Re: Kerala Downs Syndrome

[David Walland <David.Walland@bristol.ac.uk>]

May I ask what is the normal life expectancy in Kerala?  This may have a bearing on the lack of expression of 
carcinoma.
David Walland
University of Bristol (UK)
David.Walland@bristol.ac.uk


On Thu, 26 Oct 95 18:32:18 -0500 ronald kathren wrote:

> From: ronald kathren <rkathren@beta.tricity.wsu.edu>
> Date: Thu, 26 Oct 95 18:32:18 -0500
> Subject: Re: Kerala Downs Syndrome
> To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> 
> Perhaps it would be useful to quote the brief albeit entire summary from
> BEIR V, p. 385, re areas of high natural background:
> 
>         "In areas of high natural background radiation, an increased
> frequency of chromosome aberrations has been noted repeatedly.  The
> increases are consistent with those seen in radiation workers and in persons
> exposed at high dose levels, although the magnitudes of the increases are
> somewhat larget than predicted.  No increase in the frequency of cancer has
> been documented in populations residing in areas of high natural backgroud
> radiation."
> 
> I think the above says it all.  Clearly, increased chromosome aberrations
> appear to be a biological effect associated with radiation exposure; whether
> the effect is deliterious would seem to be open to question.  What does not
> seem to be open to question is that there is in fact a biological effect
> apparently associated with radiation exposure.
> 
> Ron Kathren    
> 
> 
> 
> >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
> >
> >
>