[ RadSafe ] Supposed Claim by People Magazine - Radiation caused cancer hit US movie stars

[radbloom at comcast.net]

I guess I'm missing what Christina's fuss is all about and where her "30-some" incidence number was conceived.  An expected incidence rate of cancer of 13.64% (30/220) as put forth in this "claim" seems unsupported by any reliable documentation I can find. 

  

The Nuclear News post indicates that 91 out of 220 people had been diagnosed at some point with cancer (41%) and that 46 out of 291 died of cancer (21%).  A quick check of national cancer rates http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2009_pops09/results_merged/topic_lifetime_risk.pdf  shows that the lifetime cancer incidence rate (circa 2000) is 41.24% (Table 1.14) and the cancer death rate is 21.00% (Table 1.17).  Seems like the cancer rates of this group are consistent with those reported in the literature, and there is no evidence that has been provided to support an assumption of increased cancer risk due to this group's possible radiation exposure in 1954. 

  

If the real concern is about folks encountering unknown risks - then ignore this post. 

  

Just typing out loud, 

  

Cindy Bloom 



----- Original Message -----




From: "Roger Helbig" <rwhelbig at gmail.com> 
To: "RADSAFE" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu> 
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 7:06:28 AM 
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Supposed Claim by People Magazine - Radiation caused cancer hit US movie stars 

Christina MacPherson posted: "“The connection between fallout radiation and 
cancer in individual cases has been practically impossible to prove 
conclusively. But in a group this size you’d expect only 30-some cancers to 
develop. With 91, I think the tie-in to their exposure on the" 
Respond to this post by replying above this line 

New post on nuclear-news 

Radiation caused cancer hit US movie stars 

by Christina MacPherson 

“The connection between fallout radiation and cancer in individual cases has 
been practically impossible to prove conclusively. But in a group this size 
you’d expect only 30-some cancers to develop. With 91, I think the tie-in to 
their exposure on the set of The Conqueror would hold up even in a court of 
law.” 

FROM PEOPLE MAGAZINE:Occupy the NRC 21 Sept 12,  Few moviegoers remember The 
Conqueror, a sappy 1956 film about a love affair between Genghis Khan and a 
beautiful captive princess. But to the families of its stars, John Wayne and 
Susan Hayward, and of its director-producer, Dick Powell, memories of The 
Conqueror have begun to acquire nightmarish clarity. 

The movie was shot from June through August 1954 among the scenic red bluffs 
and white dunes near Saint George, Utah, an area chosen by Powell for its 
similarity to the central Asian steppes. At the time it did not seem 
significant that Saint George was only 137 miles from the atomic testing 
range at Yucca Flat, Nev.; the federal government, after all, was constantly 
reassuring local residents back then that the bomb tests posed no health 
hazard. Now, 17 years after aboveground nuclear tests were outlawed, Saint 
George is plagued by an extraordinarily high rate of cancer (PEOPLE, Oct. 1, 
1979)—and the illustrious alumni of The Conqueror and their offspring are 
wondering whether their own grim medical histories are more than an uncommon 
run of bad luck.  Read more of this post 

Christina MacPherson | September 21, 2012 at 5:07 am | Categories: health, 
secrets,lies and civil liberties, USA | URL: http://wp.me/phgse-7EZ 

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: 
http ://nuclear-news.net/2012/09/21/radiation-caused-cancer-hit-us-movie-stars/ ://nuclear-news.net/2012/09/21/radiation-caused-cancer-hit-us-movie-stars/