By Grace Schneider
Louisville KT Courier-Journal

As research scientists and federal regulators gathered in Washington, D.C., last month to discuss a new study of cancer rates near nuclear power plants, Sarah Sauer of Corydon, Ind., asked them for a favor.

Don’t forget the people behind the numbers, said Sarah, 16, a sophomore at Presentation Academy in Louisville.

Moments earlier, as she spoke to the National Academy of Sciences panel, the teen brought some in the room to tears, standing on a step-stool to reach the microphone as her high-pitched and strained voice told as much about her cancer battle as her words.

Linda Modica, a Sierra Club member from Tennessee who attended the panel meeting, said Sarah was a brave girl.

“It came off in a very poignant and powerful way,” said Modica.

It was a moment for which Sarah and her family had waited years — a chance to put a face on a study that will examine whether youngsters and adults who have lived near nuclear power plants suffer from higher rates of cancer.

“I got sick and I don’t want everybody else to have to go through the whole thing I did,” Sarah said in an interview last week after her return from Washington.

Her father, obstetrician Joseph Sauer, moved the family from Illinois to Southern Indiana in 2004, hoping to escape exposure from the Braidwood generating station in Braceville, Ill., about five miles from their last home. Doctors told Sarah’s parents they suspect her rare form of brain cancer was caused by environmental contamination from Braidwood, although her parents concede they can’t say for certain.

Before moving, however, the Sauers joined a chorus of environmental activists and others who clamored for more updated scientific analysis of cancer risks linked to nuclear facilities and enrichment plants. Most oppose President Barack Obama’s support for a nuclear renaissance because they contend that past problems associated with atomic-powered generating plants haven’t been adequately examined.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently asked the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study on cancer in populations surrounding nuclear generating stations. A 1990 report by the National Cancer Institute ruled out a link, but critics have insisted that study was flawed because it considered only children who died of cancer, not children like Sarah who were sickened but survived. It also examined populations by county, not groups living closest to the power plants, critics said.

read full article