<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
There had been quite some discussions about a recent case control study<\/a> (in german) where cases were children younger than 5 years (diseased between 1980 and 2003) registered at the german childhood cancer registry (GCCR). According to a statement by Minister Gabriel of the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conversation and Nuclear Safety<\/a><\/p>\n “In this study by the German Childhood Cancer Registry (Deutsches Kinderkrebsregister) in Mainz, increased cancer incidences were ascertained statistically for children living in the vicinity of the 16 sites of German nuclear power plants.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Experts (see below) consider the study to be the world-wide methodically most elaborate and comprehensive study regarding the correlation between a higher risk of childhood cancer and proximity to a nuclear power plant. So what were the discussions about?<\/p>\n The discussions arose due to the fact that by nowadays scienitifc knowledge the official (!) radiation emitted by german nuclear power plants can’t explain this increased risk.<\/p>\n However <\/strong> the involved scientific knowledge<\/a> has mainly been gained by investigations with adult cases from Hiroshima and Nagasaki which started in the fifties. There are new investigations which could indicate e.g. that infants<\/strong> may be much more sensitive to low long-term radiation like as it was e.g. indicated by an article about Childhood leukaemia following the Chernobyl power station accident<\/a> (listed in the study).<\/p>\n In other words: there is a statistically evident higher risk of childhood cancer in the vicinity of german nuclear power plants but mainly due to a lack of scientific investigations there exists no scientific explanation for this risk. <\/strong> In particular it is not possible to prove that radiation is the reason for this increased risk. <\/p>\n In the formulation of the ministry this reads as follows:<\/p>\n According to current scientific knowledge, the observed increase in cancer cannot be explained by radiation exposure from a nuclear power plant. The radiation exposure of the population resulting from the operation of nuclear power plants in Germany would have to be at least 1000 times higher in order to explain the observed increase in the risk of cancer. The statistical study and known causal connections between the risk of cancer and radiation are thus not compatible.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n which is right in itself, but which can be misinterpreted<\/a> by people lacking the background information which is sofar mostly in german. Hence for example a sentence like “a causal connection between the risk of cancer in infants and radiation can’t be excluded by current scientific knowledge” (which is also true!! (see the Chernobyl study)) would be helpful for a correct interpretation.<\/p>\n The press release of the study<\/a> can likewise be misinterpreted. The study itself can hardly be understood by non experts, however for a probability theorist or statistician the risks should be evident.<\/p>\n Another delicate issue besides the “unlucky formulation” of the above is that the press releases and summaries contain only information about the risk in the 0-5km radius. <\/p>\n However the study conducted also investigations in a zone of a 50 km radius around a nuclear facility, which leads to a much higher incidence of additional childhood cancer- or in simple words: the higher risk does not stop at a radius of 5 km (see e.g. table 3.17a in the study were the estimated odds ratio for radii bigger than 5km is given)! <\/p>\n This unscientific concealment of results to the public was critizised by a board of external experts, which was in charge for evaluating the study. <\/p>\n Below I translated the report of this board (no guarantee for the translation!!!) since it is sofar in german only: (see also an interview<\/a> with expert Eberhard Greiser in the newspaper TAZ (also in german))<\/p>\n translation of the Statement of the board of external experts of the Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS) to the KiKK study <\/a><\/strong> (Stellungnahme des externen Expertengremiums des BfS zur KiKK-Studie)<\/a><\/p>\n Nach einer internen Diskussion des Abschlu\u00dfberichtes zur KiKK-Studie am 9. und 10.12.2007 kommt das externe Expertengremium zu folgenden Bewertungen<\/p><\/blockquote>\n After an internal discussion of the final report on the KiKK study on Dec. 9 and 10. 