remarks on latent nuclear risks in the vicinity of nuclear plants




We had two previous randform posts one was – amongst others – about an artwork by Cornelia Hesse-Honegger in which you can – amongst others – see mutations of insects in the vicinity of the swiss nuclear power plants Gösgen and Leibstadt:

IMG_9960-450

The other randform post was about the socalled KIKK study (english (see also here)) in which a higher Leukemia risk for children in the vicinity of nuclear power plants was reported. As it looks like this study from 2007 was the last major study here in Germany with respect to this topic, at least I couldn’t find more on the websites (here and here) of the Childhood cancer registry. Amongst others there was however for the years 2002-2007 also a french study called GeoCap, which revealed:

Childhood AL risk and proximity of NPP
Geocap case control study (2002-2007)

Among the 2,753 cases included in the case control study, 99 were living less than 20 km from a NPP . AL was significantly associated with living less than 5km from a NPP (OR=1.9[1.0-3.2]) and ORs close to unity were observed for all the areas farther from the sites (table2). When the cases and controls were located in rings 2km wide instead of 5km wide , the logarithm of the odds ratio tended to increase slightly with the inverse of the distance from the nearest NPP (additional figure1), although this trend was not statistically significant when the inverse distance was considered a continuous variable in the regression model (p(one-sided)=0.18). For children less than 5 year old the OR observed in the closest area was of the same magnitude as that for the whole group, although not significant (OR=1.6[0.7-4.1])

So a correlation between a higher rate of Leukemia for children 0-15 years and 0-5 years within 5kms of a nuclear power plant (NPP) was – like in the german KIKK study (the KIKK study investigated only 0-5 years) – observed.

As I understood the higher rate was however only for the whole age group and for the under five year olds (like in the KIKK study), not for the other age groups. In the french GeoCap study the correlation was for the 0-5 years group – in contrast to the german KIKK study – however apparently not statistically (?) significant. In addition as I understood this correlation hadn’t been observed in previous french studies. In addition the french study compared the results with actual radiation monitorings, which however didn’t “show an association to the leukemia risk of the children” according to a comment by the authors of the KIKK study on the GeoCap study:

Interestingly, the French study also had available estimated radiation dose data at the commune level (Dose Based Geographic Zoning). This showed no association to the leukemia risk of the children. It should be noted that the exposures are in the order of at most several micro sievert, it is very unlikely that any effect caused by this low dose radiation exposure can be found in an epidemiological study. Together with the fact that the effect is seen only in the subset of the years 2002–2007, we agree that the effects seen in Germany and France are not likely to be causal. Other, so far unknown causes associated with the proximity to a nuclear power station might exist, as well as the possibility of a completely random observation.

So according to this study radiation seems not the cause for the higher risk.

According to the GeoCap article the Dose Based Geographic Zoning (DBGZ) had been developped by the french National Institute of Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety for the authors previous analysis. It used estimated bone marrow doses associated with gaseous radioactive discharges from the NPP’s to classify the exposures at the town halls of the communes located less than 20 kms from the nuclear sites (p.7). In particular estimated seems to mean that no blood sample etc. measurements were undertaken.

In this context it is interesting to note that the swiss authorities now enlarged the circle of inhabitants to receive in zones around nuclear power plants (including that of Gösgen and Leibstadt) potassium Iodide tablets from 20kms to 50kms (the website is the official website of a representative of the swiss army pharmacy (armeeapotheke) (via fefe).

8 Responses to “remarks on latent nuclear risks in the vicinity of nuclear plants”

  1. Johnyboy Says:

    Oh this sounds almost as if Europeans are gaining evolutionary fitness against radiation exposure. A couple more generations and the world doesn’t need robots to clean up things like Fukushima!

  2. the real thing Says:

    Oh this sounds almost as if Europeans are gaining evolutionary fitness against radiation exposure. A couple more generations and the world doesn’t need robots to clean up things like Fukushima!

    would be interesting to hear to what extend humans react via hypermethylation like e.g. pine:

    Genome hypermethylation in Pinus silvestris of Chernobyl—a mechanism for radiation adaptation?

