Child cancer risk higher near nuclear plants: study

[Oscar]

Child cancer risk higher near nuclear plants: study

December 8, 2007

http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNe ... 08?sp=true

BERLIN (Reuters) - A German study has found that young children living near nuclear power plants have a significantly higher risk of developing leukemia and other forms of cancer, a German newspaper reported on Saturday.

"Our study confirmed that in Germany a connection has been observed between the distance of a domicile to the nearest nuclear power plant .... and the risk of developing cancer, such as leukemia, before the fifth birthday," Suddeutsche Zeitung newspaper quoted the report as saying.
The newspaper said the study was done by the University of Mainz for Germany's Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BFS). A copy of the report was not immediately available.

The researchers found that 37 children within a 5-kilometer (3-mile) radius of nuclear power plants had developed leukemia between 1980 and 2003, while the statistical average during this time period was 17, the paper said.

The newspaper cited an unnamed radiation protection expert familiar with the study who said its conclusions understated the problem. He said the data showed there was an increased cancer risk for children living within 50 kilometers of a reactor.

German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel said in a statement that he would examine the study. He said the BFS should also evaluate its findings.

Germany plans to prematurely shut down all of its nuclear power plants by the early 2020s.

(Reporting by Louis Charbonneau)

=========================================

Child cancer risk higher near nuclear plants: study
January 25, 2008
http://politicsnpoetry.wordpress.com/2008/01/

Filed under: AECL, Germany, Nuclear Power, Uranium, activism, children's health, nuclear — politicsnpoetry @ 12:11 pm

This is something not carried on major newscasts when it was released in December 2007.
Of course, Canada had its own nuclear issues going on then.

From the inbox: Gordon Edwards wrote:

I have been told that this German study was carefully carried out with a very large population living in the vicinity of 16 nuclear power plants. According to my source, there was a statistically significant correlation between cancer/leukemia among children under 5 and their proximity to (or distance from) a nuclear power plant. Moreover, this correlation remained significant when any one nuclear plant was taken away and the other 15 were studied. Thus the results are the strongest ever obtained, and the methodology was, according to all reports, exemplary.

Child cancer risk higher near nuclear plants: study

http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNe ... 08?sp=true Sat Dec 8, 2007

BERLIN (Reuters) - A German study has found that young children living near nuclear power plants have a significantly higher risk of developing leukemia and other forms of cancer, a German newspaper reported on Saturday.

“Our study confirmed that in Germany a connection has been observed between the distance of a domicile to the nearest nuclear power plant …. and the risk of developing cancer, such as leukemia, before the fifth birthday,” Suddeutsche Zeitung newspaper quoted the report as saying.
The newspaper said the study was done by the University of Mainz for Germany’s Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BFS). A copy of the report was not immediately available.

The researchers found that 37 children within a 5-kilometer (3-mile) radius of nuclear power plants had developed leukemia between 1980 and 2003, while the statistical average during this time period was 17, the paper said.

The newspaper cited an unnamed radiation protection expert familiar with the study who said its conclusions understated the problem. He said the data showed there was an increased cancer risk for children living within 50 kilometers of a reactor.

***The statement of the expert external panel is here.
***The background to the study is here.

Ed. NOTE: ***Unfortunately, these Links are no longer active.
=======================================

S.C. researchers find more leukemia in children, young people near nukes

http://www.southernstudies.org/2007/07/ ... ia-in.html July 2007

A new study by researchers at the Medical University of South Carolina has found elevated rates of leukemia among children and young people living near nuclear facilities.

The findings raise important questions about the push to expand the U.S. nuclear power industry. There are currently plans (PDF) to build new reactors across the nation and the South, including Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia.

The MUSC researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 17 research papers covering 136 nuclear sites in the United States, United Kingdom, Spain, Japan, Germany and France. They found that leukemia death rates for children up to the age of 9 were elevated by between 5 and 24 percent, depending on their proximity to nuclear facilities, and by 2 to 18 percent in children and young people up to the age of 25. They also found that leukemia incidence rates were increased among those living near nuclear facilities by 14 to 21 percent in children up to age 9, and by 7 to 10 percent for those up to age 25.

"Childhood leukemia is a rare disease and nuclear sites are commonly found in rural areas, which means that sample sizes tend to be small," says lead author Dr. Peter J. Baker. "The advantage of carrying out a meta-analysis is that it enables us to draw together a number of studies that have employed common methods and draw wider conclusions."

Eight separate analyses were performed -- including unadjusted, random and fixed-effect models -- and the figures they produced showed considerable consistency.

"If the amount of exposure were too low to cause the excess risk, we would expect leukemia rates to remain consistent before and after the start-up of a nuclear facility," said Baker. "However, our meta-analysis consistently showed elevated illness and death rates for children and young people living near nuclear facilities."

Baker noted that many questions remain to be answered about why living near a nuclear reactor would increase leukemia rates. Various hypotheses have been proposed to explain the phenomenon, including environmental radiation exposure and parental radiation exposure. In addition, cancer researcher Professor Leo Kinlen of Oxford University has offered the hypothesis that viral transmission caused by mixing populations in a new rural location could be a factor.

"It is clear that further research is needed into this important subject," Baker concluded.

The MUSC study appears in the July issue of the European Journal of Cancer Care.

======================================

Radiation and Public Health Project, November 11, 2008

CHILD LEUKEMIA DEATH RATES RISING NEAR U.S. NUCLEAR PLANTS

http://www.ecologyparty.org/NoNukes01.html

[Rachel's introduction: A new study finds that the death rate from leukemia has risen during the past 2 decades among children living near nuclear power plants in the U.S. Similar findings have been reported previously from Europe.] Leukemia death rates in U.S. children near nuclear reactors rose sharply (compared to the national trend) in the past two decades, according to a new study. The greatest mortality increases occurred near the oldest nuclear plants, while declines were observed near plants that closed permanently in the 1980s and 1990s. The study was published in the most recent issue of the European Journal of Cancer Care. The study updates an analysis conducted in the late 1980s by the National Cancer Institute (NCI). That analysis, mandated by Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA), is the only attempt federal officials have made to examine cancer rates near U.S. nuclear plants. U.S. Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-MA), a senior member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said, "Nothing is more important to American families than the health of their children. It is critical that we continue to improve our understanding of the causes of child leukemia and learn how this heartbreaking disease be prevented, therefore this study deserves critical consideration." Actor and advocate Alec Baldwin said "exposure to ambient levels of radiation near nuclear reactors used by public utilities has long been suspected as a significant contributor to various cancers and other diseases." Baldwin, who has a long-standing interest in radiation health issues, adds "nuclear power is not the clean, efficient energy panacea to which we are presently being reintroduced. It is dirty, poses serious security threats to our country, and is ridiculously expensive. Nukes are still a military technology forced on the American public with a dressed up civilian application." Study authors were epidemiologist Joseph Mangano MPH MBA, Director of the Radiation and Public Health Project, and toxicologist Janette Sherman MD of the Environmental Institute at Western Michigan University. They analyzed leukemia deaths in children age 0-19 in the 67 counties near 51 nuclear power plants that started operations during the period 1957-1981 (the same counties in the NCI study). About 25 million people live in these 67 counties, and the 51 plants represent nearly half of all U.S. nuclear reactors).

