EIA Report: Renewables Surpass Nuclear Output

Ken Bossong, SUN DAY Campaign
July 05, 2011 | 102 Comments

According to the most recent issue of the "Monthly Energy Review" by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), renewable energy has passed a milestone as domestic production is now greater than that of nuclear power and is closing in on oil.

During the first quarter of 2011, renewable energy sources (biomass/biofuels, geothermal, solar, water, wind) provided 2.245 quadrillion Btus of energy or 11.73 percent of U.S. energy production. More significantly, energy production from renewable energy sources in 2011 was 5.65 percent more than that from nuclear power, which provided 2.125 quadrillion Btus and has remained largely unchanged in recent years. Energy from renewable sources is now 77.15 percent of that from domestic crude oil production, with the gap closing rapidly.

Looking at all energy sectors (e.g., electricity, transportation, thermal), production of renewable energy, including hydropower, has increased by 15.07 percent compared to the first quarter of 2010, and by 25.07 percent when compared to the first quarter of 2009. Among the renewable energy sources, biomass/biofuels accounted for 48.06 percent, hydropower for 35.41 percent, wind for 12.87 percent, geothermal for 2.45 percent, and solar for 1.16 percent.

Looking at just the electricity sector, according to the latest issue of EIA’s "Electric Power Monthly," for the first quarter of 2011, renewable energy sources (biomass, geothermal, solar, water, wind) accounted for 12.94 percent of net U.S. electrical generation -- up from 10.31 percent during the same period in 2010. Non-hydro renewables accounted for 4.74 percent of net U.S. electrical generation.

In terms of actual production, renewable electrical output increased by 25.82 percent in the first three months of 2011 compared to the first quarter of 2010. Solar-generated electricity increased by 104.8 percent, wind-generated electricity rose by 40.3 percent, hydropower output expanded by 28.7 percent, and geothermal electrical generation rose by 5.8 percent. Only electricity from biomass sources dropped -- by 4.8 percent. By comparison, natural gas electrical output rose by 1.8 percent and nuclear-generated electricity increased by only 0.4 percent while coal-generated electricity dropped by 5.7 percent.

102 Comments

Dr. A. Cannara
July 28, 2011

Someone unable to rise above "Anonymous" talks about "honesty"? Really. 10,000 comedians out of work and what do we have!?

Then we have the religious advertiser -- what can one say about a self-appointed "God's Little Helper"?

Your obtuse remarks suggest you know your own weakness of argument.

Those of us who understand the value of facts support many sources of power, including local solar & improved nuclear. Sorry to be concerned with reality rather than ignorant bias. But relax, you'll benefit from the many others who do in fact work from honest appraisals of nature.

Oh, and keep eating those bananas -- their 40K will mask any radiation you pick up from Fukushima or even Chernobyl.
;]

Paul Felix Schott
July 28, 2011

I will take note if i need one that is a mouthpiece for the nuclear industry that has been payed to speak about what the world no longer wants. We know where you are. Solar Energy Is a bright Light to the World why be part of the Dull Scope.
The world (disapproval) of Nuclear is something you cannot accept. Financial advisers and consulted for Nuclear are now a DIME A DOZEN and boring Look for a new Brighter Career Solar Energy. i to have been a mouthpiece, many times for are Lord GOD Jesus Christ
and the Good never taking a penny for it.
The Lord's little Helper
Paul Felix Schott

ANONYMOUS
July 28, 2011

Hi:

The good doctor likes to tout honesty. What about twisting facts and leaving out important concepts. Tainted sprouts will never work their way through the DNA food chain for decades upon decades like C137 does.
I would rather play Russian Roulette with a water pistol loaded in every chamber, than a real gun with 1000 chambers and one lead bullet.
The simple problem that anyone knows with the Nuke option is when the worst happens the damage is non reversible and horrific in its symptoms to life, forever.
Since you are so IN LOVE with the nuke option and its potential for profit, why don't you go buy some land around Chernobyl or Fukushima and live there with ALL your family members.
It would be great to have willing subjects. After all, what's to fear!! We can study you as you slip away from cancer to cancer, operation to operation.. They could make a reality show of it. They can call it, 'The Atomic Subjects: Death during Life.', to air on the Fox network.... Its a hit, I can see it now...

Dr. A. Cannara
July 28, 2011

Paul's enterprising alert to dangers of mismanagement is laudable. Let's see, how many died at GE's plant?