  3. Prof. Habakkuk Says:

    Does the study say more concretely how and where those methylations took place?

    Wikipedia writes that methylation may in particular affect the binding with histone:

    Chemical modifications of these basic amino acid residues include methylation, phosphorylation and acetylation.[11] These chemical changes alter the strength of the interaction between the DNA and the histones, making the DNA more or less accessible to transcription factors and changing the rate of transcription.[12]

  4. cara Says:

    In this context it is interesting to note that the swiss authorities now enlarged the circle of inhabitants to receive in zones around nuclear power plants (including that of Gösgen and Leibstadt) potassium Iodide tablets from 20kms to 50kms (the website is the official website of a representative of the swiss army pharmacy (armeeapotheke) (via fefe).

    Nad- wasn’t fefe this overweight supermisogynistic computerfreak? How come that you as a woman read his blog?

  5. nad Says:

    The word “computerfreak” can be meant in a positive, admiring or negative, derrogative way, but together with your allegation that Fefe – i.e. Felix von Leitner may be misogynistic it maybe eventually interpreted in a negative way and to be meant as an insult. Please choose your wording more carfully, otherwise I need to delete your comments

  6. Jürgen Says:

    People are already called misogynistic if women just do not matter to them.
    Everybody called misogynistic should be proud.

  7. cara Says:

    Jürgen Says:

    People are already called misogynistic if women just do not matter to them.
    Everybody called misogynistic should be proud.

    Oh yes – woman lives do not matter, but Jürgen life of course does….

  8. Malte Hohenstein-Tropez Says:

    Oh yes – woman lives do not matter, but Jürgen life of course does….

    If I read this I can only help and cite Fefe who actually brought forward statistics which undermine how women seek attention via unjustified, pretentious, victimization affectations.

    He wrote:

    [l] Hat eigentlich mal jemand überlegt, angesichts des dauernden Opfer-Gehabes der Frauen einen Blick in die polizeiliche Kriminalstatistik zu werfen?

    Ja, hat jemand, und die Ergebnisse sind:

    Männer sind insgesamt deutlich häufiger Opfer von Mord und Totschlag, Raub und Körperverletzung. Frauen sind deutlich häufiger Opfer von Straftaten gegen die sexuelle Selbstbestimmung. Letztere machen mit 0,8% jedoch nur einen Bruchteil der erfassten Straftaten insgesamt aus. So kommen beispielsweise Körperverletzungen zehnmal häufiger vor.

    Oh, ach?

    Insgesamt ist das Risiko für Männer, Opfer einer dieser schweren Straftaten zu werden, 1,5-mal so hoch wie das für Frauen.

    Das liegt bestimmt daran, dass das fiese Patriarchat die Statistiken fälscht!1!!

    Oh nein, ich hab’s! Ich hab’s! Der Autor ist ein fieser Masku!!1! (Danke, Stefan)

    My attempt of a translation:

    In view of this ongoing victimization fakery of women, did someone actually look into criminal police statistics?

    Yes, someone did and the results are:

    “Men are distinctivly more in danger to be victims of murder and manslaughter, robbery and assault. Women are distincltively more exposed to crimes against the right of sexual self-determination. The latter ones though are with only 0.8% just a tiny fraction of all recorded crimes. So for example assaults are ten times more frequent.”

    Oh duh!

    Alltogether the risk of becoming a victim of one of those grave crimes is 1.5 times higher for men than for women!

    This is probably due to the fact that this mean patriarchy is faking statistics!

    Oh no, I got it! This is because this author is a low-down Mascu! (thanks Stefan!)

    So yes luckily it is Fefe who records scientific evidence that the pay gap is because on average men risk more and work harder and that women even try to trick themselves into better paid jobs. So how practical that men easier reconcile with enemies otherwise it would not be so easy for women to get through with all those creepy attempts of mind-set tampering!

Leave a Reply


comments in german, french and russian will be translated into english.
you can use LaTeX in your math comments, by using the [latex] shortcode:
[latex] E = m c^2 [/latex]