Re: Hiroshima-Nagasaki data and studies

[John Goldsmith <gjohn@bgumail.bgu.ac.il>]

Dear Charlie:
    Several of the statements in your communication are at variance with
what I think we could agree are authoritative sources.  I quote only at
present from  Shigematsu, "Effects of Radition on the Human Body", Harwood
Press, 1995.  This is the most recent compilation of the work of the 
RERF studying the long-term effects of A-bomb exposures.
     For those prenatally exposed and those exposed as children, table 4
on page 244 (Chapter 13, Prenatal Exposure) Prenatally exposed ssurvivors,
cancer incidence shows a relative risk/Gray for those exposed to equal or
more than 0.01 Gy of 3.77 for all cancer sites.  For survivors exposed
while young, cancer mortalities (1950-1985) have a relative risk of
leukemia/Gray of 17.1, and for other cancers 2.35.
     Adult excess cancers are for one Gray significantly increased for
leukemia, multiple myeloma, Urinary tract, Ovary, Breast,Lung, colon,
stomach, esophagus, and all except leukemia. (Figure 1, p.28)
     As to your comments concerning cohort studies, the cohort of
Hiroshima-Nagasaki exposed children had very high mortality rates prior 
to the census on which the follow-up studies were done.  Trauma, burns,
infectious disease, malnutrition, and absent data on vital statistics for
the first five years ATB make this population a  cohort of survivors. 
Since excess childhood leukemia associated with prenatal irradiation is
largely at 3-4 years, (as is childhood leukemia in general) the peak
period could not be expected to be observed. To compare
the cohort studies of this population with the studies of X-Ray exposures
of  U.S. and British pregnant women is not epidemiologically realistic.
It should not require belief in Alice Stuart to get this point accepted.
                          John Goldsmith, gjohn@BGUMAIL.BGU.AC.IL