Study finds link between cancer, nuclear power plants

[struggle4progress]

Tuesday, March 28, 2006


TRENTON (AP) -- A new study on childhood cancer rates in the areas around nuclear power facilities is fueling opponents of a bid to extend the license of the aging Oyster Creek plant.

In an article published last week in the peer-reviewed International Journal of Health Services, a researcher claims to have found a correlation between radiation in the areas surrounding nuclear power plants and childhood cancer rates.

The contention, which the study's author said should be verified by other researchers, was the focus of a Statehouse news conference held today by opponents of the bid by Oyster Creek's owner to keep the Lacey Township, Ocean County, plant open for 20 more years after the plant's present license expires in 2009.

Suzanne Leta, who works on energy issues for the New Jersey Public Interest Research Group, said the study is important because it suggests that nuclear power plants are a danger not only because of the effects of large amounts of radiation that might leak out during an accident, but also because of potentially harmful effects of low levels of regularly emitted radiation. <snip>

http://www.courierpostonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060328/NEWS01/60328048/1003/BUSINESS

[jpak]

1. IIRC the EPA was supposed to collect and publish

an inventory of radioisotope emissions in the US (coal-fired and nuclear plants, phosphate and uranium mines, other industrial sources).

If I also IIRC, ChimpCo quashed it...

It takes some "doing" to release 90-Sr from reactor fuel pellets to the environment....

Wonder why this is happening????

[Dead_Parrot]

2. They quashed it?

I'm shocked... Who'da thunk.

Oyster's angle on the Sr seems to point towards weapons testing, which seems a little thin to me: The stuff at http://www.oystercreeklr.com/docdata.html makes for some fascinating reading, though. You should enjoy it... :)

As to a release, I don't know either - But whenever there's a leak story, the name "Exelon" seems to follow closely behind. I can't help wondering if someone gave a drunk the car keys.

[jpak]

3. Wow - they really don't like this study...

Lots of corporate blathering too... "Tooth Fairy Study"...psuedoscience...etc....

Attributing the increase in NJ baby tooth 90-Sr concentration in the late 1980's to weapons tests conducted decades earlier is a real stretch.

If they are so confident that this study is somehow "flawed" you would think that they would favor continued research (but they oppose it).

While I don't think a single study is definitive, they really need to do a lot more work to dismiss this...

[NNadir]

4. Sternglass?

I was wondering why everybody was dead on the beach this summer.

Radiation and Public Health Project is in fact Sternglass's squad of paranoids.

Unfortunately Nader's PIRG's have been handing this horseshit in the grand anti-nuclear circle jerk.for 30 years, the same 30 years they've been pretending that windpower and PV cells would solve the energy future.

But solar power and wind power combined have yet to produce a single exajoule. Meanwhile the sea is rising up to swallow all teeth, those of the senile Sternglass, the baby teeth, the dog teeth, the cat teeth and the rat teeth.

Neither has 30 years of publication in obscure "journals" made the "Radiation and Public Health Project" aware of the nature of radiation, health or what exactly a "project" is.

Meanwhile, here in New Jersey, coal ash rains on us, unremarked by Ralph's retards. In fact the output of pollutants in New Jersey continues to rise, mostly from the midwest. Sternglass wants to tell us that what is killing us is "radiation," but just like the people who continually link him, year after year, he doesn't have a clue.

Even in a journal that publishes him, he is kind of ridiculed:

UP FRONT



Scientific Study Refutes Claims Similar to Radiation and Public Health Project

Radiation health claims are not new. For more than 30 years, claims have been made that there is a link between low-level radiation and various forms of cancer, low Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores, and babies with low birth weights. Over the past several years, these allegations have been expanded to include charges that women living near nuclear facilities have a greater risk of developing breast cancer.



A scientifically based review of work by independent scientists reveals that radiation health claims are false. Regarding charges linking low-level radiation and health effects, many state and health officials responsible for monitoring and setting the standards for public health and safety have reviewed these allegations and issued reports saying there is no merit to the claims. These public health officials include the Minnesota Department of Health, Pennsylvania Department of Health and Michigan Department of Public Health, have repeatedly refuted radiation health claim allegations.

