. If you really think we can not survive, energy wise, without nuclear at this time in an energy crisis, or with the lack of renewable technology, you do need to “do your homework”.

          • Rayne1

            If you read DTE's April 2008 brochure, they are going to start storing spent nuclear waste on site in 2010:

            All spent fuel produced by Fermi 2 is stored in a spent-fuel pool which is located on the site of the plant. In late 2010, the plant’s original spent-fuel pool will no longer have the capacity to hold a full fuel load from the reactor, should that become necessary.

            To provide a more permanent solution for spent-fuel storage, DTE Energy supports the Department of Energy’s recommendation that the Nevada-based Yucca Mountain site be developed as the federal deep geologic nuclear waste disposal facility. The site has been studied exhaustively for 20 years and those studies show that Yucca Mountain is a suitable site for construction of the nuclear waste management facility. To date, Detroit Edison customers have paid more than $110 million to the federal government to fund construction and operation of a longterm disposal facility. The proposal is currently stalled in Congress.

            “Playing games with” and “stalled in Congress” might suggest that members of Congress have serious concerns about the proposals that aren't resolved by DTE. Apparently the solution(s) aren't that clear cut. Perhaps instead of haranguing other commenters here you might consider providing real data and details about solutions; it might go a long way towards convincing readers that the nuclear energy industry is relevant and safe.

            Given that nuclear power plants produce only 19% of the electricity the U.S. uses, I wouldn't tout nuclear power as a necessity (except that you count on it for your own job); most households could save that much power by changing their usage habits and improving weatherization around their homes. I'd also like to see where we are in the middle of an energy crisis — point to a report which says this. We are not currently experiencing brownouts or blackouts, are we?

          • jhv1

            Actually, I dont need nuclear for a job, and havent for quite some time. Do you really think that 20% (actually) of the energy needs can be cut by weather proofing your home? Thats a good one! Actually, in Michigan, the economy is so bad that I really dont think people have the funds to weather proof their homes, that they might lose soon. Haranguing commenters? well i wouldnt classify it as such, if you believe having an arguement with someone who has a diiferent view is such, well, too bad, I call it having my own beliefs. With the projection of additional homes and business' , industry, etc, we are in an energy crisis, maybe you should read something more than the anti group propaganda. Get used to it, there are plants going to be built, the people are looking at nuclear as a green energy (look at the green peace people, who have changed their minds) so really, you really need to provide the educational support to your arguements, it would help also, instead of trying to fool the public with garbage to actually provide facts.

          • Rayne1

            Your employer's profitability relies directly on the nuclear power industry (do they realize you are using their email system to comment? or is that part of your gig?). So yes, you do need nuclear power for your job.

            Your comments are a harangue when they border on ad hominem attacks without providing any educational value (try citing some studies for a change to make your case).

            As stated in an earlier comment, this article is about data showing an increase in cancer rates among youth under 25 years of age within proximity of the Fermi nuclear power plant in Monroe, Mich. The data has yet to be disputed by other studies; we'll happily look at other legitimate studies as they become available.

            As a news outlet our aspiration is that public and corporate entities alike take a closer look at what is a documented, disconcerting and unusual increase in cancer among youth and develop an effective action plan to halt the trend. To point to an opportunity for improvement in our public health monitoring is an essential role of the Fourth Estate.

          • jhv1

            Actually, I did quote a study, and it does include all counties in Michigan, if you would have read all the comments, you may have been able to comprehend a little more than you do. As far as harangue, you seem to do quite well at doing this to people who comment on your articles. This is plainly evident. I find this a tactic used quite often by anti groups and anti propaganda such as your paper. I want people who read junk articles to know the truth, as far as it goes, if anyone is still reading this thread, which has been pretty well beat up, learn the truth on the web site, which was referenced earlier….bye and good luck

          • Rayne1

            A real citation would include at a minimum a link to a source if available on the internet; it would be nice if you could also furnish the name of a publication or authors or any other details in a citation, particularly if the source is not on the internet. Going back through your comments I can't see that you made any attempt to provide a real citation other than the broken link to Marquette County Health Department's main page posted here in comments six days ago. (Still waiting for a corrected link on that, by the way; how long does it take you to figure out how to link to a working website containing a study?)

            Reading through your comment history in Disqus, it's also apparent you have a habit of negative comments with a similar lack of supporting documentation at other sites with energy production stories you don't care for. I notice you avoided any response as to whether this was your gig — are you paid by Southern Company to use their resources to post these kinds of comments?

            We'll be here, waiting for responses.

  • Arcs_n_Sparks

    Anyone care to discuss how much radiation goes into the air from fossil power plants? Why are we not recycling spent fuel that still has ~95% of its original energy content? Last time I looked, most of the toxic waste products from fossil fuel plants have INFINITE half-lives.

