Re[2]: Basic caution about cancer clusters

[Vincent.King@DOEGJPO.COM (Vincent King)]

     I haven't read Gould's book (yet), but for purposes of discussion, 
     let's say there is truly a statistical increase in breast cancers 
     within 100 miles of U.S. nuclear power plants.  
     
     Off the top of my head, I can think of a few things that prevent me 
     from jumping to the conclusion there is a connection.  
     
     First, the selection of 100 miles as the criterion for distance is 
     rather suspect.  If you can't detect nuclear plant radiation and 
     effluents 3 or 4 miles away, try calculating their magnitude at 100 
     miles using plain old meteorological principles (untainted by 
     nuclear advocates).  And remember (from geometry) that the affected 
     area from 50-100 miles away is 3 times the area from 0-50 miles 
     away.  (Unless I've gotten really bad at geometry.)
     
     Consider also that the areas 100 miles from all U.S. NPPs will be 
     overwhelmingly metropolitan compared to what is left over - what is 
     the likihood that the differences in breast cancer rates are due to 
     urban vs. rural influences - smog, other industries, food sources, 
     etc.?  
     
     Finally, why would not a cancer type more generally accepted as 
     radiogenic, say leukemia, show the same trend?  Sort of smacks of 
     the second 'fallacy' I mentioned, namely that you can always 
     correlate SOMETHING to being within 100 miles of a NPP, whether 
     it's truly related or not. But a real effect would increase 
     EVERYTHING that is related to radiation exposure. 
     
     Note that there is nothing wrong with using what you THINK is an 
     abnormal grouping of illnesses to raise a flag; some environmental 
     pollutants and their health effects have been discovered this way.  
     I'm just saying that when you can't come up with a logical 
     connection between purported cause and effect or demonstrate the 
     effect in a larger population, there comes a time to say the 
     'suspicion' hasn't been confirmed and concentrate on effective ways 
     of alleviating real ills. 
     
     Vincent
     vincent.king@doegjpo.com


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Basic caution about cancer clusters
Author:  Norman & Karen Cohen <norco@bellatlantic.net> at Internet
Date:    5/1/00 4:00 PM



> -------- But its my understanding that the majority of NPP's ARE in the
> above average zones, per Gould's book  The statement was something like
> breast cancer rates in nuclear counties (100 miles or closer to a nuke
> plant) are higher than breast cancer rates in non-nuclear counties. So
> what am I not getting here?------

>
>
>      By the way, I'll bet Karen wishes she could use the computer once
>      in a while ;)
> ------ At least I'm not our drinking and partying! ;) ---------

norm

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