Op-Ed: NH urged to probe health impacts near Seabrook nuclear plant

I published the following piece in the Seacoast Online on Saturday. Read it here: NH urged to probe health impacts near Seabrook nuclear plant

From 2010 to 2013, I lived in the Marshall Islands. And between 2015 and 2020, I returned to conduct research. I worked with communities still suffering from the impact of policy decisions made decades ago and thousands of miles away by people they’d never met or even seen. This is part of the legacy of US nuclear power.

From 1946 to 1958, the US tested 67 nuclear weapons in the Marshall Islands. Generations later, Marshallese people are continuing to deal with the aftermath, including cancer and struggles with pregnancy complicated by radiation related birth defects. Living in the Marshall Islands offers a lesson that “half-life” is more than a scientific term, it is a metaphor for the ways reckless policymakers can rob generations of the right to a full and vibrant life.

I didn’t have to travel thousands of miles to learn this lesson. Activists who waded into the marshes of Seabrook and Hampton before I was born worried about the risks posed by nuclear radiation right here on the Seacoast. 

A recent study led by researchers at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health found that living closer to a nuclear power plant is associated with higher cancer rates, with risk increasing with age and decreasing the farther from these plants people live. The study examined data from seven nuclear power plants located within 120km of Massachusetts zip codes, including Seabrook Station in New Hampshire. 

I can see the Seabrook Station from the end of my street.

As the Trump administration rushes to eliminate regulation and oversight of the nuclear industry and extract personal profit by inking a $6 billion dollar deal between his social media platform and a company that is attempting to develop nuclear fusion technology, these findings underscore a critical need to examine public health risks alongside energy policy decisions.

That’s why I’m calling on the State of New Hampshire and the University of New Hampshire to promptly review this study and conduct an independent assessment of cancer risks and other potential health impacts associated with the Seabrook Station. I am also calling on the Trump administration to halt efforts to weaken nuclear safety oversight and ensure that health risk monitoring keeps pace with plant operations and scientific evidence. Finally, I call on members of Congress to investigate financial ties between the president and members of his administration and the nuclear power industry to ensure that public servants don’t put personal profit over public health.

When the government fails to proactively protect public health, families are left to carry the uncertainty. That’s why I’m running for Congress. I’m a mom and a teacher, and I believe that children in New Hampshire’s Seacoast deserve to grow up with the confidence that their air, water, and environment are being safeguarded based on science, not untested assumptions or empty assurances.

Granite Staters understand this. We have a tradition of looking out for one another and valuing transparency. We can and should insist on efficient energy policy and strong health protections at the same time. If there is a necessary trade-off to be made between public health and climate-friendly energy policy, then it’s a choice we should weigh with all the facts in hand, and it’s a decision we all should have a say in making.