In contrast, the Germans' "alarm horns" also failed to sound as many folks there were fed tainted sprouts from Saxony. 18 or so died.

How many German's have ever died working in, or living near, German nukes? You know the answer Paul -- same as at your GE site.

So, indeed: "How smart are we if we play like we are the smartest yet lose your Soul" to fibbery & misrepresentation & disingenuousness? Paul?

Honesty about reality is the mark of true science & engineering, and is their soul. Remarks like Paul's are political propaganda, which we know have no soul.

Paul Felix Schott
July 21, 2011

Homeland Security Daily Open Source Infrastructure Report for 21 July 2011

Nuclear Reactors, Materials and Waste Sector
9. July 19, 2011 – (North Carolina) GE unit halts nuclear fuel output over alarm hitch. General Electric Co's nuclear fuel unit Global Nuclear Fuels (GNF) has suspended manufacturing since July 14 at its North Carolina facility after warning horns failed to operate properly during a safety system test, GNF reported to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The report posted on the commission Web site explained that the alarm system at the facility north of Wilmington failed to immediately activate the horns as designed during the test. GNF said the problem was a hardware failure, specifically a capacitor on a circuit board, and the system had been repaired. All production activities were shut down and personnel were being kept away from the manufacturing area, the company said. In its report to the NRC, the company said it had determined that problems with the warning system had existed at the time of previous tests in May and June, but at the time they were "not adequately identified and thus not reported". Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/19/nuclear-ge-idUSN1E76I0JA20110719

How smart are we if we play like we are the smartest yet lose your Soul.

The Lord's Little Helper
Paul Felix Schott

david walters
July 20, 2011

It is OFF TOPIC. You could post this nonsense to any blog on the web with your POV. I want to discuss renewable energy, not god, gods or godesses. It is an intellectual arrogance for you to try to HIJACK this discussion.

The term for this is "pollution". When you introduce a theme in a thread that is *obviously* outside the parameters of any discussion. Stop, please.

Phil Manke
July 20, 2011

You may think this complicates our world view, but I disagree. It makes it far easier to grasp in my own mind. If I accept that I made the world, (in my mind), I must also accept that I am responsible for it, this world I see. As such, I am free to change the world I see,nand accept that my opinion of the world is only that, my opinion. It is not reality, just what I think I see of it.
I see so many minds attempting to establish omniscient world views for government and energy production on the REW blog. yet, perhaps many can work in their own way, if we accept that they are attempts at achieving happiness, which all world views reach for.
We may reach a concensus that there is a conciousness in us that has a common acceptance in mind beyond the separate one we made. When this happens, a rapid escalation of world co-operation may ensue. At the least, it may occur for those who accept it and extend it as their own. Contrary to some often held belief, their is no fear in this mindset, which I believe is what limits advancement. Fighting what we think is wrong is wrong. We can just let it go, and merely support what we believe is right instead. The essence of democracy, I feel. Perhaps it is best summed up in this way;
Nothing real can be threatened.
Nothing unreal exists.
Herein lies the Peace Of God.

Dr. A. Cannara
July 20, 2011

Gotta love it: "because we do not understand" gets rephrased as: "belief in what we think we are determines what we believe, and what we believe this world is for."

Convoluted? Self referential? Apart from the hubris, for a species very new to this planet (and not doing so well), the writers play with words with abandon, apparently not realizing both the incompleteness all our thinking entails.

david walters
July 20, 2011

Introducing religious themes here, god-belief, etc is totally outside the bounds of this discussion. It's a distraction from the serious issues raised in THIS entry. Really, take it someplace else. If you notice no one is responding to any of this.

Phil Manke
July 20, 2011

Well, it may not seem appropriate for this blog, but at the same time, everything hinges on it. I.E., the belief in what we think we are determines what we believe, and what we believe this world is for. ( I had another (over)2K char's deleted on this). Our spiritual makeup and understanding is crucial to getting along in an ever more populated and seemingly diverse world. Yet, as many differences as we seem to have, there are certain common characteristics that are humanly universal. Until we understand this more fully, we may not be able to get along with the common respect necessary on this crowded rock. I must balance this with the perception that I am some sort of "know-it-all". Not so at all. I am merely tapping into the conciousness that we all have within our "God given Mind".
Why look at it? Because not understanding this, is the reason, or rather the lack of reason, that brings us all the pain and suffering in the world today, and it will get worse before it gets better. Their is an expression in the ministry that says; "the egos tolerance for pain is high, but it is not without limit". This tipping point is reached in many of our minds at various times.
My point is that we must continually look at our "stuff" we generate to decide what of it is real and what is not. Every thot comes under one of two catagories in the mind of man, if sanity is valued; real or unreal. Only what is real is true. Only what is false is not true. On the face of it this must seem obvious, but yet many of us believe in partial reality, and this gives us a split in conciousness that can only be described as insanity because it expects what is impossible to happen, and yet for the mind versed in illusion, it can almost seem to be true, so good are we at making illusions seem real. We begin this process at a very early age, and call it "loss of innocense". Perhaps because "in no sense" is it real. (and college philosophy only looks at many "theorems of reality").