Most radiation health claims are made by a small group of people who formed the Radiation and Public Health Project (RPHP), or the "Tooth Fairy Project." The Radiation and Public Health Project was founded in 1995 to “study the links between low-level radiation and world-wide increases in diseases,” an allegation that has not been supported by mainstream scientists. RPHP is seeking evidence that “strontium-90 levels are significantly higher in counties located within 100 miles of nuclear reactors, thereby coinciding with increased breast and prostate cancer mortality rates.” The group is asking members of the public to contribute to its goal of 6,000 baby teeth. Some 1,200 teeth have reportedly been received.

RPHP is led by long-time nuclear critics. Ernest Sternglass and Jay Gould have a long history of opposing nuclear energy, and are now alleging a link between breast cancer and nuclear facilities. Before retirement, Gould was a statistician and Sternglass, a radiation physicist. Neither man is an epidemiologist. RPHP has not indicated that it will submit the findings of the “Tooth Fairy Project” for peer review.



NCI/NIH is conducting a credible scientific study. In a separate study, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) of the National Institutes of Public Health (NIH) is currently conducting a $22 million study — the Long Island Breast Cancer Study. That study includes Nassau, New York, where RPHP has alleged there are high breast cancer rates related to nuclear power plants. The NCI/NIH study is “a multistudy investigation of possible causes of breast cancer in Suffolk, Nassau and Schoharie counties, N.Y. and in Toland County, Conn.” The scope of the NCI/NIH study, which was mandated by Congress, covers “potential environmental and other risks contributing to the incidence of breast cancer.” (For information on this study, go to http://www.cancer.gov/ and look at the press release section for May 7, 1999.) This study does not include radiation among the potential risk factors.



Radiation risk was assessed in an earlier study, which found no link between nuclear plants and caner. Cancer in Populations Living Near Nuclear Facilities—in 1990 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health. (NIH Publication No. 90-874.) This peer-reviewed study—this most extensive of its kind—evaluated “cancer deaths occurring between 1950 and 1984 in 107 counties with nuclear installations and certain adjacent counties in the U.S.” The study found:

“Overall, and for specific groups of nuclear installations, there was no evidence to suggest that cancer mortality in counties with nuclear facilities was higher than, or was increasing in time faster than, the mortality experience of similar counties in the United States.”
“This study has found no suggestion that nuclear facilities may be linked causally with excess deaths from leukemia or from other cancers in populations living nearby.”
Allegations linking low-level radiation and health effects have been discredited. The claims by Gould have been an extension of the allegations raised over the years by Sternglass, whose work has been widely discredited. None of their claims has been (1) peer-reviewed or (2) substantiated by state and/or federal health authorities. In fact, criticism of these theories dates back to the mid-1960s. In 1964, scientist John H. Harley at the Health and Safety Laboratory, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, discredited using teeth to determine health effects from fallout during weapons testing. He wrote: “Among the available monitoring systems, the use of deciduous teeth or other teeth does not offer any advantage.” In 1970, an American Academy of Pediatrics committee criticized Sternglass’ hypothesis linking fallout from nuclear weapons tests with heath effects. The medical organization called his conclusions “unfounded and unsubstantiated.”





A COMPILATION OF REVIEWS OF THE ALLEGATIONS LINKING LOW-LEVEL RADIATION AND CANCER



“Ionizing radiation emissions from nuclear facilities are closely controlled and involve negligible levels of exposure for communities near such plants. Although reports about cancer case clusters in such communities have raised public concern, studies show that clusters do not occur more often near nuclear plants than they do by chance elsewhere in the population.” American Cancer Society: Cancer Facts and Figures 1999




