3 ms·

It's a commentary on the study, it also states: "Whatever the final explanation for the increases, the KiKK study and its implications raise many questions, in

It's a commentary on the study, it also states: "Whatever the final explanation for the increases, the KiKK study and its implications raise many questions, including whether vulnerable people, such as pregnant women and women of child-bearing age, should be advised on possible risks of living near nuclear power stations." and: "It is recommended that US regulatory agencies should establish a KiKK-style epidemiological study of cancer incidences near all US nuclear power stations with precise distances being measured between cancer cases and nuclear reactors." The point here is that our understanding of these impacts is obviously not as complete as many people like to pretend.

ChuckMcM 7y ago
I don't disagree, and that same text is also in various meta studies about Cell phone towers causing cancer. And it is the problem in general with statistics based meta studies which where lampooned in XKCD[1] and lamented by the American Council on Science and Health[2]. The summary bit might be "These studies point to areas that should be looked at but offer neither hypothesis or prediction and thus not 'science' so much as they are an early investigative technique." If nuclear plants caused childhood cancers, then they ALL would cause childhood cancers, so a scientific study would say "This mechanism, when present, has this effect. Here is our experiment to prove that, here are the results of the proof. We predict that if you look anywhere else where this mechanism is present you will see the same results." If low level radiation did cause childhood leukemia then there would be clusters in Arvada Colorado and Moab Utah. But there aren't. So why not? When the science is done, and the other variables eliminated, to date there is no study that links low level ionizing radiation to any harmful effect on humans. Even using that term is difficult because there is alpha, beta, and gamma radiation based on electrons, protons, and neutrons. Only Gamma radiation has any sort of penetrating capability at all. So without the science, this study means nothing. Now if they can follow up with core samples, air samples, water samples, and food products to see if there are any nuclear fission byproducts getting into the area around the plant that would be good science. [1] https://xkcd.com/882/ https://xkcd.com/882/ [2] https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/06/29/problem-p-values-13130 https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/06/29/problem-p-values-13130
- effie 7y ago
  > there is no study that links low level ionizing radiation to any harmful effect on humans This does not mean much. The direct destruction effect of strong radiation on cells is cumulative, the longer you're exposed, the greater harm done. Given the physics and biology knowledge, our best bet so far is that effect of weak but extraordinary radiation is cumulative as well. It will increase probability of cancer and leukaemia. Alpha radiation is lethal too if you get its source into your body.
  - vonmoltke 7y ago
    > This does not mean much. It does in the context of places, like those mentioned above, with naturally elevated levels of background radiation. The absence of studies out of these areas with links to harmful health effects is evidence that such levels are likely safe.
    - effie 7y ago
      Again, absence of evidence does not mean much. Nobody is expecting the workers to fall down after minutes of work there, the effects of low level radiation are subtle but given the known mechanism or damage there is no basis for calling such levels safe. Workers working with radioactive tailings may suffer harmful long-term effects. But it is hard to causally connect old age health issues with presence in these areas decades ago. You cannot conclude "likely safe" from absence of information or because the workers seem fine. You would have to do the studies, which as you say, probably were not made.
    - freeflight 7y ago
      > The absence of studies out of these areas with links to harmful health effects is evidence that such levels are likely safe. That's such an odd wording, making it sound like there's only an absence of studies showing harmful health effects. When in actuality there's an absence of studies, period. That's why the commentary about the German KiKK study suggests also conducting such studies in the US. If those were already a thing, then there'd be no reason to suggest conducting them?
  - 7y ago

ChuckMcM 7y ago

I don't disagree, and that same text is also in various meta studies about Cell phone towers causing cancer. And it is the problem in general with statistics based meta studies which where lampooned in XKCD[1] and lamented by the American Council on Science and Health[2]. The summary bit might be "These studies point to areas that should be looked at but offer neither hypothesis or prediction and thus not 'science' so much as they are an early investigative technique." If nuclear plants caused childhood cancers, then they ALL would cause childhood cancers, so a scientific study would say "This mechanism, when present, has this effect. Here is our experiment to prove that, here are the results of the proof. We predict that if you look anywhere else where this mechanism is present you will see the same results." If low level radiation did cause childhood leukemia then there would be clusters in Arvada Colorado and Moab Utah. But there aren't. So why not? When the science is done, and the other variables eliminated, to date there is no study that links low level ionizing radiation to any harmful effect on humans. Even using that term is difficult because there is alpha, beta, and gamma radiation based on electrons, protons, and neutrons. Only Gamma radiation has any sort of penetrating capability at all. So without the science, this study means nothing. Now if they can follow up with core samples, air samples, water samples, and food products to see if there are any nuclear fission byproducts getting into the area around the plant that would be good science. [1] https://xkcd.com/882/ https://xkcd.com/882/ [2] https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/06/29/problem-p-values-13130 https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/06/29/problem-p-values-13130

effie 7y ago
> there is no study that links low level ionizing radiation to any harmful effect on humans This does not mean much. The direct destruction effect of strong radiation on cells is cumulative, the longer you're exposed, the greater harm done. Given the physics and biology knowledge, our best bet so far is that effect of weak but extraordinary radiation is cumulative as well. It will increase probability of cancer and leukaemia. Alpha radiation is lethal too if you get its source into your body.
- vonmoltke 7y ago
  > This does not mean much. It does in the context of places, like those mentioned above, with naturally elevated levels of background radiation. The absence of studies out of these areas with links to harmful health effects is evidence that such levels are likely safe.
  - effie 7y ago
    Again, absence of evidence does not mean much. Nobody is expecting the workers to fall down after minutes of work there, the effects of low level radiation are subtle but given the known mechanism or damage there is no basis for calling such levels safe. Workers working with radioactive tailings may suffer harmful long-term effects. But it is hard to causally connect old age health issues with presence in these areas decades ago. You cannot conclude "likely safe" from absence of information or because the workers seem fine. You would have to do the studies, which as you say, probably were not made.
  - freeflight 7y ago
    > The absence of studies out of these areas with links to harmful health effects is evidence that such levels are likely safe. That's such an odd wording, making it sound like there's only an absence of studies showing harmful health effects. When in actuality there's an absence of studies, period. That's why the commentary about the German KiKK study suggests also conducting such studies in the US. If those were already a thing, then there'd be no reason to suggest conducting them?
- 7y ago