William Fitch
July 20, 2011

Hi:

Normally once I EOL a thread, I do not return.... and I don't break this rule... however in this case I will comment not on the topic of the thread but Phils last "remarks". JC Phil.!! Where are you going with this..??.. Don't get me wrong, I loved Philosophy in College... one of my best subjects... however all this has nothing to do with the progression of special interests in this country in ALL areas, not just energy.
FACTS:
The middle class is being systematically wiped out.
The Tea Party is the party for corporations.
The Democratic party is a party for corporations.
The same puppeteers hold the strings. They make them appear different for the illusion of choice, but in the end game all that is left is those on the inside of the castle walls and those on the outside... no middle.
We are in the beginnings of a real class revolution in this country. The current fabricated debt ceiling fiasco is going to gut main stay programs for the middle class and poor while benefiting corporations. The illusion of reps vs dems with the dems being the good guys is a rouse, so that when the dems finally get "their" choosen package, the masses will think all is well and fine. Remember Wall Street was/is one of Obama's biggest contributors. Look at the ban on Fracking in NY being lifted by Cuomo!! His tall Blonde girl friend food channel success and who she is the paid mouth piece for!! This list is endless and is taking this country down. The pay off is in from the Supreme court on down. No place in Government is left untouched!! Remember the movie, "The Pelican Brief". Compared to what has already been done in the real world, that movie is a bedtime fairy tail of "light" proportions.
Your above concerns... OK fine but get with the real devastating problems that are right at the door step. They are 100% real, in your face with NO DOUBT or belief required!!!

.....Bill

Phil Manke
July 20, 2011

Oh my. "Must banish talk of gods because we do not understand." Such is the fear of people today. If you, or I, or anyone, believes God is unneccessary, the advancement of the human race is non-existant. The thot of not understanding God, who understands you, means we fear the idea, and are believing in nothing, because fear is the belief that closing off is beneficial, and being separate is valued. In the fearful mind their is no thought, only memory of the past, which is not creative at all. Yes, all the ideas of the world you believe you see with your eyes are nothing because they are based on belief in the past, that is remembered by a flawed and false mind. The false mind is so because it is insane, believing in two separate ideas about itself. The mind can heal the body, it is the only thing that can. But the body, which the separate mind believes in, cannot do anything without the direction of the mind. Yet, you did not make the part of your mind that is real. It was given to you before you thot of your will to make the mind apart, which free will gave you the right to do, even tho it is not real. This is the ego. It is not real because it is not shared or extended, which the one true mind does. It is not shared because it is not real. Only the true mind, or God, can be shared, because it is the only true mind, being based in truth itself.
Much false information about God is bantered about today, largely because of religion, which is a set of collective ego ideas to make a set of beliefs seem real. I feel better in a mind of de-ligion. All belief is a prison, and makes thot ridgid and unyielding. These ideas may seem to contradict all you have learned about the world, and this is largely true, because the world, as you believe it is, is an illusion made in your mind, and supported by all your thots and experiences from your past. Only reason supports what is true, and this you had when you began this life in a body.

Dr. A. Cannara
July 20, 2011

Interesting that "DOD" is but one letter away from "GOD".
;]

Despite that, talking about God (or Gods) is unnecessary and irrelevant, even weakening one's expressed opinions here.