  • Inform

    Why hasn't an ASTDR Health Consultation been requested? That's a significant increase in cancer and it needs to be evaluated.
    http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/consult.html

  • Pingback: EUA: Usina nuclear suspeita pelo aumento de casos de câncer | Portal EcoDebate

  • Pingback: The Energy Net » Top 100 Energy Stories (Feb 16th – 22nd)

  • Pingback: EUA: Usina nuclear suspeita pelo aumento de casos de câncer « Henrique Cortez Weblog

  • g2busmc

    Well sheeple, if somthings bad for you the gov't will lie to you and tell you it's good for you, sorta like floride in the water. I personally dont believe a word the gov't says when it comes to stuff harming people, as they will go to grreat lenght and expend tons of money to cover up the problem. It does not take a genius to see that fermi is probably the cause of the rise of cancer. Well with that being said my job in the Marines is site security, i will be coming home at the end of the month, and i am wondering if anyone knows of any site security jobs. if so please let me know. [email protected] thank you Tyler

  • penelope_b

    I grew up in this area, attended Jefferson and I can absolutely say that there was a RIDICULOUS amount of cancer in young people below 30, and as we grow older the amount of people getting cancer before 40 also seems preposterous.

    I talked to someone about it, and they weren't convinced it was a problem with Fermi, but thought it might have something to do with construction materials at Jefferson High.

    Who knows. But I'm sick of my friends and acquaintences struggling and dying like this…so young.

    • http://www.EcoReality.org/wiki/User:Jan_Steinman Jan Steinman

      Likewise, I was eleven years old, living under five miles from Fermi 1 when it melted down. I was in a band with a guy whose father worked there at the time. They were in a panic, working around the clock, ignoring safety procedures, not wearing dose badges, etc.

      Within a decade, most of those working through that “event” (as the NRC calls it) are dead of cancer. My friend’s father (Phil Harrigan) died in his early ’50′s of leukemia, less than a decade after the “event.”

      The problem with such things is that it is almost impossible to link “cause and effect.” You only have statistics to go on, so the “Precautionary Principle” should apply.

  • x3eemguy

    A tends to be bleak, with most individuals dying from the disease within a year after diagnosis. However, there are some who will live a decade or more with this deadly form of cancer. Why the discrepancy in prognosis? As with most cancers, the earlier it is detected, the better the outcome.

    There may be hope for those suffering from mesothelioma though. A diagnosis does not mean death. Many new drugs are being used to help treat the disease and may improve the mesothelioma prognosis greatly. Mesothelioma prognosis, has the most up to date, important information surrounding Mesothelioma, Mesothelioma doctors and symptoms, Mesothelioma treatment, and Mesothelioma tests and research and it is your resource for Mesothelioma attorneys and lawyers, asbestos cancer, asbestos exposure, asbestos removal, asbestos lawsuits, and asbestos attorneys.

    http://www.med5.net

  • http://www.neuroaid.com Stroke Treatment

    A lot of people fail to realize that in the 1900s, there was only 1 in 100 person that contracted Cancer. In the 1950s, it was 1 in every 30 but since year 2000 the rate has been increased to one in 3. It's a combination of environment, the food, the air we breath and the water we drink. Obviously radiation is the fast way to get infected.

  • AngelinaBellew

    Men should be gentlemen all the time. And women should blind date uncensored not take long to prepare for their date and do not keep their men waiting.

  • PalmGerald

    Nuclear plants are known to increase the cancer rate in the immediate area. But that can only add up to farmers that are buying steroids for their life stock making them grow a lot faster. Radiation from the plant along with chemicals pumped food that we eat may be the cause of the growing cancer rate.

  • PalmGerald

    Nuclear plants are known to increase the cancer rate in the immediate area. But that can only add up to farmers that are buying steroids for their life stock making them grow a lot faster. Radiation from the plant along with chemicals pumped food that we eat may be the cause of the growing cancer rate.

  • PalmGerald

    Nuclear plants are known to increase the cancer rate in the immediate area. But that can only add up to farmers that are buying steroids for their life stock making them grow a lot faster. Radiation from the plant along with chemicals pumped food that we eat may be the cause of the growing cancer rate.

  • Anonymous

    thank you for this very informative post and thank for sharing

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000993382043 Shanell Martin

    PLEASE READ!!!! we lived by the fermi for 8yrs and now my 4yr old daughter was diagnosed on monday april 11th at childrens hospital of michigan with a very rare cancer like lukemeah but worse its called myelodysplastic syndrome.MDS for short.if she dont get a bone marrow she will die in 3yrs,we lived right by the fermi while i was pregnet with her and for the first 4yrs of her life,and now she is dying….i blame the fermi i beleve tht she is sick because of the fermi and im willing to join any study i have to to prove that the fermi is to blame…..my email is [email protected]..any info anyone can send me would be great,thank u