Kerala Downs Syndrome

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

Ron,
 
> I hate to say it, but your argument sounds suspiciously like those of the
> tobacco companies -- ie there has never been a case of lung cancer 'proven'
> to have been caused by cigarette smoking.  As for people in high background
> areas, the results of studies attempting to link their higher exposure with
> morbidity or early mortality have proven, by and large, inconclusive,
> because of a number of factors including the small size of the populations
> involved.  However, in the Kerala State of India, an increased incidence of
> Down's syndrome and chromosome aberrations has been reported.  

I'm intrigued by the stretch that goes into trying to demonstrate effects in
the face of much more substantial data that shows no or negative effects. Of
dozens of endpoints in the enormous effort of detailed work over 20 years in
Guangdong Province China, all the positive data (which show significant
conflict with the linear model) are meticuluosly ignored and any tenuous
implication takes on the mantle of implications, usually in my arena with
unabased public fear-mongering. As a note on the Kerala India studies, the
following is a summary extract from my report (which is widespread standard
knowledge in the discussion and literature on low-level radiation health
effects): 

    "Nobel Laureate Dr. Rosalyn Yalow reports that in Kerala, India monazite 
sands containing high thorium concentrations cause radiation exposures 
4 times regional average concentrations. Detailed studies of the 12,918 
people in the Kerala high background population was compared to a neighboring
town with a control population of 5938. (Kochupillal, Nature, 1976) 

There are no discenible health differences, except 12 cases of Down's
syndrome found in the Kerala population, with none in the control population.
However, Down's syndrome in India occurred at a rate of 1:1215 in 58,325 live
births, which is statistically equivalent to (actually higher than) the rate
in Kerala. The lack of Down's syndrome in the particular town used as a
control 
population is a statistical small-number aberration."

>Similarly,
> increased chromosome aberrations were observed in the Brazilian population
> of Guarapari.  (Cf. BEIR V, pp. 383-385 for an excellen summary).

"Increased chromosome aberrations" is another Gofman-ism used to instigate the 
concerned public: another way of saying there are no health effects; don't
report that many populations with many biological insults have "increased
chromosome aberrations" with no biological relationship to any adverse effect. 
High dose populations (eg, the UK high-dose worker group including the
Windscale accident cleanup crew, and the Japanese Lucky Dragon fishermen
exposed to the direct fallout of the Bikini atoll hydrogen bomb, have
"chomosome aberrations" as "records" of their exposures, with no adverse
health effects, but you are going to imply to the uninformed that the
Guarapari population has deleterious effects from its high natural background
dose exposure. I'm disappointed. 

(I suppose no one knows how the US natural background work was cut off when
the initial rigorous work showed no effect with significant statistics and
tests of models and confounding factors (with _negative_ correlations). It
takes the heroic personal efforts of Dr. Cohen to do some of the detailed work 
that government and its agents suppressed (since 1973), which disproves the
association of residential radon and lung cancer. But substantial evidence can 
be dismissed and any anomolous positive indication made into a public fear
generator on behalf of government agencies. What ever happened to science? 

> Finally, if a priori you conclude that 50 mSv (5 rem) annually is basically
> risk free, then why even study populations or people exposed at or below
> this level?

The existing data show the result despite efforts to suppress it. But this is
disingenuous when the linear model is the "a priori" given while directly in
conflict with the data (which gets no review and comment) while in many areas
of investigation work is appropriate to confirm/validate the best current
knowledge. 

> Ron    

Regards, Jim Muckerheide
jmuckerheide@delphi.com