Paul Felix Schott
July 19, 2011

News From the Pentagon Clean Fuel Energy From the Sun July 19, 2011
In Hawaii The Department of Defense will start to cover its Military Family Housing with Solar Energy. This will greatly help stop the need for Oil in the Hawaii Islands. This is just the start to the D.O.D. reducing its 4 billion dollar need for Dirty Energy. From now on the D.O.D. will look to Renewable Energy, Clean Energy. The Hawaiian Islands will see the Largest Solar covered homes and housing Roofs in the World 6,000 units. Thanks to William Lynn Deputy Secretary of the Defense and Steven Chu Secretary of Energy and to many others. The D.O.D. has some 300,000 building the day will come when all will be powered by Clean Energy. i can not thank all that made this happen enough.
GOD Bless
United We Stand In GOD We Will Always Trust
Story By
The Lord's Little Helper
Paul Felix Schott

Dr. A. Cannara
July 18, 2011

And, Paul, those of us engineers, environmentalists & scientists who've been working one way or another to see PV assume its very natural, reasonable place within & on communities, are happy too.

Paul Felix Schott
July 18, 2011

The United States Solar Energy Industry with its more cost effective PV and quick timely thinking by its CEO's into the Fastest Growing Industry in the World. Will in North American more then double that of 2010 by the end of this year 2011. Making photovoltaic installations the fastest growing jobs in us History.

Thank GOD

Dr. A. Cannara
July 18, 2011

Thanks for that health physics ref Rod. And for anyone wanting to read more on the subject, comment 33 above has more.

Rod Adams
July 18, 2011

@clee

The initial evacuation of the area immediately around Fukushima Daiichi was a prudent decision and it was well managed considering the circumstances.

Targeted evacuations of areas with measured radiation dose rates high enough to exceed normal nuclear worker allowable dose rates would probably make sense - those allowable limits are set way below the level at which any health effects can be detected.

Circular evacuation zones remaining in place months after reactors are shutdown is patently political and being used as a distraction by a government that is embattled because of many of its other poor decisions. Keeping people from their homes and telling them that it is because you are worried about their safety because of something done by the 'big bad power company' is a good way to deflect the criticism that the government deserves to receive.

The health effects of low level radiation have been widely exaggerated for many decades. Here is a link to a recent post about just one of many peer reviewed papers that are challenging our current standards and regulations as being based on very conservative assumptions made long before we knew much about the actual effects.

http://atomicinsights.com/2011/07/a-little-radiation-can-delay-cancer-until-after-you-are-dead-anyway.html

Those conservative assumptions were then gradually tightened over the years to make clean ups more expensive (that provides more revenue for the contractors who are doing the clean up) and to increase the cost of nuclear energy so that it would be less competitive with fossil fuel and stop taking so much market share from the dominant fossil fuel companies who considered the sales that nuclear was making 'theirs'.

Back to the main point - virtually no one should still be evacuated and kept from their home if the home is not otherwise damaged by the earthquake and tsunami.

Dr. A. Cannara
July 18, 2011

Just a comment on "negative affect of nuclear power is that it is of a centrally controlled nature" -- actually, not at all the necessity. Each of our nuclear-powered ships has a very modest reactor right in the midst of a captive community of as many as thousands of sailors.

Russia has had such as icebreakers for decades and is now floating a fleet of 300MW reactor ships to serve their arctic reaches, now that we've burned enough coal to melt the place.

Every spacecraft we send beyond the asteroid belt holds a nuke of some form, simply because solar out there is inadequate.

The military has long wanted reliable, shippable, nuclear power for theater support. And, the original salt reactor was designed for an atomic plane. There's no reason why safer versions of fission reactors can't be of industrial size and positioned close to such loads. This, in fact, is one of the goals of DoE's Generation-IV reactor designs, one of which is molten salt, capable of eliminating Uranium mining/processing & most waste.

Efficiency, local solar PV & storage and safe, local nukes fill the bill for thousands of years.

Rod Adams
July 17, 2011

@clee

While LILCO was certainly not blameless and its experience with a failed nuclear project was not completely unique, there were some special circumstances associated with the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.

The unions were corrupt. Often, the day shift found that the night shift had torn apart the work that the day shift had just completed.

There was a well funded and dedicated group of opponents that made every step take longer and cost more money. I have a post on my blog of an ad taken out in a local Long Island paper trying to scare people about nuclear energy, encouraging them to fight the plant and telling them that solar was a much better solution. At the bottom of the ad is a credit for the sponsor of the ad - the Oil Heat Institute of Long Island.

http://atomicinsights.com/2010/01/smoking-gun-part-18-an-oldie-but-a-goodie-oil-heat-institute-of-long-island-ad-using-scare-tactics-to-fight-shoreham.html

After about 15-20 years of difficult slogging, LILCO finally completed the plant and got a license to perform low power critical testing. However, when they we ready for their operating license so they could finally begin to generate at least some revenue from the plant, the a local or state official (I cannot remember which) named Cuomo refused to sign off on the evacuation plan. That prevented the plant from ever operating.