Using mortality statistics from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Mangano and Sherman found that in 1985-2004, the change in local child leukemia mortality (vs. the U.S.) compared to the earliest years of reactor operations were:
** An increase of 13.9% near nuclear plants started 1957-1970 (oldest plants)
** An increase of 9.4% near nuclear plants started 1971-1981 (newer plants)
** A decrease of 5.5% near nuclear plants started 1957-1981 and later shut down. The 13.9% rise near the older plants suggests a potential effect of greater radioactive contamination near aging reactors, while the 5.5% decline near closed reactors suggests a link between less contamination and lower leukemia rates. The large number of child leukemia deaths in the study (1292) makes many of the results statistically significant. The Mangano/Sherman report follows a 2007 meta-analysis also published in the European Journal of Cancer Care by researchers from the Medical University of South Carolina. That report reviewed 17 medical journal articles on child leukemia rates near reactors, and found that all 17 detected elevated rates.

A January 2008 European Journal of Cancer article that found high rates of child leukemia near German reactors from 1980-2003 is believed to be the largest study on the topic (1592 leukemia cases). The carcinogenic effects of radiation exposure are most severe among infants and children. Leukemia is the type of childhood cancer most closely associated with exposures to toxic agents such as radiation, and has been most frequently studied by scientists. In the U.S., during the period 1975-2005, leukemia incidence among children younger than 15 rose 54.6% (from 3.3 per 100,000 to 5.1 per 100,000), according to the National Cancer Institute,[1] suggesting that more detailed studies of causes are warranted.

==============
The Radiation and Public Health Project is a non profit group of health professionals and scientists based in New York that studies health risks from radioactive exposures to nuclear reactors and weapons tests. RPHP members have published 23 medical journal articles on the topic.

====================================


Childhood Leukemia in the Vicinity of Nuclear Power Plants in Germany
Dtsch Arztebl Int 2008; 105(42): 725-32
DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.2008.0725
Kaatsch, P; Spix, C; Jung, I; Blettner, M
Original article

Author Affiliations:
Institut für Medizinische Biometrie, Epidemiologie und Informatik, Klinikum der Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz: Dr. rer. physiol. Kaatsch, PD Dr. rer. nat. Spix, Jung, Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Blettner
Introduction: The causes of leukemia are largely unclear. The question whether leukemia rates are increased near nuclear power plants is controversial. The German Childhood Cancer Registry has published an epidemiological case-control study on childhood cancer and nuclear power plants.

Method: The study was based on the distance of children's residences from nuclear power plants and addressed the question whether children under age 5 with cancer live closer, on average, to nuclear power plants than randomly selected controls. Odds Ratios (OR) for distance categories and standardized incidence ratios (SIR) were calculated.

Results: An association was found between the nearness of residence to nuclear power plants and the risk of leukemia (593 cases, 1766 controls). Within the 5-km zone, the OR for the development of leukemia in children under 5 years of age was 2.19 compared to the rest of the region, and this elevation of the OR was statistically significant. The incidence of leukemia in the overall study region was the same as that in Germany as a whole (SIR=0.99; 95% confidence interval 0.92–1.07).

Discussion: Based on the available information about radiation emissions from German nuclear power plants, a direct relation to radiation seems implausible. Many factors may conceivably cause leukemia, possibly operating in combination, and these factors may be present to a greater extent in the vicinity of German nuclear power plants.

Dtsch Arztebl Int 2008; 105(42): 725–32
DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.2008.0725
Key words: child health, leukemia, nuclear power plants, epidemiology, cancer registry

Every year some 1800 children under 15 years of age in Germany develop a malignant disease, including around 600 who become ill with leukemia (1). The data of the German Childhood Cancer Registry show that a high proportion (79.1%) of cases in this age group are accounted for by acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), followed by acute myeloid leukemia (AML; 14.0%) (1). Chronic leukemia is considerably less frequent in children than in adults. The median age at onset is 5 years. The incidence of ALL in Germany is 4.1 per 100 000, that of AML 0.7 per 100 000. European data show a statistically significant increase in childhood leukemias in recent years (1978 to 1997: mean 0.6% per year) (2). This is confirmed by the German data (3).

The higher incidence of childhood leukemias in industrialized countries, together with repeated observations of temporally limited local clusters of leukemia in rural areas, has led to the hypothesis that infectious pathogens play a part (4). Children whose immune system was inadequately modulated in infancy seem to be at greater risk of leukemia when they later have increased exposure to agents of infection (5). Environmental influences were long suspected of causing a large proportion of leukemias in children; however, it has since emerged that only a small number of cases result from such factors. The authors published a review of the possible causes of childhood leukemia in 2005 (6).

Despite the great number of large epidemiological studies carried out, the causes of leukemia in childhood remain largely unclear. Nevertheless, one factor generally accepted to represent a risk for leukemia is exposure to ionizing radiation. The effect of low-dose radiation is less clear. Therefore, the question frequently arises of whether the risk of leukemia is greater in the vicinity of nuclear power plants (NPP).

Leukemia, especially in children, is usually a central topic in the discussion of the possible consequences of nuclear technology. This is related to the relatively swift development of leukemia after exposure to ionizing radiation and the fact that leukemia is the most frequent malignant disease of childhood.

In 2007 the German Childhood Cancer Registry published the findings of the Epidemiological Case-Control Study of Childhood Cancer and Nuclear Power Plants (KiKK study) (7–9). Earlier studies were completed and published in 1992 (10, 11) and 1998/1999 (12, 13). The question the recent study sets out to answer was whether children with cancer lived, on average, closer to an NPP than randomly selected healthy control children. Specifically, it was investigated whether there is a connection between the distance from residence to nearest NPP and the occurrence of a malignant disease (formulated statistically as a one-sided proposition).

