[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Babies Affected by Dads' X-Ray Exam



Group,

I think Mike is right. I recall a paper by, something like, Kinlen? in the
BMJ? perhaps this is the Health Authority published in a journal? This was a
big story at the time. I'm surprized no one has a recollection. 

I'm surprised that Dr. Goldsmith would feel that Gardner "was correct at
Seascale", although not specific as to "preconception radiation" or "bringing
isotopes home on their clothes"?! 

This seems to imply that 1. accepting that childhood leukemia can be "caused"
by radiation on a facility/case basis, contradicting negative evidence from
many parents/children at other facilities and at higher doses from various
high background and medical sources; and 2. accepting that there might be any
significant, routine, "isotopes on clothes" (implying an effect on all parents 
over the time of the study since this is an epi study of all the
children/parents for the facility over the time of their birth dates),
especially considering the radiation monitoring sensitivity and hp reaction to 
any "isotopes on clothes" (and the recent stories about medically-exposed
patients trying to get IN to a plant :-) - perhaps there were "more chest
x-rays of the parents at Seascale".) There seems to be an unwarranted bias and 
lack of critical analysis in trying to find/ascribe *any* indication that
radiation is harmful. 

> If I remember correctly there was a followup study to Gardner's that
> showed evidence that the increased incidence of leukemia was more likely
> due to the transient nature of the work force required to build the
> power plants and other facilities. Incidence of disease increased when
> there was a large influx of personnel for facility construction. The
> happenned whether or not the facility was related to nuclear power.
> 
> Perhaps someone can help me with my memory. Tomorrow when I am in my
> office I'll see if I can put my hands on the study and give you better
> information.
> 
> Mike Baker

Thanks.

Regards, Jim Muckerheide
jmuckerheide@delphi.com