I really enjoyed learning about the St Lucie Nuclear Power Plant. It appears that it is a relatively clean energy when considering the emissions. But looking into it further i'm curious about the actu

I really enjoyed learning about the St Lucie Nuclear Power Plant. It appears that it is a relatively clean energy when considering the emissions. But looking into it further i'm curious about the actual radiation and the various cases that were against the company. In March 2000, doctors diagnosed Zachary with cancer, which has spread to his bone marrow, spine, hips and head. Scientists also found abnormally high levels of Strontium 90 - a radioactive isotope associated with atmospheric nuclear bomb testing and power plant emissions - in his teeth, according to the suit. Nearly 500 baby teeth in the region found abnormally high levels of Sr-90, especially in those of children living closer to power plants. Another consideration is on the actual land and crops. Any food grown 50 to 100 miles downwind from any reactor likely carries increased cancer risks, especially for children, who are more sensitive to radioactive carcinogens.

I'm curious whats in place today to address these issues as im sure by now they have been addressed properly and the likelihood of radiation from nuclear plants effecting the population in this way rather than emissions. Being a clean energy or producing low emissions is great but if its at the cost of causing cancer i wonder how useful this energy will be in the future.

Resource

Drake. (April 14, 2003). Study could fuel suits claiming nuclear plants cause cancer. Retrieved from: https://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/stories/2003/04/14/story3.html