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


“For over three decades, Ernest Sternglass (recently joined by Jay Gould) has made more than 50 similar allegations connecting radioactivity from fallout from nuclear weapons testing and, subsequently, from nuclear reactors with increased infant mortality, a decline in SAT (Scholastic Achievement Test) scores, and an increase in leukemia mortality. Lately, they have begun to make claims of a correlation between breast cancer incidence and releases of radioactivity from nuclear power plants. In the past, over 50 critical examinations of these types of allegations by numerous reputable scientists have found the Sternglass methodology scientifically deficient and consisting principally of selected evidence. Furthermore, as an example of the numerous formal refutations of the claims by Sternglass and/or Gould, the Minnesota Energy Agency concluded that ‘with respect to Dr. Sternglass, both his methodology and his conclusions have been repeatedly rejected in numerous scientific and technical studies, including evaluations done by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the National Cancer Institute, the National Academy of Sciences, and by many independent scientists.’” Comments on "Breast Cancer: Evidence for a relation to fission products in the diet," Stephen V. Musolino et al, International Journal of Health Services, Volume 25, Number 3, pages 475-480, 1995

And there's this:

UP FRONT



Scientific Study Refutes Claims Similar to Radiation and Public Health Project

Radiation health claims are not new. For more than 30 years, claims have been made that there is a link between low-level radiation and various forms of cancer, low Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores, and babies with low birth weights. Over the past several years, these allegations have been expanded to include charges that women living near nuclear facilities have a greater risk of developing breast cancer.



A scientifically based review of work by independent scientists reveals that radiation health claims are false. Regarding charges linking low-level radiation and health effects, many state and health officials responsible for monitoring and setting the standards for public health and safety have reviewed these allegations and issued reports saying there is no merit to the claims. These public health officials include the Minnesota Department of Health, Pennsylvania Department of Health and Michigan Department of Public Health, have repeatedly refuted radiation health claim allegations.

Most radiation health claims are made by a small group of people who formed the Radiation and Public Health Project (RPHP), or the "Tooth Fairy Project." The Radiation and Public Health Project was founded in 1995 to “study the links between low-level radiation and world-wide increases in diseases,” an allegation that has not been supported by mainstream scientists. RPHP is seeking evidence that “strontium-90 levels are significantly higher in counties located within 100 miles of nuclear reactors, thereby coinciding with increased breast and prostate cancer mortality rates.” The group is asking members of the public to contribute to its goal of 6,000 baby teeth. Some 1,200 teeth have reportedly been received.

RPHP is led by long-time nuclear critics. Ernest Sternglass and Jay Gould have a long history of opposing nuclear energy, and are now alleging a link between breast cancer and nuclear facilities. Before retirement, Gould was a statistician and Sternglass, a radiation physicist. Neither man is an epidemiologist. RPHP has not indicated that it will submit the findings of the “Tooth Fairy Project” for peer review.



NCI/NIH is conducting a credible scientific study. In a separate study, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) of the National Institutes of Public Health (NIH) is currently conducting a $22 million study — the Long Island Breast Cancer Study. That study includes Nassau, New York, where RPHP has alleged there are high breast cancer rates related to nuclear power plants. The NCI/NIH study is “a multistudy investigation of possible causes of breast cancer in Suffolk, Nassau and Schoharie counties, N.Y. and in Toland County, Conn.” The scope of the NCI/NIH study, which was mandated by Congress, covers “potential environmental and other risks contributing to the incidence of breast cancer.” (For information on this study, go to http://www.cancer.gov/ and look at the press release section for May 7, 1999.) This study does not include radiation among the potential risk factors.



Radiation risk was assessed in an earlier study, which found no link between nuclear plants and caner. Cancer in Populations Living Near Nuclear Facilities—in 1990 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health. (NIH Publication No. 90-874.) This peer-reviewed study—this most extensive of its kind—evaluated “cancer deaths occurring between 1950 and 1984 in 107 counties with nuclear installations and certain adjacent counties in the U.S.” The study found:

“Overall, and for specific groups of nuclear installations, there was no evidence to suggest that cancer mortality in counties with nuclear facilities was higher than, or was increasing in time faster than, the mortality experience of similar counties in the United States.”
“This study has found no suggestion that nuclear facilities may be linked causally with excess deaths from leukemia or from other cancers in populations living nearby.”
Allegations linking low-level radiation and health effects have been discredited. The claims by Gould have been an extension of the allegations raised over the years by Sternglass, whose work has been widely discredited. None of their claims has been (1) peer-reviewed or (2) substantiated by state and/or federal health authorities. In fact, criticism of these theories dates back to the mid-1960s. In 1964, scientist John H. Harley at the Health and Safety Laboratory, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, discredited using teeth to determine health effects from fallout during weapons testing. He wrote: “Among the available monitoring systems, the use of deciduous teeth or other teeth does not offer any advantage.” In 1970, an American Academy of Pediatrics committee criticized Sternglass’ hypothesis linking fallout from nuclear weapons tests with heath effects. The medical organization called his conclusions “unfounded and unsubstantiated.”





