U.S. University Study: 23% higher incidence of childhood leukemia within 16 km of nuclear facilities… More

Published: January 30th, 2012 at 1:48 pm ET


Title: Cancer Risks near Nuclear Facilities: The Importance of Research Design and Explicit Study Hypotheses
Source: Environ. Health Perspect.
Authors: Steve Wing, David B. Richardson, and Wolfgang Hoffmann
Date: 2011 April

The possibility that radiation releases from nuclear facilities could cause cancer in surrounding populations has been of interest for more than two decades. Epidemiologic studies of spatial variation in cancer incidence or mortality have been conducted to investigate effects of unplanned releases as well as routine operations.

For example

  1. Case–control study of cancer among children < 5 years of age found that residence within 5 km of a nuclear facility was associated with a 61% increased incidence of all cancer (Spix et al. 2008) […]
  2. 119% excess risk of leukemia (Kaatsch et al. 2008a) […]
  3. Meta-analysis of geographic studies reported 23% higher incidence of leukemia among children 0–9 years of age living within 16 km of nuclear facilities (Baker and Hoel 2007) […]
  4. Study of childhood leukemia after the Chernobyl accident, which classified radiation doses based on soil radioactivity and diet, reported an excess relative risk per gray of radiation of 32.4 (Davis et al. 2006) […]

Read the report here

Title: Meta-analysis of standardized incidence and mortality rates of childhood leukaemia in proximity to nuclear facilities
Source: Eur J Cancer Care (Engl).
Authors: Baker PJ, Hoel DG. (Department of Biostatistics, Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Medical University of South Carolina)
Date: 2007 Jul


The meta-analysis combined and statistically analysed studies of childhood leukaemia and nuclear facilities. Focus was on studies that calculated standardized rates for individual facilities. Due to variability between study designs, eight separate analyses were performed stratified by age and zone. One hundred and thirty-six sites were used in at least one analysis. Unadjusted, fixed effects and random effects models were used. Meta-rates greater than one were found in all models at all stratification levels often achieving statistical significance. Caution must be used when interpreting these results. The meta-analysis was able to show an increase in childhood leukaemia near nuclear facilities, but does not support a hypothesis to explain the excess. Each type of model utilized has limitations. Fixed effects models give greater weight to larger studies; however, population density may be a risk factor. Random effects models give greater weight to smaller studies that may be more likely to be affected by publication bias. A limitation of the overall study design is that standardized rates must be available for individual sites which led to exclusion of studies that only calculated rates for multiple sites and those that presented other statistical methods. Further, dose-response studies do not support excess rates found near nuclear facilities. However, it cannot be ignored that the majority of studies have found elevated rates, although not usually statistically significant.

Read the report here

See also:

  • [intlink id=”study-90-higher-incidence-of-childhood-leukemia-around-nuclear-plants-authors-call-for-investigation-international-journal-of-cancer” type=”post”]{{empty}}[/intlink]
  • [intlink id=”german-govt-study-children-living-near-nuclear-reactors-have-double-leukemia-rates-high-incidence-of-solid-cancers-plants-cannot-prevent-radiation-from-escaping-video” type=”post”]{{empty}}[/intlink]
  • [intlink id=”report-nhk-starting-broadcast-truth-large-increase-brain-tumors-cancer-nuke-plant-everyone-died-im-alive-killing-govt-kept-telling-icrp-safe” type=”post”]{{empty}}[/intlink]
  • [intlink id=”nuclear-expert-forecasts-1000000-cancers-from-fukushima-in-japan-first-thyroid-then-lung-organ-brain-leukemia-video” type=”post”]{{empty}}[/intlink]
Published: January 30th, 2012 at 1:48 pm ET


Related Posts

  1. Study: 90% higher incidence of childhood leukemia around nuclear plants — Authors call for investigation -International Journal of Cancer January 21, 2012
  2. Mag: Evidence linking nuclear plants to ill health increasingly compelling, “clear something is going” says prof. — UK gov’t blames unidentified virus for childhood leukemia rise February 15, 2012
  3. German Gov’t Study: Children living near nuclear plants have double leukemia rates, high incidence of solid cancers — Reactors cannot prevent radiation from escaping (VIDEO) October 22, 2011
  4. Many baby seals dying of leukemia-linked disorder along California coast — Blamed for over 1/3 of recent deaths at San Francisco Bay rescue center (CHART) August 26, 2015
  5. University Study: Wind and solar can fully power the electric grid 99.9% of time… at same cost we pay now — “These results break the conventional wisdom” -Professor December 12, 2012

6 comments to U.S. University Study: 23% higher incidence of childhood leukemia within 16 km of nuclear facilities… More

  • radegan

    Did they bother to characterize these children as happy, sad, prone to smile a lot, etc? Without a proper inclusion of the Yamashita Effect, how can they reach such a conclusion?

  • “Yamashita Effect?” Which Yamashita are you talking about? If it’s Smiley-Boy, that can be dispensed with immediately.

  • bincbom

    Ah.. just like the German and French studies that showed the same thing.

    Why then did the nuclear power industry tell us that these plants are “safe” and that they “don’t release radioactivity at all during normal operation”???

    These claims have now been PROVEN false, and by an AMERICAN study this time!!!

  • Bobby1

    “The expected relative risk of cancer at this dose level, according to NAS BEIR V (Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation, Health Effects of Exposure to Low-Level Ionizing Radiation) (National Research Council 1990) estimates available around the time of the study, which were primarily based on studies of acute penetrating radiation exposures of A-bomb survivors, would be less than 1.0005. Unless the dose estimates, the dose–response estimates, or both were considered to be questionable, and by a combined factor of orders of magnitude, no results from the study could have been interpreted as supporting the hypothesis that emissions caused cancer (Wing et al. 1997).”

    There are two problems:

    1. The dose-response studies use the ICRP “bag-of-water” model for estimating radiation exposure.

    2. The dose rates that are provided come from the nuclear industry and its puppet the NRC, which provide bogus radiation data.

    All other aspects of all studies suggest that the leukemia rate is higher for children living mear nuclear plants.

  • bilgicix

    Why then did the nuclear power industry tell us that these plants are “safe” and that they “don’t release radioactivity at all during normal operation”???