Study finds leukemia not linked to living near nuclear plants
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/ferguswalsh/2011/05/childhood_le...
An interesting facet of this study was that they tracked leukemia in groups where nuclear plants were planned but never built. They found statistically higher percentages of childhood leukemia in these locations.
Could the geography or some other factor weigh on cancer clusters for leukemia?
Mutations, low level long term exposure, genetic legacy etc.
I really really hesitate to link to this site, BUT the "Russian conservative" poster collected and posted articles on mutations near TMI and Chernobyl etc which have some solid info for folks to follow up with and some links
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1131108/posts
I remember finding, for the first time, white buttercups near a nuclear facility and now I barely ever see any buttercups anymore (and there used to be a LOT of them everywhere when I was a kid).
I also remember some research publicized on gigantism in Dandelions near TMI and nuke plants by a Japanese genetic researcher. Anyway, I found this link in a quick google search after seeing the mutated five legged frog post.
some deformities near nuclear power plant
I found this blog about some deformities near nuclear power plant http://tibibee.blogspot.com/ - interesting
A few brief comments....
Any study has to be taken in context with the rest of the body of knowledge. I don't know that full body of knowledge....
I German study in 2008 did link a statistically significant risk for leukemia for children 5 and younger living within 5 km.
Some studies that they refer to as evidence of no increased risk, they admit are limited due to small sample sizes, and are definitive at all. In fact, leukemia in this group is a small sample size, a rare event, which will limit any study.
As with any study, the devil is in the details.....I wouldn't stake my child's life on this study if I had a choice.
Not very convincing report imho
First, the COMARE reports have been challenged on some arguably very good grounds repeatedly. I would offer the Greenaudit report here for folks to read before jumping to any conclusions.
http://www.greenaudit.org/childhood_leukaemia_and_radiation_near_newbury...
There are those who attack Greenaudit and their perpsectives, in part because some of its work is not "peer-reviewed" - but I would hasten to add that the COMARE report is not "perr reviewed" either. The Greenaudit author PhD Chris Busby is often attacked on multiple fronts and is a target of the nuclear industry.
But I believe you can let the Greenaudit report speak for itself.
Also, an organization I have done some work with has also published reports and studies which challenge the results and methodology used by COMARE. Their studies can be accessed here (including leukemia studies in children near European nuclear facilities):
http://www.radiation.org/reading/journal.html (scroll down for the leukemia report)
The industry will do anything to cover these probnlems up because of the huge liability and potential business losses if people begin to sue for damages and close their deathly profit operations,
So then, Bill, how do you
So then, Bill, how do you account for the clusters in areas not affected by nuclear plants?
It is not beyond possibility that the two are not linked in any way and there is a more common factor. The study suggests that the leukemia might be caused by a virus that is more commonly acquired in less populated areas that is not prevented by socialized contact and immune building. That the low density around nuclear plants out of fear leads to a masking of the cause by a more readily apparent, but false causality.
screw it. You are right,
screw it. You are right, radiation is safe. Actually it even makes us healthier. I don't understand why they even bother trying to keep it in containment vessels. Cigarettes have a hormetic effect too...smoke up! Big macs don't make you fat either.
logic....
**So then, Bill, how do you account for the clusters in areas not affected by nuclear plants?**
Just because there are clusters away from nuclear power plants does not mean that nuclear power plants are not implicated. It just means that there could be multiple causes.
Radiation is an assault on the immune system. As mentioned elsewhere here and in numerous other credible sources, radiation is implicated in leukemia.
Still haven't read the study, but I did finally read the webpage.
Radiation causes blood abnormalities, the same kind you will see in certain types of autoimmune conditions, tick diseases, and viral infections....
so....
seems to me that the question isn't whether radiation causes leukemia, it's whether power plants release enough of it into the local environment to cause a statistical rise in that disease.
Frankly, I do not really trust their methodology at all
But to answer your question directly, there are so many factors to consider that I honestly have no way of having an answer for you.
Radionculides travel in the wind and rain and may actually be causing these --- from Chernobyl or nuclear tests or some chemical factors or other pollution. Hard to say, and I would not venture a guess.
Add the additional studies (peer reviewed) linked in this Forbes
article:
http://blogs.forbes.com/jeffmcmahon/2011/04/25/french-plan-to-clean-fuku...
According to a number of studies, leukemia rates ARE higher due to radiation contamination from nuclear facilities.
I would add that Dr. Sternglass said one failure of many industry or government studies is that instead of looking downwind (look at Fukushima contamination zones to get why this matters) they draw a circle around a plant and average out the lekemia or other cancer incident rates (thus they can "average out" anomalies/associations to some extent).
The argument by COMARE that at Sellafield (not part of this study but referred to) the "rates of release" were too low to explain the cancer clusters (thus they could not be related) is ridiculous because the study only looked at a limited range of radioisotopes AND the actual release data was not available because regular monitoring was NOT DONE (like at 3 mile island no one knows exactly HOW much was released at certain times because amounts "went off the meter").
Results like the COMARE studies are often trotted out to show how "safe" nukes are and to support the industry --- yet I was impressed that they URGED the government to MAINTAIN monitoring of ALL facilities because, in part, actual release amounts are NOT KNOWN.
a couple thoughts
I haven't looked at the study yet, will have to do that later. Wonder if it says what happened to that land anyway and if something else industrial-ish was put there instead.
Leukemia and lymphoma are tricky because so many things can cause it. I might think it's hard to separate some causes. for example, tick diseases can be a precurser (blood infections triggering blood cancers), and we are so behind on tracking those.