In the KiKK study, as in the preceding studies, an increased risk of leukemia was observed for children under the age of 5 years who live within 5 km of an NPP. In light of the available data on the radiation emitted by German power reactors during normal operation, however, a direct link with the radiation seems implausible on the basis of current knowledge.

In this article the authors report the results of a series of analyses extending beyond the original evaluation concept and the concluding report (tables 1, 2, 3), as well as additional analyses solely on the basis of data from the German Childhood Cancer Registry (tables 4, 5).

Materials and methods

The methods of the KiKK study are described in detail elsewhere and are therefore outlined only briefly here (box gif ppt) (7, 9). The KiKK study was a case-control study. A total of 41 administrative districts (Landkreise) in the vicinity of 16 NPP in western Germany were defined as the study region (figure gif ppt). Cases, as defined in the study, were all the children under 5 years of age diagnosed with a malignant disease (definition: [14]) between 1980 and 2003 who lived in the study region at the time of diagnosis and whose cases were notified to the German Childhood Cancer Registry (15). Altogether there were 1592 children with malignant diseases, including 593 with leukemia. Two NPP, Lingen and Emsland, were built at the same site with different operating periods; thus, the study region comprised 15 sites with 16 NPP.

Results - KiKK study

The KiKK study showed that in Germany a relationship can be observed between proximity of residence to an NPP and the risk that a child will develop cancer before reaching 5 years of age. This connection, statistically confirmed in this study, holds only for the leukemias; for all other previously established diagnoses (brain tumors, embryonal tumors), no statistically significant results were found.

Table 1 (gif ppt) shows the odds ratios (OR) for leukemia as a whole and its subgroups for the categories up to 5 km and up to 10 km. Within the 5-km zone the risk of leukemia is twice that elsewhere in the study region (OR = 2.19); for the 10-km zone the OR = 1.33. For table 2 (gif ppt) the zone of the study region more than 70 km from the nearest NPP was selected for comparison (reference category). An increased—albeit not statistically significant—OR of 2.27 can be seen for the 5-km zone, while in all other, more distant zones of the study region the OR lies between 0.90 (50- to 70-km zone) and 1.11 (30- to 50-km zone), with no distance trend discernible.

Time-dependent odds ratios and the influence of the "Krümmel region"
The KiKK study embraced the period from 1980 to 2003. The first NPP study covered the years 1980 to 1990, while the second took place in the period 1991 to 1995. The current third study additionally included the years 1996 to 2003; thus only some of the data are "new."

Table 3 (gif ppt) shows the OR for these three consecutive periods for the 5-km zone around the NPP (leukemia: OR = 3.00 for 1980 to 1990, OR = 2.10 for 1991 to 1995 [both statistically significant], OR = 1.78 for 1996 to 2003).

Since 1990 considerably more children than would be expected have developed leukemia around the NPP at Krümmel, Schleswig-Holstein. Intensive investigations have failed to identify a reason. From 1990 to 2006, 16 cases of leukemia were detected in children under 15 years of age in the communities of Geesthacht and Elbmarsch. Up to 2003 (the end of the KiKK study period) there were 14 cases of leukemia. Eight of the children affected were under 5 years old at disease onset and living in the 5-km zone, and were therefore included in the KiKK study (table 3). Altogether, 30 children under the age of 5 from the study area around the NPP Krümmel (administrative districts Duchy of Lauenburg, Harburg, and Lueneburg) were included in the KiKK study ("Krümmel cases"). The result of dichotomous analysis with the border at 5 km changes only little if these 30 cases are left out of consideration: OR = 2.19 for 1980 to 2003 for all 16 NPP; OR = 1.96 without Krümmel (table 3).

Standardized incidence ratios (SIR) for the whole study region and individual NPP areas

Table 4 (gif ppt) shows the SIR for the whole study region and for the areas around the 15 NPP sites. Neither for the whole study region nor for the individual NPP areas was a statistically significant deviation from the national average observed. The overall SIR for all 41 administrative districts was 0.99 (CI 0.92 to 1.07). The SIR values varied from 0.85 to 1.21 for the 15 groups of administrative districts around the individual NPP sites.

Table 5 (gif ppt) shows SIR by distance from the center of the community to the nearest NPP. The SIR value for the 5-km zone was 1.41. The 95% CI spans 1, so this SIR is not statistically significantly increased. The SIR values for communities whose centers are more than 5 km from the nearest NPP (5 to 10 km, 10 to 30 km, 30 to 50 km, 50 to 70 km, over 70 km) were statistically insignificant; they lay between 0.85 and 1.00.

Dividing the communities whose central points lay in the 5-km zone by type of settlement, the SIR was 1.81 (CI 0.73 to 3.72, based on 7 cases of disease) for rural localities, 1.18 (CI 0.69 to 1.90, 17 cases) for mixed settlements, and 1.71 (CI 0.82 to 3.14, 10 cases) for urban areas. None of these SIR values are statistically significantly elevated, and no trend is discernible (data not shown).

Evaluation of the case-control study showed a clear-cut increase in risk for cases from rural localities. Nevertheless, the estimator for the OR of the 5-km zone varied hardly at all after adjustment for these variables (2.21 vs 2.19). Thus the observed effect cannot be explained by the fact that NPP are preferably located in rural areas.

Discussion

The strength of the KiKK study lies in its consideration of all NPP regions of Germany collectively, enabling conclusions based on the greatest available number of relevant cases of disease. Notably, even after the pooling of all data, in the 24-year study period only 37 cases of leukemia in children under 5 within the 5-km zone were included in the evaluation (out of a total of 5893 cases of leukemia). Separate analysis for each individual NPP is therefore not meaningful with the selected study design.

The KiKK study has repeatedly been described as "the most painstakingly designed and most exhaustive survey worldwide" (e.g., press release of the Federal Office for Radiation Protection, 10 December 2007). This statement is not intended to conceal the fact that the present study, in common with almost all empirical, nonexperimental investigations, features potential distortions and limitations that can be clearly enumerated and must be taken into consideration when evaluating the findings. Some have already been described by Schulze-Rath et al. (17). Compared with the earlier incidence studies, the new case-control study has a different method with different disadvantages. Some important limitations of the KiKK study are discussed below.