A COMPILATION OF REVIEWS OF THE ALLEGATIONS LINKING LOW-LEVEL RADIATION AND CANCER



“Ionizing radiation emissions from nuclear facilities are closely controlled and involve negligible levels of exposure for communities near such plants. Although reports about cancer case clusters in such communities have raised public concern, studies show that clusters do not occur more often near nuclear plants than they do by chance elsewhere in the population.” American Cancer Society: Cancer Facts and Figures 1999




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


“For over three decades, Ernest Sternglass (recently joined by Jay Gould) has made more than 50 similar allegations connecting radioactivity from fallout from nuclear weapons testing and, subsequently, from nuclear reactors with increased infant mortality, a decline in SAT (Scholastic Achievement Test) scores, and an increase in leukemia mortality. Lately, they have begun to make claims of a correlation between breast cancer incidence and releases of radioactivity from nuclear power plants. In the past, over 50 critical examinations of these types of allegations by numerous reputable scientists have found the Sternglass methodology scientifically deficient and consisting principally of selected evidence. Furthermore, as an example of the numerous formal refutations of the claims by Sternglass and/or Gould, the Minnesota Energy Agency concluded that ‘with respect to Dr. Sternglass, both his methodology and his conclusions have been repeatedly rejected in numerous scientific and technical studies, including evaluations done by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the National Cancer Institute, the National Academy of Sciences, and by many independent scientists.’” Comments on "Breast Cancer: Evidence for a relation to fission products in the diet," Stephen V. Musolino et al, International Journal of Health Services, Volume 25, Number 3, pages 475-480, 1995




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


“In essence, Sternglass followed an old and discredited style of epidemiological analysis-unsystematically selecting data sets and analyses that fit one’s thesis, and ignoring or explaining away other findings. Public health data are so rife with selection biases and other distortions that even the most experienced practitioners often go astray. Epidemiology is not a field for amateurs.” “Sly Statistics,” a book review by Paul Meier of Deadly Deceit: Low-Level Radiation, High-Level Cover-Up, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, September 1990




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


“This analysis was undertaken following allegations by several individuals and environmental groups in 1994 that significant increases in breast cancer mortality rates had occurred in counties close to the Prairie Island and Monticello nuclear power plants. The differences in rates in these counties and other ‘nuclear’ counties in Minnesota and throughout the U.S. were attributed to the operation of those plants. The Minnesota Department of Health attempted to replicate and expand those analyses using complete cancer mortality data for the period 1950 through 1992. No significant differences in trends in breast cancer mortality rates were detected for counties surrounding the Monticello or Prairie Island plants compared to the overall Minnesota average. Also, no significant differences were found for the rates of newly-diagnosed breast cancers for the years 1988-1992 for which complete data are available from the Minnesota Cancer Surveillance System. No differences were found in mortality or incidence rates for cancers of the bone and thyroid gland or for leukemia—cancers for which ionizing radiation is an established risk factor.” “The Occurrence of Cancer in Minnesota 1988-1992: Incidence, Mortality, and Trends,” Minnesota Cancer Surveillance System Report to the Minnesota Legislature, March 1995, Minnesota Department of Health, Chronic Disease and Environmental Epidemiology




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


“The state Health Department’s director of Epidemiological Research labeled a two-part magazine article written by nuclear-power opponent Dr. Sternglass as ‘highly inaccurate to the extent of creating unnecessary fear in the minds of Commonwealth Citizens. Dr. Sternglass’ words have the potential of creating fear, apprehension, stress, and even panic among the residents of central Pennsylvania. This is totally irresponsible and the Department of Health regrets that the public has been subjected to such unfounded statements from Dr. Sternglass,’ Dr. George K. Tokuhata said.” “Health Department Responds to Sternglass Allegations,” news release, Pennsylvania Department of Health, April 20, 1981




