Re: Cancer clusters

["Franz Schoenhofer" <franz.schoenhofer@CHELLO.AT>]

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----

Von: Gibbs, S Julian <s.julian.gibbs@vanderbilt.edu>

An: Radsafe Mail list <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

Datum: Dienstag, 16. Juli 2002 18:15

Betreff: Cancer clusters





>The frequency of cancer cases, as all random events, obeys Poisson

>statistics.  This not only allows, but it predicts, that clusters

>will occur.  For example, let us say that the mean annual number of

>new cancer cases in a village of a certain size is 10.  The Poisson

>equation then shows that approximately one such village in 500 will

>have 20 or more new cases per year.  Not at all unreasonable!

>It is necessary to determine the probability of existence of a

>cancer cluster from random statistics before searching for a

>specific cause.

>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------



Thank you for this short, but crystal clear statement!



What I do not understand with all these "cluster researchers" and their

claims, is that they do not understand the most simple fact, that when you

have a mean value, then there must be values above the mean value and some

below it - otherwise you cannot calculate a mean value! I have successfully

explained that to people without an academic degree, even without any

sophisticated education in natural science - and all understood it. I always

thought that epidemiologists have to have a very profound background in

statistics, furthermore I believe that every scientist should have a

background of common sense. Common sense would show, that "elevated"

incidence of certain cancers  h a s  to occur, as well as less frequent

occurrance. I remember that many years ago, when the first news of the

enhanced incidence of leukemia around Sellafield came up, a careful study

was done in Great Britain, the outcome of which was, that such leukemia

clusters occurred in many parts of Great Britain - very far away from any

nuclear power plant. We had stories about leukemia clusters in the vicinity

of German nuclear power plants and we had news, that tritium, said to have

been emitted from a very small demonstration plant for recycling nuclear

fuel in Karlsruhe was the cause for trees being killed around the Karlsruhe

Research Center. My critical remark, that in the sixties the tritium

concentration in precipitation was higher by some orders of magnitude and

the trees did not die, was ignored.



I think we have a somewhat similar situation as it has now been revealed

regarding element 118: The researchers wanted to find element 118 - so they

"found" it. Some "researchers" want to prove the deadly impact of nuclear

power - so they find it. Isn't it also a matter of funding? To produce

element 118 is sure a result which opens funding for further research. To

prove a link between nuclear power, (radiation) and cancer is in an

aggressive antinuclear climate as it is prevailing in Europe without doubt

honored with more funding for this "research". The scandal of element 118 is

a scientific scandal and has impact on the reputation of the institute

involved, therefore it is limited. But the scandal of the "clusters" is

something which has a political and social impact and is another stone in

the mosaic of the "nuclear lobby", the bribed scientists and the deadly

dangerous technology.



If you do not disagree, I will forward your comment to my collegues at the

Austrian Radiation Protection Society.



Best regards,



Franz











************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/