It must be realized that the data of the most recent study are not independent from the data of the two preceding studies by the German Childhood Cancer Registry and do not constitute independent confirmation of the findings of earlier German studies. Increased incidence in the immediate vicinity of power reactors leads both to an increased SIR for communities in the area concerned (the approach of the first two incidence studies and the new analysis in table 5) and to an increased OR in the case-control design. Thus, the OR of 3.00 for 1980 to 1990 (table 3) corresponds to the almost identical relative risk from the first NPP study (RR = 3.01) (8). The limitation of the study to children under 5 years of age and the determination of the predefined subsidiary issues for investigation with regard to the 5-km zone and the subgroup of leukemia were based on the corresponding findings of the first NPP study (10, 11). The OR values in table 3 show a slightly decreasing tendency for the two periods after 1980 to 1990, to which the region around the NPP Krümmel made an essential contribution.

In case-control studies the nonresponse problem can lead to distortion of the results. Thus, in the most recent study the authors depended on the assistance of local authorities to recruit controls. Not all of them cooperated, the willingness to help varying according to the distance from the NPP. The consequences of this incomplete and sometimes error-prone recruitment of controls were, as far as possible with the available data, described in detail in sensitivity analyses in the concluding report (9). These problems with control recruitment may have led to slight overestimation of the effect.

The decision to base the study region on the boundaries of administrative districts led to anomalies. For instance, any town that constituted its own administrative unit rather than being part of a district was not included, regardless of its proximity to the NPP concerned. Administrative districts have irregular boundaries, leading to inclusion of some communities very far from an NPP and exclusion of other communities that were much closer.

In none of the three NPP studies could confounders be taken into account. In the incidence studies, only the type of community was considered as potential influencing factor. The most recent study stratified individually by age, sex, year, and NPP area. A supplementary analysis also examined the influence of community type. Consideration of other potential confounders (e.g., social status) was categorically excluded in the earlier studies, and they were also not investigated in the KiKK study, for the reasons detailed in the concluding report (9).

In both study types (incidence studies, case-control study), only the residential address at the time of diagnosis was used to determine distance; previous addresses were disregarded. Moreover, no information is available as to whether or for how long the children actually resided at that address before the onset of illness (extended visits to grandparents, time spent in crèches, with child minders, in kindergarten, on holiday, etc.). However accurate the individual distance determination, it may therefore not reflect the true "exposure" to the NPP.

The problem of interpreting distance as a measure of radiation exposure is shared by all three NPP studies. No data on radiation exposure were available; in particular, the natural background exposure was not taken into account. The variation in natural radiation exposure in Germany is many times higher than the radiation exposure from an NPP in normal operation.

The modeling of a constant distance curve has statistical advantages over categorical models (18, 19). On the other hand, it carries the inherent risk that a function will be fitted that only partly reflects the true trend of the data. This holds particularly when the distribution of the exposed probands tends to be uneven. Furthermore, certain basic assumptions cannot be disregarded in the modeling. It is particularly important to ensure that the observed data, by definition, do not include any "nonexposed" probands. In other words, the curve assigns an "exposure-dependent risk" to every individual, regardless of distance. It therefore makes sense, for example, to calculate attributable cases only for the range of distance with a genuinely clear effect. Attributable cases are cases that—assuming causality—could be put down to residing in the vicinity of an NPP. Derivation from the complete fitted curve is mathematically feasible, but implies the assumption that a quantitatively relevant "effect" persists right to the outer margin of the study area. This cannot be substantiated by the categorical analyses. These aspects were not taken into consideration in the critical discussion of the authors' evaluation of the study, a theme also taken up in the pages of Deutsches Ärzteblatt (20).

Not unexpectedly, in view of the topic, the public discussion has been heated and emotional (21). Thus, opinions differ as to whether the results indicate a causal relationship with the exposure to ionizing radiation from NPP. Based on the findings of radiation research such a connection seems implausible, because the radiation emitted by an NPP in normal operation is at least 1000 times lower than "background radiation," i.e., the 1.4 mSv of natural radiation to which the average German is exposed in a year (22). This comparison is based on a report commissioned by the European Union (23), which gives cumulative lifetime exposure of 0.0003200 to 0.0000019 mSv for a 50-year-old person living within 5 km of a German NPP. In their interpretation of the data, the authors assume normal operation of the NPP. The authors do not know to what extent incidents involving leakage of radiation may have occurred. No major incidents in Germany are known.

In May 2008 an international workshop on the causes of childhood leukemia, co-organized by the Federal Office for Radiation Protection, was held in Berlin. Participants emphasized that many different factors are involved in the etiology and that a simple monocausal interpretation of the present study's findings is not permissible (6, 24). Unfortunately, it cannot currently be ascertained whether several such factors occur together in the vicinity of German NPP, thus determining the study's findings. The authors' analyses show that living in a rural area is associated with a higher risk of leukemia, but this has no decisive influence on the main conclusion of the study.

After publication of the recent study, the authors were constantly approached by concerned citizens wanting to know whether it was dangerous to live in the area of an NPP and whether they should perhaps consider moving away. The SIR calculations for the KiKK study, presented here for the first time, are therefore of particular interest. For the whole study region they show almost exact agreement with the national incidence rate. The disease rates in the individual NPP areas fluctuate randomly above or below the national average, but the observed SIR values all lie within the statistical range of fluctuation. While one approach yields a striking result for the 5-km zone (OR = 2.19 [table 1]), the other approach gives a result which, though also increased, is not statistically significant (SIR = 1.41 [table 5]). Since the determination of distance using the central point of the community was much less exact than using individual residential addresses, as in the case-control study, a correspondingly less clear measure of effect was to be expected. In this respect the two approaches are not contradictory. Nevertheless, the disease rates, both for the individual NPP sites in the KiKK study with their associated groups of administrative districts and for the whole study region with all 16 NPP, were unremarkable (table 4). The central 5-km zones represent only a small fraction (<5%) of the total study region.

