Public Exposure to U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants Induced Disasters

Abstract

This study explores the potential risks associated with the 65 U.S.-based commercial nuclear power plants and the distribution of those risks among the populations of both their respective host communities and of the communities located in outlying areas. First, it starts by examining the racial/ethnic composition of the host community populations, as well as the disparities in socioeconomic status that exist, if any, between the host communities and communities located in outlying areas. Second, it utilizes two independent-sample T tests to identify any differences in the sociodemographic compositions of the two areas. Third, it explores regional demographic trends by looking at the percent change in demographic variables in the host communities and communities located in outlying areas in 1990-2000 and 2000-2010. Findings reveal that during the past two decades more people were exposed to the risks as population living in the host communities increased.

A Longitudinal Study of Human Exposure to Potential Nuclear Power Plant Risk

“…The two distance areas are similar to those identified in the recent study of Kyne (2015). One is those areas within a 50-mile radius of any one of the 65 U.S.-based NPPs; the other is those areas outside of a 50-mile radius and yet that are located in the state(s) that fall within said 50-mile radius.…”

“…There are 20 permanently deactivated reactors located at NPPs that otherwise remain active. Kyne (2015) provided a notion that these 20 reactors do not pose the same level of risk as do reactors currently in operation, which pose increased risks as a result of their day-to-day operation, the possibility of core meltdown-type accident, and from their release of gaseous and liquid radioactive effluents. However, they could be regarded as a potential source of radiation risk from any spent fuel stored on site.…”

“…The racial/ethnic variables included the categories (1) White-Percent White as percent of all non-Hispanic Whites; (2) Black-Percent Black as percent of non-Hispanic Blacks or African Americans; (3) Asian-Percent Asian as percent of Asian, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; (4) Hispanic-Percent Hispanic as percent of people who are Hispanic origin; (5) Native American-Percent Native American as percent of American Indian or Alaska Native; (6) Other-Percent Other as percent of Some Other Race who are not included in the White, Black, or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander race categories, or whose identify themselves as multiracial, mixed, interracial, or a Hispanic or Latino group (for example, Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, or Spanish); and (7) Color-Percent Color as percent of all other races except non-Hispanic Whites. Similarly, the study included the socioeconomic variables that were also used in the study of Kyne (2015), which are renter-occupied housing, unemployment rate, percent living in poverty, mean household income, and percent composition at the census-tract level.…”

“…Another study variable was distance, which was measured as Euclidean distance in miles from the census-tract center point to the NPP using the ENVI's ArcMap program (Kyne 2015). The distance was used to investigate whether and how disparities in certain demographic characteristics were associated with the distance from a NPP.…”

“…(1) First, for demographic characteristics, data were obtained from the United States Census Bureau and GeoLytics (GeoLytics 2012a(GeoLytics , 2012b(GeoLytics , 2012c, which were also used in the previous study (Kyne 2015). The census tract level data allowed for comparison in the study years because the census tract boundaries are normalized to those of the 2010 data.…”