[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RE: Gardner Sellafield cluster [was : reply to Cedervall ]
As a scientist who tries to keep up but who is far from an expert in epidemiology, it usually occurs to me that when someone finds a cancer cluster somewhere, a cancer "anti-cluster" must be somewhere else as a balance to maintain the average incidence.
Not surprisingly, we usually don't hear about the anti-clusters. I wonder if any of them ever occur near places like Sellafield. I suspect that they do for certain kinds of cancer.
Bob C
>
> From: "Franta, Jaroslav" <frantaj@AECL.CA>
> Date: 2004/12/14 Tue AM 08:49:47 EST
> To: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
> Subject: RE: Gardner Sellafield cluster [was : reply to Cedervall ]
>
> James Salsman wrote on Monday December 13, 2004 8:14 PM :
>
> In 1990, Martin J. Gardner (Environmental Epidemiology Unit at the
> University of Southampton, England) and colleagues published the results of
> a study of leukemia and lymphoma among young people born and living near the
> Sellafield nuclear power plant in West Cumbria, United Kingdom.
> The researchers concluded that leukemia in children was linked to their
> fathers' exposure to external whole-body radiation before conception of the
> child.<SNIP>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
> The clusters scam has been revealed as such quite a few years ago.
> Why bother dredging it up again ? (unless of course you have an agenda....)
> The Gardner study in particular has been roundly criticized on a number of
> grounds.
>
> http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/clusters/about_clusters.htm
> <QUOTE>
> A cancer cluster is defined as a greater-than-expected number of cancer
> cases that occurs within a group of people in a geographic area over a
> period of time.
> <......>
> Confirmation of a cancer cluster does not necessarily mean that there is any
> single, external cause or hazard that can be addressed. A confirmed cancer
> cluster could be the result of any of the following:
>
> chance
> miscalculation of the expected number of cancer cases (e.g., not considering
> a risk factor within the population at risk)
> differences in the case definition between observed cases and expected cases
>
> known causes of cancer (e.g., smoking)
> unknown cause(s) of cancer.
> Follow-up investigations can be done, but can take years to complete and the
> results are generally inconclusive (e.g., usually, no cause is found).
> <.....>
> What first appears to be a cancer cluster may not be one after all. A review
> of the situation may show that the number of new cancer cases is in the
> expected range for the population and therefore that the cases do not
> represent a cancer cluster.
> <END QUOTE>
>
> Regarding Sellafield specifically :
>
> Posted in the UK Guardian Unlimited on August 15, 2002 and at
> www.guardian.co.uk/nuclear/article/0,2763,774825,00.html
>
> See more details of the study and other work by COMARE at
> www.doh.gov.uk/comare/comare_news.htm
>
> Sellafield exonerated by child cancer studies
> Paul Brown, environment correspondent
> Thursday August 15, 2002 The Guardian
>
> The cancer cluster in children at Seascale in Cumbria is not related to
> their fathers' exposure to radiation while working in the nearby Sellafield
> nuclear plant, the government's committee on the medical aspects of
> radiation, Comare, concluded yesterday.
> Comare's finding came 12 years after a department of health report caused a
> sensation by saying there was a link. The finding is a relief to the nuclear
> industry - but does not answer the question of why there is a cluster.
>
> Comare reviewed studies showing that offspring of radiated workers in the UK
> and other countries were more likely to get leukaemia and non-Hodgkin's
> lymphoma - but there were similar findings in other industries.
>
> There was a cancer cluster in Seascale, but it was not repeated in other
> children in the surrounding area where most workers lived. Comare concluded
> the cluster might be population mixing producing exposure to infectious
> diseases; however, pesticides or chemicals could also have been responsible.
> The government has accepted Comare's recommendation for more research into
> changes in the gene code of cells leading to childhood cancer.
> ===========
>
> NUCLEAR BLAST.
> By DECLAN FAHY.
> 15 August 2002 Mirror
> Fury as UK scientists claim Sellafield is safe
>
> THE Green Party angrily dismissed yesterday a new study that found no link
> between Sellafield and cancer in children.
> A scientific committee in the UK which studied "clusters" of cancer around
> Sellafield found no proof nuclear workers were at greater risk.
> But Green Party TD Ciaran Cuffe said: "There have been a lot of studies,
> some saying there is a link, some saying there isn't. These studies don't
> look at the whole picture.
> "I would tell people to look carefully at the credentials of those who
> carried out the study."
> He also said there are major health risks for those living close to a
> nuclear plant, adding: "There are two major risks. One is the danger of a
> catastrophic accident at the plant, particularly in the wake of September
> 11.
> "The other is the cost to future generations living with the legacy of
> nuclear power."
> Earlier studies showed cancer rates among children around Seascale - a
> village close to the Cumbrian power station - were twice as high as the
> British national average.
> It was thought workers exposed to high levels of radiation at the plant
> could have passed on abnormalities resulting in cancer to their children.
> But the study by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the
> Environment (Comare) said the pattern was not repeated in other towns with
> nuclear workers.
> It said the Seascale clusters could have been caused by the influx of
> outside workers into a rural area as the power station came into operation.
> The newcomers brought with them infections which were not common in the
> countryside and in a handful of cases later developed into cancer.
> The report said: "We find no convincing evidence to suggest radiation at the
> doses to which male nuclear industry workers have been exposed results in an
> increase in childhood cancer.
> "Current levels of exposure are well below those experienced by workers more
> than 30 years ago.
> "The balance of evidence indicates the excess [in cancer rates] is in
> general not related to the radiation dose.
> "It is our opinion that it may be associated with lifestyle factors, work
> practices or population mixing."
> The scientists said it was not clear how outside infections could have led
> to an increase in cancer and that "some unrecognised factor may be
> responsible".
> The study drew on research both in Cumbria and among atomic bomb survivors
> in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
> It also found inexplicably high cancer rates had been noticed in workers in
> other industries including chemical, steel and agriculture.
> =================
>
> Jaro Franta, P.Eng.
> Montréal, Québec
> frantaj@aecl.ca
>
>
>
>
>
************************************************************************
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/