Acknowledgement

Thanks are due to all those who engaged themselves constructively and critically with the study and its conduct and supported the authors. Gratitude is owed to the authors' colleagues, the parents involved in the study's survey component, the local authority registration offices and data centers for providing addresses, and the Society for Paediatric Oncology and Haematology (GPOH) and its clinical studies, without which the high quality of the data in the German Childhood Cancer Registry would not be assured. The authors are particularly grateful to the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety and the Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS) for financing the KiKK study (project no. StSch 4334) and to the Expert Commission of the BfS. The authors thank the Robert Koch Institute for conducting the study audit suggested by the Expert Commission and the Coordinating Center for Clinical Studies (KKS) of the Faculty of Medicine, University of Mainz, for checking their calculations. The authors expressly thank the following individuals: J. Michaelis and J. Schüz für scientific advice; the research assistants A. Mergenthaler, E. Münster, S. Schmiedel, and R. Schulze-Rath; the project assistants M. Kaiser, S. Kleinefeld, and C. Trübenbach; the student assistants J. Albrecht, C. Hornbach, and S.Weinand; and the interviewers A. Becht, B. Grossmann, B. Haupt, B. Krey, L. Krille, F. Müller, P. Quetsch, R. Schmunk, R. Tekie, and C. Varlik. They thank M. Ressing for looking through the manuscript and for constructive suggestions.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that no conflict of interest exists according to the guidelines of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.

Manuscript received on 23 July 2008, revised version accepted on
18 September 2008.

Translated from the original German by David Roseveare.

Corresponding author
Dr. rer. physiol. Peter Kaatsch
Institut für medizinische Biometrie, Epidemiologie und Informatik
Klinikum der Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz
Obere Zahlbacher Str. 69
55131 Mainz, Germany
kaatsch@imbei.uni-mainz.de

================================

Elevated childhood cancer incidence proximate to U.S. nuclear power plants.
http://www.c-10.org/pdf/Elevated%20chil ... to%20U.pdf
Date: 2/1/2003
Author: Chang, Carolyn; Dave, Amie; Feinberg, Elyssa; Frimer, Marina; Mangano, Joseph J.; Sherman,

====================================

INCREASED CHILDHOOD CANCER RATES NEAR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

http://www.ippnw2010.org/fileadmin/user_upload/
WS_presentations/WS1_thiel_Increased_Leukaemia_childhood_engl.pdf

By Reinhold Thiel (translation: Malte Andre, Winfrid Eisenberg)
International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War
IPPNW World Congress Report, Basel, August 2010

The closer a child lives to a nuclear power plant, the higher risk it has of developing cancer, particularly leukaemia.

This was proven in 2007 when the so called ‘KiKK’ study (Childhood Cancer near Nuclear Power Plants) was completed. The KiKK study is the most accurate and intense investigation on this issue worldwide. The decision to start the study was taken because the German statistician Dr Alfred Korblein had reanalysed some previous studies which revealed evidence of increased cancer rates near German nuclear facilities (1).
Only a persistent . . . campaign by International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) drove the [German federal office for radiation protection] to prepare a broad research contract and to mandate the Kinderkrebregister Mainz (KKR) in 2003. The results have been published in the European Journal of Cancer (2), in the International
Journal of Cancer (3) and on the website of the BfS (4) in 2007 and 2008.

The key question of the survey was: Do radioactive isotopes emitted during standard operation of nuclear power plants lead to an increase of childhood cancer rates?

All scientists planning the study design agreed: the substitute value for radiation exposure should be distance from the power plant (5), because it would not be possible to measure exposure directly. The survey was planned to have two parts: case-control with, and without, questionnaire. The timeframe covered 24 years (1980-2003). This ensured the maximum possible amount of data (childhood cancer data had been collected by the KKR since 1980). Altogether, 1592 children with cancer and 4735 controls at all 16 nuclear power sites in Germany were included. The study area consisted of all districts around NPPs, taking into account prevailing wind direction. To rule out misleading interpretation concerning the key question of the first part of the study, the second part (case-control with questionnaire) checked (via standardised forms) if confounders could have influenced the result significantly. It investigated, for example: if mothers before giving birth and fathers before procreation were exposed to radiation; if there had been contacts with insecticides or other toxic substances; if there was a familial clustering or allergies or diseases of the immune system. Even the socioeconomic situation of the families was taken into account. Also: could the emissions of one single plant have distorted the outcome. All these potential confounders were considered, analyzed and ruled out.

The result of ‘KiKK’ is highly significant and proves clearly:

At all 16 sites in Germany, where nuclear power plants operate, children under 5 years of age have a higher risk to develop cancer, particularly leukaemia, the closer they live to the plant. Risk was most increased in a 5 km range around each plant, i.e. 60%. There were 77 diseased children instead of 48 expected statistically. For the leukaemia subdivision, the risk increase was 120%: 37 cases instead of the expected 17. In other
words, in the 5 km range, 29 children suffered from cancer (of whom 20 suffered leukemia), just because they lived in these areas.

As the results are highly significant, they cannot be explained by coincidence. The effect is traceable at further distances from reactors, with decreasing clarity. Altogether, there were up to 275 cases more than statistically expected. This ‘negative risk-proximity trend’ persisted throughout: the smaller the distance, the higher the risk.

The results of the KiKK study are in line with other studies.

Over 60 studies of cancer in the vicinity of nuclear power plants (NPPs) have been conducted worldwide. KiKK is the most elaborate. As Dr Ian Fairlie concludes (6), most of the surveys prove increased cancer rates close to nuclear facilities. A standardised meta-analysis by Baker and Hoel (2007) reviewed 17 international studies which showed an increase of cancer and mortality rates close to nuclear sites, not only for children
but also for adults (7).

Now we know: children living near NPPs have a higher risk to develop cancer; however, we lack a ‘gapless explanation’.

Evidence and simple logic lead to the hypothesis that radioactive emissions released during standard operation of the plants must be considered as causing the excess diseases. This has been the focus of scientific dispute since KiKK was published.

Radioactive emissions, exposure limits, controls, levelling and corporate secrets:

Nuclear power plants constantly emit radioactivity via stacks and waste pipes. These emissions may remain within legal limits but the devil is in the detail: Measurements are done by plant operators themselves, and then forwarded to the responsible administrative office (which only controls for measurement accuracy); measurements are infrequent and often incomplete. A further inconsistency is that only arithmetically averaged date are communicated, levelling all peaks and spikes to low mean values. Data are not communicated to universities or scientists because they are treated as corporate secrets.

Meanwhile there is scientific evidence that present assumptions and calculation models concerning radiation risk are wrong and that emission levels derived from them are too high. The official limits must be critically reviewed and adapted. The remarkable peaks which occur when nuclear fuel is exchanged should be reviewed and published separately so they are no longer levelled and averaged. (8)

Cancer and leukaemia normally occur rarely in children.