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


“The correlation between infant mortality and radiation from Peach Bottom (nuclear power plant), which Dr. Sternglass asserts exists, is not supported by the information presented. A preliminary review of this information by several Maryland agencies indicates that this information does not merit a detailed review. I am also concerned that inaccurate information such as that presented by Dr. Sternglass is continually used to misinform the public, and to promote emotional, rather than rational, responses.” Letter from David Carroll, Governor’s Chesapeake Bay Coordinator, State of Maryland, Office of the Governor, Aug. 15, 1988




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


“Significant time and energy have been devoted to evaluating the papers and conclusions of Dr. Sternglass. Evaluation of the data has convinced the Committee that his conclusions are completely unfounded and unsubstantiated. The Sternglass hypothesis can be criticized for these reasons:



1. He has selected data to prepare his hypothesis without considering the far more extensive data that do not support it. In particular, his conclusions conflict with the results of a sophisticated study concerning the offspring of atomic-bomb survivors in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

2. Several assumptions on which Sternglass’ hypothesis rests have been shown to be erroneous.

3. He has misinterpreted some information in seeking support for his thesis from other studies....

4. Animal experiments concerned with chronic irradiation delivered at a much higher dose rate than that delivered by fallout radiation, and in some instances for many generations, do not increase fetal or infant mortality. ...



Dr. Sternglass’ concern about nuclear warfare and fallout is shared by all. By misinterpreting the available data and subjecting himself and science in general to ridicule or suspicion, he may inadvertently be hampering the attainment of some of the goals he considers important. The Committee shared his concern but not his methodology or conclusions.”

Committee on Environmental Hazards, American Academy of Pediatrics, April 15, 1970

“Sternglass’ findings were surprising, as they did not square with other known studies. The (Minnesota) Department of Health quite properly chose to investigate. It performed a much more rigorous analysis of cancer data than did Sternglass, considering not just breast cancer mortality rates but far more numerous data on cancer occurrences. In addition, it studied types of cancers known to be sensitive to radiation exposure: bone and thyroid cancer and leukemia. In all cases, the study found cancer rates ‘statistically indistinguishable’ between the 10 counties near nuclear plants and the balance of the state. In fact, the study notes that rates were lower or showed a sharper downward trend in the ‘nuclear’ counties. Although those differences are not significant, they are opposite of what would be expected if a harmful exposure had occurred in these counties.

What, therefore, to make of the allegations from Sternglass? The Health Department is somewhat gentle in dismissing his ‘methodological limitations and errors.’ But such nuclear fearmongering has real consequences.

Let this study by the Department of Health put to rest ill-founded fears raised to scare citizens into making costly, uninformed, short-term decisions.”

“Fact vs. Fear,” an editorial, Minneapolis Star Tribune, May 6, 1995.

Way back in 1971 the international radiation community was rejecting Sternglass, and it hasn't gotten any better since. The only people who reference this turkey are people who are trying to reify their silly paranoia.

The Nuclear plant at Oyster Creek will close when the shoreline goes under water owing to global climate change, which will happen because people can't do simple risk analysis. Sternglass et al, the baby teeth squad, will be as effective with this crap as they have been in the last 30 years, which is not at all.

Then all of five of the world's prominent nuclear critics, the three of them at DU, Sternglass and Candicott will start fretting about radiation links from the sunken reactor, as completely oblivious to the dead drowned bodies floating by as they are to the millions of air pollution deaths they encourage each year.

(You may think that Sternglass will die before then, but sadly this is not true. He has eliminated all risk and will live forever. This is because he has been wearing a lead lined tin foil hat around his brain since the 1960's when first he began to handle those very, very, very, very dangerous baby teeth.)

One zillion papers from Sternglass's circle jerk will not change the fact that the world has rejected the anti-nuclear argument.

From Indonesia, to Brazil, to Japan, to China, to India, to Mexico, even in the ignoramus US, the nuclear option is being explored (and acted on) with due seriousness. The world knows there is no other safe and real option.