Re: Newspaper article on Plutonium

[Andy Hull <hull@mail.sep.bnl.gov>]

At 10:17 AM 9/15/97 -0500, you wrote:
>It's my understanding that the incidence rates of many types of cancer have 
>increased significantly over the last few decades.  To my knowledge no 
>satisfactory explanations have been found.  Under these circumstances how 
>meaningful is it to say "no increase in stochastic effects have ever been 
>detected or reported among the peoples of the world from this event"?  How can 
>a contribution from fallout, including plutonium, be ruled out?
>
>I happen to be a supporter of things nuclear, but I don't see that it helps
the 
>nuclear cause to make statements like this.
>
>
While I have no authoritative information on incidence rates, I suspect that
whatever increases that may have occurred are primarily related to increased
life expectancy of the U.S. population.  So, it is necessary to review
age-adjusted rates to eliminate this artifact. In the NCHS Monthly Vital
Statistics Report, Vol 45, No.22, Supplement 2, June 12, 1997, Figure 4
provides Age-adjusted death rates for the 15 leading causes of death: United
States. 12950-95.  The age-adjusted mortality rate for Malignant neoplasms
appears to have been essentially flat during this time, at close to the 1995
rate of 138.3/100,000 (Table B).  In the text (Page 6) the report states:
"Though not statistically significant, five other causes of death registered
declines:...(including) Malignant neoplasmsa".  Also (the age-adjusted date
indicate that "Cancer mortality has shown a gradual but consistently
downward trend since 1990".

Andy Hull
SEP-BNL
Upton, N.Y. 11973
Ph.  516-344-4210
Fax  516-344-3105