The excess cancers of children living near nuclear facilities likely are established during the embryonic stage. The embryo is extremely radiosensitive. The cells proliferate rapidly and, during mitosis, the cells are much more vulnerable than in stationary phases. Furthermore, the ability to identify and eliminate ‘damaged’ cells evolves later in
childhood. An embryo does not yet have these repair mechanisms. Therefore damaged cells can proliferate easily, paving the way for cancer and other diseases.

NPPs constantly emit radioactive isotopes into the environment (with varying intensity)

The radionuclides may be incorporated via respiration, water, and food. Most common are tritium (H-3, ‘heavy hydrogen’), radiocarbon (C-14), strontium (Sr-90), Iodine (I-131), and plutonium (Pu-239). In a pregnant woman these incorporated isotopes are transported by the bloodstream and the placenta into the embryo and damage it (8).

The biological effects of incorporated isotopes are widely underestimated. For example, tritium - a source of severe danger - usually is played down by radiation protection authorities. Tritium is an emitter of beta particles with a half-life of 12.3 years. Thus, under constant emission of beta particles, half a given amount of tritium is decayed after 12.3 years.

Compounding with oxygen, tritium easily changes to heavy ‘tritiated water’ (HTO). Plants, animals and humans cannot distinguish between HTO and normal water, H2O. Therefore HTO integrates easily into the structures of cells and DNA (9, 10). Similar pathways exist for other isotopes, e.g. strontium (mistaken for calcium), iodine and plutonium. The presence of isotopes in the body varies with biological half-life periods.
The obsolete models and assumptions of existing radiation protection must be reviewed.

Emissions of radioactivity into the environment are subject to limits based on a calculation model referring to a ‘reference man’, using data collected by the Japanese Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF) from Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors 65 years ago. It is known today that cancer rates after the nuclear bombings were much higher than assumed at that time. Nevertheless, those obsolete data remain in use today as the only ‘scientific’ reference to ‘estimate’ the effects of ionizing radiation.
More such errors are described in recently published IPPNW papers concerning the long-term health effects of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs (11, 12). Hiroshima effects were caused by short acting ultra-high-energetic external gamma rays, which are not at all comparable
to constant low-level radiation which is mostly internal alpha and beta particle radiation after incorporation of ionising nuclides.

Low-level radiation, not ‘coincidence’, remains the only plausible explanation of the increased cancer rates.

Some scientists think the radiation was too low ‘by a factor of 1000’ and prefer ‘coincidence’ or ‘possibly chance’ explanations. However, taking all facts into account - including the high radiosensitivity of the embryo, the uncertainties of official limits, and the emission peaks during fuel exchange - it is clear the job of ‘factor 1000’ is protection of obsolete measurement charts, official policies and the ongoing operation of nuclear power plants, but not the people.

We need to replace ‘reference man’ with ‘reference embryo’

In 1974, the International Commission for Radiological Protection (ICRP) created the ‘reference man’ - a hypothetical construct of a young healthy white male in North America or Europe, aged 25-30, 154 pounds, 5 feet 7 inches tall - as the basis for existing radiation protection. It is assumed that his immune system is in full working order and his cell repair mechanisms work well. These assumptions do not do justice to the situation of children born in the vicinity of nuclear power plants (13).
IPPNW is petitioning for advanced radiation protection.

Since July 2009, IPPNW has petitioned the German Bundestag to replace the obsolete ‘reference man’ with the more sensitive ‘reference embryo’. By August 2010, 4100 people had signed the petition. The German Bundestag has not responded yet.

The petition may be signed on-line: http://www.ippnw.de

Literature

(1) Körblein A, Hoffmann W: Childhood Cancer in the Vicinity of German Nuclear Power Plants. Medicine and Global Survival, Vol. 6, 18 (1999)

(2) Spix C, Schmiedel S, Kaatsch P, Schulze-Rath R, Blettner M: Case-control study on childhood cancer in the vicinity of nuclear power plants in Germany 1980-2003. Eur J Cancer 44, 275 (2008)

(3) Kaatsch P, Spix C, Schulze-Rath R, Schmiedel S, Blettner M: Leukemias in young children living in the vicinity of German NPPs. Intl J Cancer 122, 721 (2008)

(4) Kaatsch P, Spix C, Schmiedel S, Schulze-Rath R, Mergenthaler A, Blettner M: Epidemiologische Studie zu Kinderkrebs in der Umgebung von Kernkraftwerken. Im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums für Umweit, Naturschutz und Reaktorischerheit, Bundesamt für strahlenschutz (2007)

(5) Schulze-Rath R, Kaatsch P, Schmiedel S, Spix C, Blettner M: Krebs bel Kindern in der Umgebung von Kernkraftwerken: Bericht zu einer laufwenden Studie. Umweitmedizin in Forschung und Praxis 11, Nr. 1, 20 (2006)

(6) Fairlie I: Persönliche Mettellung vom 21. Januar 2010 (Original beim Verfasser)

(7) Baker PJ, Hoel DG: Meta-analysis of standardized incidence and mortality rates of childhood leukaemia in proximity to nuclear facilities. Eur J Cancer Care 16, 355 (2007)

(8) Fairlie I: Childhood cancers near German nuclear power stations: hypothesis to explain the cancer increases. Medicine, Conflict and Survival, 24:4, 306 (2008)

(9) Fairlie I: The Hazards of tritium – revisited. Medicine, Conflict and Survival, 24:4, 306 (2008)

(10) Makhijani Annie, Makhijani A: Radioactive Rivers and Rain: Routine Releases of Tritiated Water from Nuclear Power Plants. Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IIER), Science for Democratic Action, 16:1, 1 (2009)

(11) IPPNW, Deutsche Sektion: Spätfolgen der Atombombenabwürfe auf Hiroshima und Nagasaki. IPPNW website August 2010, http://www.ippnw.de

(12) Hall, X; Langzeitfolgen der Atombomben auf die Menschen, Atomwaffen en A-Z,
http://www.atomwaffena-z.info/atomwaffe ... nsatz-von- atomwaffen/langzeitfolgen/index.html

(13) Makhijani A, Lewidge L: Retiring Reference Man – The Use of Reference Man in Radiation Protection with Recommendations for Change. IIER, Science for Democratic Action 16:1, 1 (2009)

[Oscar]

Resolve health issues before building more nuke reactors

http://www.radiation.org/spotlight/0812 ... ibune.html

Joseph J. Mangano, MPH, MBA Guest Columnist Scranton Times Tribune Tuesday, December 3, 2008

Last month, PPL Corp. sent a letter to federal regulators, stating it planned to build a new nuclear reactor at Bell Bend, just a few miles from the Susquehanna plant where two reactors now operate. The new reactor would be the largest in the U.S., at 1600 megawatts electrical.

