Question:
Thyroid cancer. Tim ‘Flaherty has asked me several times to describe any dangers wind energy presents to people’s thyroid glands. I should note, that I never claimed wind energy represented a danger to person’s thyroid glands. Tim’s question seems to be in response to my assertions that wind energy isn’t inherently safe (as some claim) and that the safety of wind energy (as with all forms of energy) should be considered and measured and not just assumed. His question regarding thyroid dangers is an obvious comparison of the dangers of wind energy to the danger of nuclear energy due to the reports of increased thyroid tumors in the areas affected by the Chernobyl accident. This specific danger various energy sources present to in terms of one specific medical problem seems unusual to me. For example, hydro power doesn’t tend to kill children via respiratory illness, as does biomass energy, however, I would hesitate to compare the two energy sources based solely on that. Similarly, the fact that hydro energy causes more deaths due to drowning than biomass, wouldn’t justify saying, "biomass drowns less peopel than hydro, so it’s better." Thus, if a specific energy source represents no danger to people’s thyroid glands, and nuclear energy does, that would be only one data point in evaluating the relative safety of those energy sources. Never the less, Tim has raised an interesting question which deserves examination. The question seems rather important to him, as he’s asked it of me more than once, so (in spite of some 11 hour days, and 7 day weeks at work) I’ve spent some time on some research and some calculations regarding the question. I present the following for consideration and would greatly appreciate corrections, fine-tuning or other feedback. Causes and suspected causes of thyroid tumors include the following. -X-ray radiation exposure is a known cause. -Other sources of radiation are suspected to be potential causes of thyroid tumors. Radio iodide may cause thyroid cancer, if exposures are high enough, and if the person(s) exposed chooses to not consume sufficient dietary iodine or if the person is a child with parents who neglect to feed them sufficient dietary iodine. (Fortunately, during the first half of the 1990s, 1500 million additional people started to consume iodized salt. http://www.who.int/inf-fs/en/fact121.html) Thyroid tumors show no increase among those who’ve had radioiodine thyroid scans. People who have been diagnosed with thyroid cancer who have been treated with radio iodine (higher amounts than with diagnostics) do have a higher then average incidence of thyroid cancer years after the treatment. One would expect that people who have had thyroid cancer once (and were treated for it) would have a higher chance of getting it again than the average person would of contracting it a first time. Thus, while it is possible that the radio iodine used to cure the thyroid cancer may be a contributing factor in reoccurrence of the cancer some time later, there is insufficient information to conclude that at this point. -Potassium iodide in high enough doses is a known cause -Cigarette smoke is a known cause. -PCBs and furans are suspected causes. "Some of the people exposed to chemicals contaminated with dioxins and furans have also displayed other adverse effects on the skin, liver, thyroid, behavioural development, and reproductive and immune systems." http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ehp/ehd/catalogue/general/iyh/dioxins.htm -Stress is a known cause. -Ingested fluoride is a suspected cause. Thyroid lumps of all types among children in the area around Chernobyl have increased. The increase over expected thyroid lump rates is in the hundreds and it includes three deaths attributed to such lumps. Possible causes of this increase include any or all of the following: -Stress, due to the Chernobyl accident (from reactions to real and perceived dangers) and due to the evacuation of the area. -Increased exposure to second hand smoke. There is (anecdotal) evidence of increased smoking among those in the affected areas. Again though, there seems to be no good data to support or dismiss this factor, so it would be difficult to account for. -Raidio-iodine exposure due to the Chernobyl power plant accident. -Increased screening leading to detection of thyroid lumps which may have gone undetected without the increased screening. -Overdosing of children with medicinal potassium iodide (given with intent to prevent body absorption of radioidoide). Regarding furans and their danger to the thyroid gland: the third highest source of environmental furans is cement kilns. (http://www.awpi.org/pentacouncil/environment.html and http://www.awpi.org/pentacouncil/pentagraph2.html) I would note that a significant number of windmills use concrete towers and an even higher number use concrete bases. The short answer to Tim’s very interesting question is, yes, wind energy does present a possible danger to people’s thyroids. Nuclear power plants also use concrete, and thus also represent a possible thyroid danger do to this factor. It should be noted however, that nuclear energy tends to use hundreds of times less concrete, per watt delivered, than wind energy. (A 1,000-megawatt nuclear plant uses roughly 4,000 tons of concrete. http://www.newaus.com.au/news24f.html) A 1.5-megawatt offshore wind generator needs about 1,000 tons of concrete (http://www.windpower.dk/tour/rd/gravitat.htm). Assuming a capacity factor of 85% for the 1,000 megawatt nuclear plant and 25% for the 1.5 megawatt windmills (a high capacity factor for the windmills, but off shore wind plants tend to have a higher capacity factor than on shore ones) we get would need (1,000*.85)/(1.5*.25)/=2266.66. . ., or say roughly 2,200 windmills. They would use 1,000 tons of concrete each as apposed to the 4,000 tons for the nuclear plant, so we’d need roughly 500 times as much concrete for the windmills, and thus roughly 500 times as much furans produced, and thus roughly 500 times as much possible danger to people’s thyroids (with respect to the potential danger in kilning cement for the concrete only). Does this represent a significant potential danger to people’s thyroid glands? I don’t know, but I invite discussion on the matter. I do know though, that referring to wind energy as "safe" and "green" without such answers is wrong. — Karl Johanson, Victoria B.C. Canada -It’s okay to disagree with me. However, once I explain where you’re wrong you’re supposed to become enlightened & change your mind. Congratulating me on how smart I am is optional.
Response:
>Assuming a capacity factor >of 85% for the 1,000 megawatt nuclear plant and 25% for the 1.5 megawatt >windmills (a high capacity factor for the windmills, but off shore wind >plants tend to have a higher capacity factor than on shore ones) we get >would need (1,000*.85)/(1.5*.25)/=2266.66. . ., or say >roughly 2,200 windmills.
One significant safety issue to consider in building 2200 offshore windmills is drownings, particularly during storms. Consider also the high level of maintenance required on windmills, there will certainly be the issue of people falling from the towers. …Greig
Response:
oh no, save the workers, ban offshore wind turbines. — — Steve Spence Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter: http://www.webconx.com/subscribe.htm Renewable Energy Pages – http://www.webconx.com Palm Pilot Pages – http://www.webconx.com/palm X10 Home Automation – http://www.webconx.com/x10 (212) 894-3704 x3154 – voicemail/fax If we don’t believe in freedom of speech for people who we disagree with, we don’t believe in it at all. —
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Assuming a capacity factor >of 85% for the 1,000 megawatt nuclear plant and 25% for the 1.5 megawatt >windmills (a high capacity factor for the windmills, but off shore wind >plants tend to have a higher capacity factor than on shore ones) we get >would need (1,000*.85)/(1.5*.25)/=2266.66. . ., or say >roughly 2,200 windmills. > One significant safety issue to consider in building 2200 offshore > windmills is drownings, particularly during storms. Consider also the > high level of maintenance required on windmills, there will certainly > be the issue of people falling from the towers. > …Greig
Response:
> Reply to: [1] Karl F. Johanson >Thyroid cancer. >Tim ‘Flaherty has asked me several times to describe any dangers wind
Sorry, that should read "Tim O’Flaherty". My appologies. — Karl Johanson, Victoria B.C. Canada -It’s okay to disagree with me. However, once I explain where you’re wrong you’re supposed to become enlightened & change your mind. Congratulating me on how smart I am is optional.
Response:
… where "gtoe" stands for gigatonne of oil equivalent. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Assuming a capacity factor >of 85% for the 1,000 megawatt nuclear plant and 25% for the 1.5 megawatt >windmills (a high capacity factor for the windmills, but off shore wind >plants tend to have a higher capacity factor than on shore ones) we get >would need (1,000*.85)/(1.5*.25)/=2266.66. . ., or say >roughly 2,200 windmills. > One significant safety issue to consider in building 2200 offshore > windmills is drownings, particularly during storms.