----- Original Message -----
From: "J. van Baardwijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 4:24 PM
Subject: Re: Earth on Edge
> At 13:47 4-7-01 -0700, Darryl Shannon wrote:
>
> Darryl, would you mind being a little more accurate when quoting people?
>
> >Now, about the safety of nuclear power, and the economic viability of
> >other power sources. Jeroen complained that people have many times
> >higher cancer rates near nuclear power plants,
>
> No, I said *there were reports* that made such claims.
>
>
> >but that it was being kept secret.
>
> If there are reports in the media about it, it is by definition not being
> kept secret. I also don't remember saying it was kept secret. What I said
> was that the nuclear power lobby will do everything it can to tone it
down,
> because they have large economic interests to protect.
>
>
> >I think what Jeroen is refering to are so-called "cancer clusters".
> >Several people in an area are diagnosed with cancer, and some
> >environmental effect is blamed...power lines, nuclear power plants,
> >pollution, etc.
>
> Yes. I'm doing this from (my admittedly rusty) memory, but I do remember a
> claim about a high number of cases of leukemia (sp) near a nuclear power
> plant. My memory tells me it was Sellafield (UK), but it might have been
> some other location. What I do remember is that it was blamed on the
> nuclear power plant, since no other possible source was found.
>
The claim is for correlation between the radiation exposure of fathers who
worked at plants and leukimia in the children. This is extremely hard to
accept as causal because no such linkage has been found in the survivors of
Hiroshema and Nagasaki.
Nonetheless, a later study was done. The results can be found at:
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m0999/7196_318/54979315/print.jhtml
and are summarized below:
Father reported
Cancer and Standardised
age group incidence ratio
(years) Observed Expected (95% CI)(*)
All malignancies
0-24 52 52.87 98 (73 to 129)
0-14 36 36.50 99 (69 to 137)
Leukaemia and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma
0-24 20 16.95 118 (72 to 182)
0-14 18 14.01 128 (76 to 203)
Leukaemia
0-24 15 13.71 109 (61 to 180)
0-14 14 11.96 117 (64 to 196)
All malignancies except leukaemia and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma
0-24 32 35.95 89 (61 to 126)
0-14 18 22.50 80 (47 to 126)
Mother reported
Cancer and Standardised
age group incidence ratio
(years) Observed Expected (95% CI)(*)
All malignancies
0-24 12 12.47 96 (50 to 168)
0-14 9 8.30 108 (50 to 206)
Leukaemia and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma
0-24 5 3.92 127 (41 to 298)
0-14 4 3.19 126 (34 to 321)
Leukaemia
0-24 3 3.17 95 (20 to 277)
0-14 3 2.73 110 (23 to 321)
All malignancies except leukaemia and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma
0-24 7 8.55 82 (33 to 169)
0-14 5 5.12 98 (32 to 228)
If one accepts the slightly higher rate of increase in leukaemia as caused
by the radiation, then one should also accept the slightly lower rate of
other cancers as a beneficial effect of radiation. But, since both numbers
are within a standard deviation of the expected values, statistical
fluctuations are the best explaination.
Does this suffice as scientific analysis that refutes the concept that the
radiation caused the cancer in those children?
Dan M.