The new unit would begin operating in 2018 at the earliest, and its cost would be a staggering $15 billion, an amount that PPL could not cover without taxpayer assistance. This fall, PPL also applied for federal loan guarantees — even though the national “pot” is barely enough to cover the cost of a single reactor like Bell Bend.

As businessmen jockey over the financial future of the new reactor, the issue of public health risk has been largely overlooked. Even though the reactor would not emit greenhouse gases like a coal plant, is it safe? A logical way to answer the question would be to examine whether or not local rates of radiation-related cancer have risen since the two Susquehanna reactors started in the early 1980s.

Radiation exposure raises risk of all types of cancer, but some cancers are more strongly linked than others. In particular, the only known cause of thyroid cancer is exposure to radiation, according to many scientific studies. Radioactive iodine, one of the many chemicals produced only in atomic bombs and nuclear reactors, seeks out the thyroid, a butterfly-shaped gland in the neck, where it kills and injures cells, leading to cancer.

The local area east (downwind) of Susquehanna covers six counties in Pennsylvania and one in New Jersey, with 1.35 million residents. Official health statistics show an alarmingly high local rate of thyroid cancer. In 1999-2004, the seven-county rate was nearly double, or 95.2 percent greater, than the U.S. rate. The local rate of thyroid cancer is the highest of any metropolitan area in the nation, an astounding three to four times higher than in other parts of the nation.

No matter how the numbers are analyzed, local thyroid cancer is high. It’s high for men and women, for young, middle age, and old, year after year. No other cancer has such a high rate in the region. Thyroid cancer isn’t a rarity, as more than 200 local residents receive diagnosis each year. The area has a below-average poverty rate and has good access to medical care both locally and in Philadelphia and New York, so there is no obvious reason accounting for this pattern.

It’s certainly possible that radioactive iodine released from the Susquehanna reactors in the past quarter-century has harmed local residents. Even though we can’t be sure about this, there are precedent studies. Perhaps the most important one was done by a decade ago. After years of denial by government officials that atomic bomb test fallout had harmed humans, the National Cancer Institute and Institute of Medicine estimated that exposure to iodine in fallout caused as many as 212,000 Americans to develop cancer.

Orders for new nuclear reactors stopped in the U.S. in 1978 because of concerns over health and cost. Recently, utilities like PPL have made plans to start ordering reactors again, and 31 (including Bell Bend) have been proposed. Supporters of nuclear power often state that nuclear power is “clean” but in Northeast Pennsylvania, this should be given a long, hard look.

There should be no rush to build an expensive and quite possibly harmful nuclear reactor, until all health issues are studied and the public is informed of any risk. If local residents are already suffering, there is no need to add to their burden. The more prudent move would be to hold off on new nukes, and instead develop safe forms of electricity such as solar and wind power.

Joseph J. Mangano MPH MBA is Executive Director of the Radiation and Public Health Project, a research and education group based in New York.

The Radiation and Public Health Project (RPHP) http://www.radiation.org/index.html


For numerous articles re: health impacts on children living near nuclear power plants: http://www.radiation.org/press/index.html

[Oscar]

Risks of Cancer Living Near Nuclear Installations

Published in the Canora Courier on January 14, 2009

Dear Editor

Radiation exposure raises risk of all types of cancer. For example, radioactive iodine, one of the many chemicals produced in nuclear reactors, seeks out the thyroid gland where it kills and injures cells, leading to cancer. Radiation exposure also causes Childhood Leukemia. In ongoing research into the negative health impacts of nuclear power plants, the German Childhood Cancer Registry conducted a study in western Germany from 1980 to 2003 in a region containing 16 nuclear power plants.

This case-controlled study, entitled the Epidemiological Case-Control Study of Childhood Cancer and Nuclear Power Plants (KiKK Study), addressed the question whether children under age 5 with diagnosed cancer live closer, on average, to nuclear power plants than do randomly-selected controls.

In 2007, the KiKK Study published its findings, stating that there was an association between the nearness of residence to nuclear power plants and the risk of leukemia (1592 control cases, 593 with leukemia). It determined that within the 5 km zone, there was a statistically significant development of leukemia in children under 5 years of age and was twice that of elsewhere in the study region. The risk decreases as the distance living from the plants increases but, apparently, there are still increased risks living 50 km away from nuclear power plants.

Hopefully, people living anywhere near the site of Bruce Power’s proposed nuclear power plant ‘somewhere’ on the banks of the North Saskatchewan River will be aware of the needless risk of cancers, including leukemia in their offspring, this installation will present . . . for many generations to come.

Elaine Hughes
Archerwill, SK

[Oscar]

Sent to Regina Leader-post for publishing on January 10, 2009

To the Editor

When there’s reasonable doubt. . . .

The most recent study, the case-controlled KiKK study (a German acronym for Childhood Cancer in the Vicinity of Nuclear Power Plants), to concern itself with the fear that children living near nuclear facilities face an increased risk of childhood leukemia, published its findings in 2008 in the International Journal of Cancer.

It found that there was a 60% increase in solid cancers and a 117% increase in leukemia among young children living near all 16 large German nuclear facilities between 1980 and 2003. (593 leukemia cases included in the control group of 1592 malignant cases)

Most strikingly, children living within 5 kms of the nuclear power plant (NPP) were more than twice as likely to contract cancer as those living further away, a finding accepted by the German government.

In his critique of this study, Reasonable Doubt (New Scientist, April 2008), author Ian Fairlie (a London-based consultant on radiation in the environment) asked:

- Should pregnant women and young children be advised to move away from NPPs?
- Should local residents eat vegetables from their gardens?
- Shouldn’t those governments around the world who are planning to build more reactors think again?

Saskatchewan residents, especially those living anywhere near the site of Bruce Power’s proposed $15 Billion nuclear power plant ‘somewhere’ along the North Saskatchewan River, must ask the Saskatchewan Government these same questions.

In the face of reasonable doubt, why would any responsible government, intentionally or through negligence, risk human life, especially that of their own young children?