$5.9 billion down the drain because of a silly decision. The reason it was silly is because there would never have been any need to evacuate the area to protect human life. There were enough layers of protection to do the job, even with cascading failures of increasingly unlikely nature.

ANONYMOUS
July 17, 2011

Hello:

The biggest "devil" in this case I was referring to is actually the IAEA. They were/are in charge of any report from the UN as well as the WHO. The WHO has had an agreement with the IAEA from the 70's that any report they are going to issue that has a Nuclear aspect to it, must first be reviewed by the IAEA. Any studies that come to light outside this Fox guarded hen house gets ridiculed and down played if the data doesn't line up to their promotional agenda. It is a censored and controlled release of information much like the main stream journalists embedded with the USA forces in the Iraq war. All info released was filtered and areas of information restricted as well as even the physical areas they were even allowed into. So the news was always controlled and spewed the meanings to fit the "picture" the USA and allies wanted.
Aside from that overriding factor which is huge, there are many interesting areas to the report which people are free for themselves to look at providing they can get a clean download.
I remember seeing someone on this thread suggesting a pointless to argue aspect to conversing with pro Atomic people. I think I will take that to heart.

Rod Adams
July 17, 2011

@phil-manke

You, of course, have every right to that opinion. However, most Americans seem quite happy to off-load the responsibility of providing reliable electricity to others. They like having power whenever they want it, with the rather simple and affordable task of paying their bill each month. My dad, one of the most admirable and generous people I ever knew, was an electrical engineer with the local power company. He was proud to take part in storm training every month so that he could help restore electrical service after the hurricanes and tropical storms that occasionally knocked down the power lines in our South Florida home.

In addition to providing reliable, cost effective service to customers, most of the profits of the large enterprise that Dad worked for went to stockholders - at the time, electric utility stocks were favorites for widows and orphans because of their reliable dividend checks and non volatile prices. My widowed mother still gets checks from the stocks that dad bought in his employee investment account.

I happen to have been fortunate enough to have had a very close personal relationship with a rather modest sized nuclear power plant on board my submarine. It was a terrific and reliable shipmate.

Over the years, I have met several people who served at even smaller nuclear facilities in Antarctica and Greenland - those plants were tiny, with fuel rods that were only about as long as a man's arm. They were assembled in months, not years.

There is nothing about nuclear energy that is inherently centralized.

Everyone who fights against its use without understanding its nature is either purposely or unwittingly selling fossil fuel because that is the only alternative source if you really need reliable power. Industry, including the industry that produces solar panels, absolutely depends on having reliable power in order to do its work.

Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights

Phil Manke
July 17, 2011

Perhaps the greater negative affect of nuclear power is that it is of a centrally controlled nature, apart from the end user, and proffitably extractive of end user valuing, (going to whom?). You who favor it's use surely must have that profit motive in mind. It cannot be your will for perfect happiness, because their is fear in it, which is the same as any form of attack or war, no matter the cause.
Everyone who does not approve of nuclear produced energy is not a fossil fuel pusher. Previous statements about nuke safety are valued like hogwash, no matter the plethora of your "facts and non-proveable proof". It is of absolute corporate and government control, and that alone makes it murderous to the free will of man.

Rod Adams
July 17, 2011

@Anonymous (BTW - I really wish that people who want to engage in serious discussion would use their real names.)

My point is that even with all of the incompetence (or planned malice of forethought) associated with the destruction of the Chernobyl Unit 4 nuclear power plant, the consequences are no where near as bad as some people have aggressively promoted over the years.

Yes, there were several dozen deaths, many of which were caused by sending untrained people into dangerous areas without proper protective equipment. Many of the people who died as first responders were performing tasks that did not need to be done, especially at the risk of life. (I spent some time as a first responder and team leader for fires, flooding and other casualties while in the Navy.)

The general public outside of the gates of the facility were exposed to a dangerous, short lived radioisotope called I-131, which tends to concentrate in the human thyroid. If there are excessive levels of that isotope around, we know what to do about it - take potassium iodide tablets. (Do not do that unless there are elevated levels of I-131, however.) Do not drink milk and do not eat leafy vegetables until the material has had a chance to decay. It is completely gone in about 80 days.

