Re: Re[2]: Radiation Effects

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

Bernard L Cohen <blc+@pitt.edu> writes:
 
> On Fri, 1 Sep 1995 sandy_perle@email.fpl.com wrote:
> 
> >      While a lot is understood about cancer, causes and growth patterns, I 
> >      believe there is more that is not understood. For instance, yesterday 
> >      I heard a study that has demonstrated that the chance of a female to 
> >      have breast cancer increases when they move to one geographical area 
> >      and decreases when they move to a different area. This was true for 
> >      even those individuals who had a high incidence of family breast 
> >      cancer. The conclusion therefore was that the individual was not 
> >      necessarily born with the higher risk causal factors, and that 
> >      geography played a larger role in the probability that the individual 
> >      will or will not have a case of breast cancer. I found this to be very 
> >      interesting discovery.
> >      
> >      Is anyone familiar with the actual study and other conclusions?
> >      
> >      Sandy Perle
> >      Supervisor Health Physics
> >      Florida Power and Light Company
> >      Nuclear Division
> >      
> >      (407) 694-4219 Office
> >      (407) 694-3706 Fax
> >      
> >      sandy_perle@email.fpl.com
> 
> 
> A similar effect is known for Japanese women who have very low breast 
> cancer rates (and high stomach cancer rates) in Japan, but not when they 
> immigrate to U.S. Many diseases have large geographical variations: in 
> New England, 22% of deaths are from cancer but in the Rocky Mountain 
> states, it is only 17%; and life expectancy is 2 years longer in West 
> north central states than in southeastern states. I don't think there 
> have been studies on whether these effects apply to people who have 
> moved, but it is generally assumed that they do. It seems to be believed 
> that different diets have a lot to do with it. There is abundant evidence 
> that cancer is principally an environmental disease, not heavily 
> influenced by genetics, but "environmental" includes diet and should not 
> be interpreted to mean pollution.

In response to findings reported in the British Medical Journal that children
of workers at nuclear facilities in Britain had excess leukemia, studies found 
that clusters of leukemia exist in numbers of locations at large industrial
facilities with an influx of workers from urban areas. The reports anticipated 
a viral connection for leukemia affected by changed geographic location of the 
populations. (Refs?) 

Regards, Jim