Elaine Hughes
Archerwill, SK

[Oscar]

French Scientists: Childhood Leukemia Spikes Near Nuclear Reactors

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/01/26-2

Published on Thursday, January 26, 2012 by Common Dreams French

by John LaForge

French researchers have confirmed that childhood leukemia rates are shockingly elevated among children living near nuclear power reactors.

The “International Journal of Cancer” has published in January a scientific study establishing a clear correlation between the frequency of acute childhood leukemia and proximity to nuclear power stations. The paper is titled, “Childhood leukemia around French nuclear power plants – the Geocap study, 2002-2007.”

This devastating report promises to do for France what a set of 2008 reports did for Germany — which recently legislated a total phase-out of all its power reactors by 2022 (sooner if the Greens get their way).

The French epidemiology — conducted by a team from the Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale, or INSERM, the Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire, or IRSN, and the National Register of hematological diseases of children in Villejuif, outside Paris — demonstrates during the period from 2002-2007 in France the doubling of childhood leukemia incidence: the increase is up to 2.2 among children under age five.

The researchers note that they found no mechanistic proof of cause and effect, but could identify no other environmental factor that could produce the excess cancers.

Without getting overly technical, the case-control study included the 2,753 cases of acute leukemia diagnosed in mainland France over 2002-2007, and 30,000 contemporaneous population “controls.” The children’s last addresses were geo-coded and located around France’s 19 nuclear power stations, which operate 54 separate reactors. The study used distance to the reactors and a dose-based geographic zoning, based on the estimated dose to bone marrow related to the reactors’ gaseous discharges.

All operating reactors routinely spew radioactive gases like xenon, krypton and the radioactive form of hydrogen known as tritium. These gases are allowed to be released under licenses issued by federal government agencies. Allowable limits on these radioactive poisons were suggested to governments and regulatory agencies by the giant utilities that own the reactors and by reactor operators themselves. This is because their reactors can’t even function without regularly releasing radioactive liquids and gases, releases required to control pressure, temperature and vibrations inside the gigantic systems. (See: “Routine Radioactive Releases from Nuclear Power Plants in the United States: What Are the Dangers?” (pdf) from BeyondNuclear.org, 2009)

In Germany, results of the 2008 KiKK studies — a German acronym for Childhood Cancer in the Vicinity of Nuclear Power Plants — were published in both the International Journal of Cancer (Vol. 122) and the European Journal of Cancer (Vol. 44). These 25-year-long studies found higher incidences of cancers and a stronger association with reactor installations than all previous reports.

The main findings were a 60 percent increase in solid cancers and a 117 percent increase in leukemia among young children living near all 16 large German nuclear facilities between 1980 and 2003. These shocking studies — along with persistent radioactive contamination of Germany from the Chernobyl catastrophe — are largely responsible for depth and breadth of anti-nuclear public opinion all across Germany.

Similar leukemia spikes have been found around U.S. reactors (European Journal of Cancer Care, Vol. 16, 2007). Researchers at the Medical University of South Carolina analyzed 17 research papers covering 136 reactor sites in the UK, Canada, France, the U.S., Germany, Japan and Spain. The incidence of leukemia in children under age 9 living close to the sites showed an increase of 14 to 21 percent, while death rates from the disease were raised by 5 to 24 percent, depending on their proximity to the nuclear facilities.

When the U.S. public owns up to the dangers of nuclear power, we too can get around to its replacement and phase-out.

John LaForge is on the Nukewatch staff and edits its Quarterly.

[Oscar]

Nuclear special

New study links childhood leukaemia to nuclear power plant radiation

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/1235795/
new_study_links_childhood_leukaemia_to_nuclear_power_plant_radiation.html

Matilda Lee, The Ecologist, 15th February, 2012

The UK government's scientific advisory group found no link between childhood leukaemia and proximity to nuclear power plants, but German and French research has found an alarming doubling of risk.
Matilda Lee reports

In the latest development in the debate over to what extent there is a link between childhood leukaemia and radiation from nuclear power plants, a French study has found a doubling in the incidence of the disease among children under 5 living within 5-kilometre radius of a nuclear plant.

The study, conducted by the Institut de Radioprotection et de Surete Nucleaire (INSERM) and reported in the International Journal on Cancer in January 2012, looked at child leukaemia cases nationwide diagnosed between 2002 and 2007, with addresses coded around 19 nuclear power plants. It demonstrated a stastically signficant doubling of the incidence of leukaemia childhood near nuclear power plants.

The French study confirms an earlier German study, known as the KiKK, which found a doubling of the incidence of child leukaemia near nuclear power plants, and an increased risk of 60 per cent for all childhood cancers. The KiKK findings were confirmed by the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection.

However, last year the UK government's scientific advisory Committee on the Medical Effects of Radiation on the Environment (COMARE), in a report ‘Further consideration of the incidence of childhood leukaemia around nuclear power plants in Great Britain' concluded that it, ‘has found no reason to change its previous advice that there is no evidence to support the view that there is an increased risk of childhood leukaemia and other cancers in the vicinity of NPPs [nuclear power plants] due to radiation effects.'

The report analysed geographical data on the incidence of leukaemia in children under 5 living in the vicinity of 13 nuclear power plants. It used cancer registration data for Great Britain from 1969 to 2004.

Dr Paul Dorfman, of the University of Warwick who earlier commented in the Ecologist about the link between childhood leukaemia and nuclear power plants says, ‘what the French study does is confirm the earlier KiKK findings, a very statistically sound study by the German Childhood Cancer Registry'.

COMARE accepted the findings of the KiKK study, but rather than radiation being a causative factor, it pointed to growing evidence of the
role of a viral infection, the so-called population mixing theory. ‘There is some potential for this to happen, but no virus has actually been identified, it's just a suggestion, a concept. Because a virus hasn't been identified, COMARE can't show causation. For COMARE to use this as a blanket explanation for an increase in leukaemia rates is potentially misleading.

It is not an either/or. In other words, radiation may very well play a part in these ill health excess,' says Dr Dorfman.

Dr Dorfman, the former Secretary to the government's Committee examining radiation risks from internal emitters (CERRIE), says ‘It does
seem clear that there is something going on around nuclear plants in Germany, in the UK around Sellafield and now in France. No matter what COMARE say, the scientific evidence for a clear association, if not a causal link, between operating nuclear plants and ill health in communities nearby seems increasingly compelling.'

When asked for comment, a member of COMARE's Secretariat, Dr Kerry Broom, said that it is aware of the French INSERM study and will be discussing it at the next COMARE meeting in March.