Otherwise, there is no real risk to the general public. They should not have their lives significantly disrupted any more than they would be for a fire at a refinery or a leak at a chemical facility.

Nuclear energy is far safer than the alternatives for reliable power. The consequences of even the worst possible accident have proven that it acceptably safe.

It is also cleaner and cheaper.

Petroleum pushers have spent decades and tons of money convincing you otherwise.

Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights

Dr. A. Cannara
July 17, 2011

Just in support of what Rod has valiantly tried to get through, anyone bringing Chernobyl into a discussion of nuclear power anywhere else int he world simply exhibits ignorance or deviousness. No one but the Russians ever designed & ran inherently unstable reactors like those used in Chernobyl.

To cite Chernobyl as anything but evidence of designer, operator and emergency-responder incompetence is to suggest one take up fire breathing as a profession, and inhale.
;]
But, if someone actually wants to learn about the realities of natural & artificial radiation, these are useful...

Radiation and Health, T. Henriksen, H. Maillie, Taylor & Francis, New York, USA, 2003.

Radiation and Reason, W. Allison, York Publishing, York, UK, 2009.

And, a nice comparison of 3-Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima CT scans & bananas is here...
http://blog.xkcd.com/2011/03/19/radiation-chart/

Rod Adams
July 17, 2011

@Anonymous:

And here is what the UN Scientific Commission on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) study on Chernobyl says about solid cancers:

"(d) Conclusions
D196. There appears at present to be no persuasive evidence of any measurable increased incidence of all cancers combined or breast cancer alone among the general populations of the Russian Federation and Ukraine. There also appears to be no pattern of increased incidence of solid cancers among the inhabitants of the areas deemed contaminated compared to the inhabitants of the areas deemed uncontaminated, and no difference in the trends with time for areas with different levels of radioactive deposition.

D197. The evidence regarding any increased incidence of solid cancers among recovery operation workers is mixed. Although some groups showed elevated SIRs, statistically significant quantitative risks of increased cancer incidence per unit of additional dose have not been reported. In contrast, two Russian studies reported a dose dependence of the solid cancer mortality rate with a corresponding statistically significant ERR per unit dose."

After describing limitations and cautions, it continues:

"D199. Assessments of statistical power, based on the follow-up to date and using findings from the study of the survivors of the atomic bombings and other studies summarized in annex A of [U1], would suggest that doses in the general population are too low to yield sufficient statistical power to detect any measurable increase in the risk of all solid cancers combined among such individuals exposed to radioactive deposition after the Chernobyl accident. Certainly, empirical studies to date do not suggest that risks are substantially greater than those predicted by risk projection models."

By my way of understanding the world, the studies are saying that there is nothing worth worrying about compared to all of the other hazards of living on earth.

Rod Adams
July 17, 2011

@Anonymous:

Are there any particular details you think are valuable extractions from the 5.3 MB, couple hundred page document that you linked to? You quoted one of the sayings that Admiral Rickover often repeated - "the devil is in the details", but some people have a tendency to obfuscate with details when the conclusions disagree with their long-held catechisms. The report acknowledges a relationship between thyroid cancers and early exposure to I-131, especially for children.

Here is what it says about leukemia:

"D180. The interest in leukaemia arises because of its known sensitivity to induction by ionizing radiation and also because of its short latent period. So far, no persuasive evidence has been found to suggest that there is a measurable increase in the risk of leukaemia among those exposed in utero and as children. This is not unreasonable given that the doses involved were generally very small, and therefore epidemiological studies would lack sufficient statistical power for an effect to be observed.
D181. Amongst adults, the most meaningful evidence comes from the studies of recovery operation workers. At present, there is some evidence of a detectable effect among a group of recovery operation workers from the Russian Federation, but this is far from conclusive. It would therefore be premature to make a direct comparison between the data obtained from these studies directly with the risk estimates obtained from studies involving high doses and dose-rate (such as of the survivors of the atomic bombings). The limitations discussed earlier of the studies of the recovery operation workers must be borne in mind. Nevertheless, future results from studies of the recovery operation workers will, hopefully, provide meaningful data that can be compared with those from other studies."

Translation - "We did not find evidence of a significant effect after 20 years. However, keep giving us money and maybe we'll find something."

ANONYMOUS
July 16, 2011

Hello:

You might try actually reading the final report. As usual, the devil is in the details...

http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/11-80076_Report_2008_Annex_D.pdf