2007 the board of external experts concludes with the following appraisals<\/p>\n A. Analysen im Rahmen des Studienauftrages\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n A. Analyses within the framework of the study mandate<\/p>\n 1) Hauptergebnis der Studie ist eine kontinuierliche Zunahme des Erkrankungsrisikos f\u00fcr Krebserkrankungen und Leuk\u00e4mie bei unter 5j\u00e4hrigen Kindern mit zunehmender Wohnn\u00e4he zum n\u00e4chstgelegenen Atomkraftwerksstandort.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 1) Main result of the study is a continous increase of the risk to fall ill with cancer and leukaemia among under 5 year olds depending on the increasing proximity of the place of domicile to the next nuclear power plant.<\/p>\n 2) Das abgestimmte Design entspricht dem Stand der epidemiologischen Wissenschaft.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 2) The concerted design is up-to-date with the current standing of epidemiological science. <\/p>\n 3) Die Methodik der Modellierung der kontinuierlichen Entfernungsvariablen ist ad\u00e4quat. Beide in der Studie verwendeten Modelle zeigen eine gute Anpassung an die erhobenen Daten. Die Modelle erlauben eine Sch\u00e4tzung der Erkrankungsrisiken in Abh\u00e4ngigkeit von der Entfernung des Wohnortes vom n\u00e4chstgelegenen Atomkraftwerksstandort.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 3) The method of the modelling of the continous distance variable is adequate. Both in the study used models show a good adaption to the surveyed data. The models allow for an estimation of the risk to fall ill depending on the distance of the place of domicile to the next nuclear facility.<\/p>\n 4) Die Anregungen des externen Expertengremiums hinsichtlich Analysen zur Daten- und Ergebnisqualit\u00e4t wurden mehrheitlich umgesetzt. Aus diesen Analysen ergeben sich keine Hinweise auf bedeutsame Verzerrungen der Ergebnisse.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 4) Proposals of the board of external experts regarding the analyses data and result quality were majoritarian implemented. By these analyses no indications of a significant bias of the results could be inferred.<\/p>\n 5) Die Autoren konstatieren zu Recht, dass das Erkrankungsrisiko an kindlichen Krebserkrankungen und Leuk\u00e4mie mit zunehmender Wohnn\u00e4he zu einem Atomkraftwerk signifikant und stetig zunimmt. Die Studie ist weltweit die methodisch aufwendigste und umfassendste Untersuchung dieses Zusammenhanges. Der Zusammenhang zwischen Wohnn\u00e4he und Erkrankungsrisiko ist damit f\u00fcr Deutschland hinreichend belegt.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The authors rightly state that the risk to fall ill with infantile cancer and leukaemia with increasing proximity to a nuclear power plant raises significantly and continously. The study is world-wide the methodically most elaborate and comprehensive study regarding this correlation. The correlation between proximity of domicile and risk to fall ill is therewith sufficiently substantiated for Germany.<\/p>\n 6) Die Qualit\u00e4t der Datenerhebung, -aufarbeitung und \u2013analyse kann derzeit nicht abschlie\u00dfend beurteilt werden, weil die daf\u00fcr erforderlichen Informationen dem externen Expertengremium nicht zur Verf\u00fcgung gestellt wurden. Diese Fragen h\u00e4tten durch das vom externen Expertengremium vorgeschlagene Audit gekl\u00e4rt werden k\u00f6nnen. Das Expertengremium empfiehlt, die Frage des Audits weiter zu verfolgen.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 6) The quality of data inquiry, elaboration and analysis can’t be conclusively assessed, since the for this purpose necessary information was not made available to the board of external experts. These questions could have been clarified in an audit, which was proposed by the board of external experts. The board of external experts recommends to further pursue the matter of the audit.<\/p>\n B. Weitere Analysen durch die Auftragnehmer\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n B. Further analysis <\/p>\n 7) Die Berechnungen zum Attributivrisiko waren im Auswerteplan nicht vorgesehen. F\u00fcr die Kommunikation der Ergebnisse an die Politik und \u00d6ffentlichkeit ist eine Angabe des der Wohnortn\u00e4he zum Reaktor zuzuschreibenden Risikos und zum bev\u00f6lkerungsbezogenen Risiko unverzichtbar.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/p>\nBut of course likewise it is also not possible to prove that radiation is NOT the reason for this increased risk<\/div>\n