Radioactive spikes from nuclear plants - a likely cause of childhood leukemia / Electromagnetic Radiation / Forums

Forums

4hv.org :: Forums :: Electromagnetic Radiation

« Previous topic | Next topic »

Radioactive spikes from nuclear plants - a likely cause of childhood leukemia

1 2 3 4 next last

Move Thread

LAN_403

Proud Mary

Tue Sept 30 2014, 06:41AM

Registered Member #543 Joined: Tue Feb 20 2007, 04:26PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4992

Radioactive spikes from nuclear plants - a likely cause of childhood leukemia

Wastrel

Tue Sept 30 2014, 03:51PM

Registered Member #4095 Joined: Thu Sept 15 2011, 03:19PM
Location: England.
Posts: 122

A Megabequerel per meter cubed. Wow.

Wolfram

Tue Sept 30 2014, 03:57PM

Registered Member #33 Joined: Sat Feb 04 2006, 01:31PM
Location: Norway
Posts: 971

That's a pretty sensationalist headline for so little actual data.

"...doses from the assessment of a single realistic short-term release are a factor of about 20 greater than doses from the continuous release assessment."

Considering that the dose rate to the public near nuclear power plants is significantly below background, I wouldn't say that a factor 20 (or 100) increase for a few hours is "a likely cause of childhood leukemia". There might be some link to be investigated, but to call this a likely cause is completely unscientific.

Ash Small

Tue Sept 30 2014, 05:59PM

Registered Member #3414 Joined: Sun Nov 14 2010, 05:05PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4245

Wolfram wrote ...

I wouldn't say that a factor 20 (or 100) increase for a few hours is "a likely cause of childhood leukemia". There might be some link to be investigated, but to call this a likely cause is completely unscientific.

Can you suggest an alternative cause of the increased cases of child luekemia near nuclear powerplants?

Surely, without alternative theories, this is the most 'scientific' proposal we have?

Wolfram

Tue Sept 30 2014, 06:44PM

Registered Member #33 Joined: Sat Feb 04 2006, 01:31PM
Location: Norway
Posts: 971

Ash Small wrote ...

Can you suggest an alternative cause of the increased cases of child luekemia near nuclear powerplants?

Surely, without alternative theories, this is the most 'scientific' proposal we have?

The increased risk in this case refers to a study published on a blog by Dr. who seems to be fairly deeply involved with the anti-nuclear crowd. Not to try to discredit him, but some review of the sources for these statements is probably a good idea.

Assuming there is an increased incidence of leukemia near nuclear power plants, it could also have other causes. Houses near nuclear power plants could be cheaper due to perceived risk, and people living in cheaper houses are more likely to have a lower standard of living, which could include exposure to other, known risk factors for childhood leukemia. Something similar happened with a study linking power lines to childhood leukemia in the 80s.

I could did deeper into the sources here, but I don't really have time to spend half a day on that, so I can only advice you to be careful as to what sources to trust.

Uspring

Wed Oct 01 2014, 09:23AM

Registered Member #3988 Joined: Thu Jul 07 2011, 03:25PM
Location:
Posts: 711

Wolfram wrote:

Considering that the dose rate to the public near nuclear power plants is significantly below background, I wouldn't say that a factor 20 (or 100) increase for a few hours is "a likely cause of childhood leukemia". There might be some link to be investigated, but to call this a likely cause is completely unscientific.

I tend to agree. But I think its incorrect to disregard the time interval in which a dose is received. 500 rem will usually kill you if received within a few hours, but you may well survive if spread out for a year. There also might be particularly sensitive periods in embryonic development. There are well known issues with medication during pregnancy. Wrt to radiation this is speculative, but who knows?

Anyway, Gundremmingen will be shut off 2021 as a result of Germanies abolishment of nuclear power.

Ash Small

Wed Oct 01 2014, 02:25PM

Registered Member #3414 Joined: Sun Nov 14 2010, 05:05PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4245

Wolfram wrote ...

I could did deeper into the sources here, but I don't really have time to spend half a day on that, so I can only advice you to be careful as to what sources to trust.

Well, here's the 'abstract' from the original paper, published in the Journal of Environmental Radioactivity (To read the full paper will cost Â£35.95):

"A hypothesis to explain childhood cancers near nuclear power plants

Abstract

Over 60 epidemiological studies world-wide have examined cancer incidences in children near nuclear power plants (NPPs): most of them indicate leukemia increases. These include the 2008 KiKK study commissioned by the German Government which found relative risks (RR) of 1.6 in total cancers and 2.2 in leukemias among infants living within 5 km of all German NPPs. The KiKK study has retriggered the debate as to the cause(s) of these increased cancers. A suggested hypothesis is that the increased cancers arise from radiation exposures to pregnant women near NPPs. However any theory has to account for the >10,000 fold discrepancy between official dose estimates from NPP emissions and observed increased risks. An explanation may be that doses from spikes in NPP radionuclide emissions are significantly larger than those estimated by official models which are diluted through the use of annual averages. In addition, risks to embryos/fetuses are greater than those to adults and haematopoietic tissues appear more radiosensitive in embryos/fetuses than in newborn babies. The product of possible increased doses and possible increased risks per dose may provide an explanation."

And here is a previous 'Ecologist' article on the subject, which goes into a bit more detail about the study:

Shrad

Thu Oct 02 2014, 01:58PM

Registered Member #3215 Joined: Sun Sept 19 2010, 08:42PM
Location:
Posts: 780

as I see things, there is a recurrent anticyclone carrying rain from UK to Belgium on a weekly basis ^^

This means that we are experiencing recurrent irradiation from you ;)

Bored Chemist

Thu Oct 02 2014, 06:40PM

Registered Member #193 Joined: Fri Feb 17 2006, 07:04AM
Location: sheffield
Posts: 1022

Wastrel wrote ...

A Megabequerel per meter cubed. Wow.

Indeed.
Typical levels of potassium in urine are about 60 mEq/litre according to this

And the activity of potassium is about 30.5 Bq/g
according to this

so we have 60 mEq/litre
times the atomic weight of K which is 39.1 gives about 2350 mg/litre
That's about 2350 g per m3 each emitting 30.5 Bq so that's about 70,000 Bq/m3

Is it realistic to say that brief spikes that are only about ten times more radioactive than piss are really the cause of anything?

Bored Chemist

Thu Oct 02 2014, 06:43PM

Registered Member #193 Joined: Fri Feb 17 2006, 07:04AM
Location: sheffield
Posts: 1022

Ash Small wrote ...

Can you suggest an alternative cause of the increased cases of child luekemia near nuclear powerplants?

Yes.
"Leo Kinlen, an epidemiologist based at the University of Oxford, UK, has long argued that sites such as nuclear power stations and military bases may be more likely to host leukaemia clusters because of the relatively high population turnover in those areas. Population mixing would increase people's exposure to novel viruses to which they had no immunity, potentially raising the risk of related illnesses, he says."
From

1 2 3 4 next last

Moderator(s): Chris Russell, Noelle, Alex, Tesladownunder, Dave Marshall, Dave Billington, Bjørn, Steve Conner, Wolfram, Kizmo, Mads Barnkob