does+nuclear+energy+cause+cancer+-+arianna

No. They don’t. Adverse health and environmental effects, if any, are so small they can’t be observed, measured or determined in any way Not that this has stopped some people from pretending they do. The sad thing is when otherwise reputable journals and news outlets take them seriously.in 1989 resulted in lower cancer rates in the region, over 4,000 cases specifically, suggesting that nuclear power causes cancer. Mangano initially states that 28 cancer types out of 31 decreased over this time period, then admits only 14 were statistically significant, which means 14 out of 31 decreased since these types of comparisons are all about stastistics. Most damning is that even his own tables show that those cancers associated with radiation did not decrease at all. Even though he admits his results may have nothing to do with the nuclear plant, the guilt by association is clear and intentional. So the whole premise is false. The average dose received by the public from nuclear power is less than 0.0002 mSv/yr, which is about 10,000 times smaller than the total yearly dose received by the public from other background radiation. Eating a bag of potato chips a day gives you 100 times this level, but no one cares since the fat and salt will kill you a lot faster than any radiation. Washout by rain of radionuclides attached to particulates in the atmosphere is the main cause of dose to the public from nuclear reactors. The amount is extremely small and less than 1% of all other natural sources of radiation. Since the particulates travel great distances before they are washed out, even this small dose is not a function of distance from the power plant, but is randomized geographically. Of course, other things lead to decreases in cancer, and a coincidental closing of a nuclear power plant means nothing.

= video =

here is a diagram of what it look likes:
