Nuclear power causes cancer

This blockbuster book turns cancer fears into joy
This blockbuster book turns cancer fears into joy
William Kelley Eidem
William Kelley Eidem


Nuclear power causes cancer, even though you've probably heard that they don't cause cancer. Some claim no one in the public has ever died due to cancer from a commercial reactor.

That claim is hogwash.

The highest overall cancer rates are jam packed into the North East where there is the heaviest concentration of nuclear power plants. One exception is Nevada, where much nuclear testing took place. Nevada is surrounded by four states with the lowest overall cancer death rates (UT #1, AZ #3, CA #6, ID #8.) Thank goodness NV has no nuclear power plants.

Nevada won't reveal their cancer incident rates! (I wonder why!) There death rates place them at #27 which is extraordinarily out of line with their surrounding states.

No one died from Three Mile Island, right?

Wrong. Way wrong.

In the years following the accident at Three Mile Island (TMI), Maryland, which had been a low cancer incident state became a very high cancer incident rate state. In 2007, it has settled back down to #16 after years of being one of the highest cancer states in the nation for a few years.

According to Professor Emeritus Ernest Sternglass, a nuclear physicist at the University of Pittsburg School of Medicine, reports that 50,000 people died prematurely. He also reports that proximity to the plant was a significant factor in the death rate.

Delaware and NJ and MD, are down wind from TMI. Delaware #48 and NJ #46 are among the worst cancer rates in the nation. Rhode Island is the worst at #50.

IL's #45 has six nuclear plants. MI has 3 plants plus two more at their doorstep in WI. WI #32 was smart enough to put theirs on the east side of the state away from prevailing winds.

Ohio #44 is downwind from the notorious Michigan Enrico Fermi plant and has their own plants as well.

Pennsylvania #45, has four plants including TMI.

There are a bunch more in the north east.

Radiation exposure isn't the only factor for cancer, but a pattern is a pattern.

I'm starting to see a pattern here.

Here is another way of looking at it

It really is something how the highest cancer rates appear to be connected to the location of various nuclear power plants.

Here is another way of looking at it. If you add up the rankings of the 10 best states for cancer incidence on an age-adjusted basis.

The top nine have a total of ONE nuclear power plants either in the state or within 100 miles of the state. CA at #10 has two. One of them is practically in Mexico. Mind you that most of these states are huge.

Now lets compare that the bottom ten, that is to say the states with the most cancer. There are 42 nuclear plants either in the state or within about 100 miles of the state. Those states are often downwind from many more that are further away.

So basically, the ratio is 42 to 2. Another way to compare them would be land masses. The lowest cancer states comprise nearly 1.5 million square miles. The 10 worst cancer states are under 250,000 square miles, making a ratio of 6 to 1.

It's a fair way to compare because the calculations for cancer are age adjusted per 100,000 people, so population density isn't a factor.

There's a nuke plant every for every 6,000 square miles in or near the bad states. There is one commercial nuke plant for about every 500,000 square miles in or near the good states.

Thus, if you're standing anywhere in a nuke filled state, your chances of being contaminated by radiation would be 83 times more likely there than in one of the safer states based on square miles.

If you live near a plant, your risk is greater than if you live far away. In some states you could live 500 miles away or more from a nuclear plant.

Overall the increased risk from cancer from the lowest to the highest state is only 40%. However, that is misleading because the three nuclear plants in the best states are near the most densely populated areas by far. One is half way between San Francisco and Los Angeles. Another is near San Diego, and the last is near Phoenix.

Weather patterns means AZ #1 gets all three. Otherwise AZ, with its high hot pepper diet, would have much less cancer.

Unrelated topic: Arkansas is #47 (one of the worst) for cancer death rates overall, yet is ranked #4 best for Hispanic deaths from cancer in 2007. Many new Mexicans had migrated to Arkansas up to that point in time.

Bottom line?: I've written another hub page on how I used hot peppers to help cure my stage 4 cancer. Please check it out if you're interested.

More by this Author

Comments 6 comments

Alex 5 years ago


Coal-fired power plants annually emit into the environment more radioactive isotopes than all nuclear power plants (accidents including).

Also, I can't see the exact numbers of radiation levels around all those nuclear power plants. Without these numbers it's just a speculation, the words that shake the air but not the company.

Kelley Eidem profile image

Kelley Eidem 5 years ago from Panama City, FL Author

Hi Alex,

The cancer incidence rates speak for themselves. The higher the reliance on nukes, the higher the cancer. Not just for one state but across all 50 states.

Rema raj 4 years ago

I am diagonised with thyroid cancer ,will this food supplement alone help me to overcome.Both my parents and my elder sister died of brain tumour .Pls advice.Thanks a lot in advance

Kelley Eidem profile image

Kelley Eidem 4 years ago from Panama City, FL Author

Hi Rema,

I would use my recipe with confidence if I had thyroid cancer.

In addition, I might even gargle with maybe 10 shakes of cayenne in a small amount of water before swallowing, once or twice a day. Doing that enables the active ingredients to pass into the blood stream from the mouth.

The best to you.

Kelley Eidem

author, The Doctor Who Cures Cancer

Rema raj 4 years ago

Thanks a lot for immediate response .I live in South India ,here habaneros peppers and cayenne are not easily available .Shall i use red pepper and black pepper instead of habaneros peppers and cayenne .For the bread instead of grated garlic ,ginger and pepper ,can i make a spread out of it .Will the spread have the same effect and do i have to eat it in an empty stomach , can i have milk coffee instead of black coffee.Pls advice .Thank you.

laadhy profile image

laadhy 4 years ago from Maldives- The Paradise on Earth

Interesting and informative hub.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.

    Click to Rate This Article