[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Epidemiology and Nuclear Power Plants
Apologies. Was not meant for the list server.
> ----------
> From: Heinmiller, Bruce[SMTP:heinmillerb@aecl.ca]
> Reply To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 1999 2:52 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: RE: Epidemiology and Nuclear Power Plants
>
> Incidentally Dan, I found this email and its attachment compelling
> reading.
> I referred the whole thing to several people here at Chalk River,
> including
> one guy who reads trashy (in my opinion) stuff like New Scientist (a.k.a.
> Nude Scientist) and believes everything he reads. It's nice to see that
> Austin Bradford Hill's criteria still appear to be the gold standard in
> making judgments on causality. This stuff should be required reading for
> both anti-nuke kooks and hormesis advocates. I was on a PEP course of
> your
> a while back and found it a refreshing counterpoint to the hormesis drone.
> Thanks for all the scoop.
>
> --Bruce.
>
> > ----------
> > From: Strom, Daniel J[SMTP:daniel.j.strom@pnl.gov]
> > Reply To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 1999 12:56 PM
> > To: Multiple recipients of list
> > Subject: Epidemiology and Nuclear Power Plants
> >
> > Amanda and RADSAFERs,
> >
> > There is little *quality* epidemiology regarding populations around
> > nuclear
> > power plants. One well-done study was published by Jablon et al.
> (1990),
> > with
> > follow-up articles in JAMA. They found essentially nothing, on the
> whole.
> > The
> > problem is that these studies are of the ecological design, making
> control
> > for
> > confounders impossible. For example, one of the plants with a
> > standardized
> > mortality ratio (SMR) greater than 1, namely Beaver Valley, is located
> in
> > an
> > area of heavy chemical industry, including a plant a few miles away that
> > released, as I recall, 115,000 pounds of butadiene (an ACGIH Category A2
> > carcinogen) to the atmosphere in 1990. Inference of causation, if any,
> is
> > pretty tough in a situation like this where chemical exposures are not
> > reported
> > along with proximity to the nuclear power plant.
> >
> > Ecological studies assume that geographic proximity means higher dose,
> an
> > assumption that may be true for some but not for others. Also, for
> > nuclear
> > power plants, they ignore the well-established latent period between
> > exposure
> > and disease for cancer.
> >
> > In my humble opinion, this stuff is virtually worthless, but it's the
> best
> > we've
> > got on this topic. This kind of research does not meet the criteria
> cited
> > in
> > the London Principles (Federal Focus 1996) for use of epidemiology
> studies
> > in
> > risk assessment (now posted at Rob Stewart's site,
> > http://www.pnl.gov/berc/epub/risk/epidprin.html ).
> >
> > There are other studies by crackpot groups who draw their conclusions
> > first and
> > then try to find data to support them. This is particularly true for
> the
> > cancer
> > cluster phenomenon (see Gawande 1999 for an excellent debunking of the
> > cancer-cluster phenomenon).
> >
> > References
> >
> > Federal Focus Inc. Principles for Evaluating Epidemiologic Data in
> > Regulatory
> > Risk Assessment. Developed by an Expert Panel at a Conference in
> London,
> > England, October 1995. Washington, DC: Federal Focus, Inc.; 1996.
> >
> > Gawande,A. The Cancer-Cluster Myth. The New Yorker LXXIV(45):34-37;
> > 1999.
> >
> > Jablon,S.; Hrubec,Z.; Boice,J.D., Jr.; Stone,B.J. Cancer in Populations
> > Living
> > Near Nuclear Facilities. NIH Pub. No. 90-874. Washington, DC: National
> > Institutes of Health; 1990.
> >
> > Jablon,S.; Boice,J.D., Jr.; Hrubec,Z. Cancer in Populations Living Near
> > Nuclear
> > Facilities: A Survey of Mortality Nationwide and Incidence in Two
> States.
> > Journal of the American Medical Association 265(11):1403-1408; 1991.
> >
> > Howe,G.R. Risk of Cancer Mortality in Populations Living Near Nuclear
> > Facilities. Journal of the American Medical Association
> > 265(11):1438-1439;
> > 1991.
> >
> > - Dan Strom
> >
> > The opinions expressed above, if any, are mine alone and have not been
> > reviewed
> > or approved by Battelle, the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, or
> the
> > U.S.
> > Department of Energy.
> >
> > Daniel J. Strom, Ph.D., CHP
> > Risk Analysis & Health Protection Group, Environmental Technology
> > Division,
> > Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
> > Mail Stop K3-56, PO BOX 999, Richland, Washington 99352-0999 USA
> > Telephone (509) 375-2626 FAX (509) 375-2019
> mailto:daniel.j.strom@pnl.gov
> > Brief Resume: http://www.pnl.gov/bayesian/strom/strombio.htm
> > Pagemaster for http://www.pnl.gov/bayesian http://qecc.pnl.gov
> > http://bidug.pnl.gov
> >
> > ************************************************************************
> > The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> > information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
> >
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html