Re: Critics Allege Infant Mortality Rate

[Steven Dapra <sjd@swcp.com>]

April 26

	Thanks to all the RADSAFERs who made comments on Joseph Mangano's Rancho
Seco infant mortality report.   I have a few to offer as well.
 
  	 On page 33, col. 1 (33/1) Mangano writes, "Rancho Seco's closing
reduced local levels of dietary radioactivity.  In 1987, when the reactor
was temporarily closed for repairs, an average of 1.91 pCi of Iodine-131
was present in Sacramento's pasteurized milk.  After restart, levels rose
to 2.67 and 2.54 in 1988 and 1989, but fell to 1.82 in 1990."  (Mangano
gives a citation to the National Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory
of the EPA.)

	I am no statistician, but these levels don't seem to move around very
much.  The difference between the largest and the smallest is a mere 0.85
pCi, an amount which it seems to me could fall within the error bars.  Is
Mangano trying to make a mountain of a molehill with I-131?

	On page 33 (Table 1) Mangano reports changes in health status in four
counties before and after Rancho Seco was closed, and compares his
indicators for the counties to the entire United States.  He considers only
years 1988-89, and 1990-91; the year of closure and the next year.  There
is no historical perspective on the data - no way of knowing how the data
fluctuated in the long term before and after closing.

	On 34/1 he writes, "Age-specific congenital anomaly death records became
available from the National Center for Health Statistics beginning in 1979.
 Table 1 shows trends in these radiation-sensitive disorders . . . from
1988-1989 to 1990-1991, before and after the closing of Rancho Seco."

	By "congenital anomaly" I assume Mangano means birth defects.  How many
birth defects are "radiation-sensitive"?  And can data from 1988 to 1991
truly be said to show "trends" in these disorders?  Same objection as
before - no historical perspective.

	On 34/2 he writes, "In the Rancho Seco area, fetuses were exposed to
radioactive emissions consumed in the maternal diet from 1974 to 1989."  In
a posting on the 25th Dan Kosloff very ably addressed the diet of area
residents.

	Mangano acknowledges (34/2) that "Like other U.S. nuclear power reactors,
Rancho Seco emitted low levels of radiation, meaning only small doses were
received by the local population.  Over its 15-year operating life, 0.1397
Ci of airborne radioactivity with half-lives over 8 days were reported."
He attempts to overcome the "small doses" problem by invoking Alice
Stewart's work showing elevated risk due to pelvic X-rays of pregnant
women.  He goes on to claim that "childhood cancer has been positively
correlated with other low-dose exposures, including back-ground gamma
radiation [citations] and emissions from various European reactors
[citations]."

	Mangano makes the claim (35/1) that "In the U.S., elevated childhood
cancer rates . . . have been documented near American reactors", and he
cites Jablon et. al., to buttress this claim (JAMA, 265(11):1403-1408;
3-20-91).   (He also cites Johnson [1981 in Ambio]; and Goldsmith [1989 in
the Lancet].  Johnson reported on "Cancer incidence in an area contaminated
with radionuclides near a nuclear installation."  Goldsmith evaluated two
U.S. nuclear installations for childhood leukemia mortality before 1970.)
Two quotes from Jablon et. al. are instructive.  (They evaluated cancer
near 10 DOE facilities; and 52 electric utilities with start-up dates
ranging from 1957 to 1981.)

	"For childhood leukemia mortality, the relative risk comparing the study
counties with their controls before  plant start-up was 1.08, while after
start-up it was 1.03" [p. 1403; Abstract]."

	"No statistically significant increases in deaths from childhood leukemia
were found.  Only in the incidence data available from the Millstone
nuclear power plant in Connecticut did the leukemia rate in children appear
to be significantly increased.  The increase, however, antedated the
operation of Millstone
[p. 1408/1]."

	It almost goes without saying, but Mangano also cites the claims of Jay 
Gould and Ernest Sternglass to support his own contentions.

	On April 25, Norm Cohen wrote, "I know Mr. Mangano personally. He is very
careful with his studies and contentions."  I would like to ask Mr. Cohen a
question.  If Mr. Mangano is "very careful" with his studies, why wasn't he
careful enough to include data that would show the historical perspective
on mortality around Rancho Seco?  It would seem that he has omitted the
context that would show whether or not  his contentions have any legitimacy.

Steven Dapra
sjd@swcp.com



	


************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html