A Radioactive Conflict of Interest

Having the Energy Department control radiation health research makes as much sense as giving tobacco companies the authority to see if smoking is bad for you.

...It's quite a leap to claim that evacuation zones around nuclear power plants might not be needed based on the chromosomes of 112 irradiated mice. In a devastating critique, blogger, Ian Goddard points out that the MIT study excluded extensive evidence of genetic damage to humans living in a radiation-contaminated environment. Although doses in a peer-reviewed study of 19 groups of children living near Chernobyl were consistently lower than the MIT mouse study, most showed lasting genetic damage from radiation. "MIT's presentation of its study as the first scientific ever examination of the genetic risks of living in a nuclear disaster zone is pure science fiction, not fact," Goddard concludes. Robert Alvarez in Huffington Post

NRC to decide if recommended health assessment on cancer risk is continued

In late 2010, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requested that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Nuclear Radiation and Studies Board (NRSB) investigate the cancer risks around NRC-licensed facilities. In April of 2012, the NAS NRSB released Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations near Nuclear Facilities: Phase I. The public was asked to comment by May 31. Many individuals and concerned citizens' groups submitted comments. Beyond Nuclear submitted comments along with Dr. Sam Miller who also submitted his original research in support of his comments made jointly with Beyond Nuclear. Now the Nuclear Regulatory Commission must decide if they will support Phase II of the study which recommends examining 6 pilot sites in Illinois, Connecticut, New Jersey, Michigan, California and Tennessee. Some issues raised in these two sets of comments include: 

The Phase I report recognizes many of the shortcomings of prior health studies including the imperfection of relying on data from the atomic bomb exposures in Japan, and investigation of cancer deaths only rather than examining incidence.

We support a case-control study as outlined by the NAS phase one report but NOT the ecologic study the NAS seems to be proposing if it contains dose estimates which rely on industry data or if it includes adults. In general, a case-control study of childhood cancer will be the most scientifically defensible and probably the least expensive.

Beyond Nuclear contends that an upper dose limit should NOT be established based on measurements of environmental contamination because these data don't give a complete picture of TOTAL environmental contamination over the operational life of a nuclear facility. As a general principal, we would point out that industry effluent, contamination, and weather pattern data is so unreliable, no health study should hinge on it. For weather pattern data, Dr. Miller's research and comments address how detailed weather examinations must be in order to reflect reality. Weather data from industry is not detailed enough. Dose estimates are not necessary to perform a health assessment, and if based on bad data, may actually act to obscure the truth. If a dose assessment is to be performed it should be de-coupled from an epidemiological assessment and done as a separate investigation. This holds true for environmental contamination assessments as well.

Viable, scientifically independent and defensible studies can be conducted based on many of the principles and methods detailed in the NAS Phase I report. But clearly, some of these Phase I report assumptions must be abandoned in order to obtain a scientifically supportable and publicly acceptable picture of cancer risks around nuclear facilities.

Recent research points to cross-generational damage from exposures

The first is a new study shows that children who were born within 10 years of both parents surviving the 1945 atomic bombing of Hiroshima have a higher rate of developing leukemia than children who only had one parent who was a survivor within 10 years of the blast.

The finding was unveiled in Nagasaki on June 3 at a conference on post-atomic bombing disorders. The Asahi Shimbun

Cross-generational damage can come from DNA damage OR, according to another theory, from material which is not a direct part of the DNA, but can still influence it. See this from the Spokesman-Review: Women with ovarian disease may have inherited it from great grandmothers who were exposed to toxic chemicals decades ago, according to a study by Washington State University researchers. (This may be the case for radiation exposure as well)

Japanese researchers are using the work to look into whether the descendents of atomic bomb survivors may be more susceptible to cancer and other diseases because of epigenetic changes inherited from their ancestors.

Chest Radiation for Girls Is Linked to Breast Cancer Later

Women who were exposed to chest radiation to treat cancer during childhood have a risk of developing breast cancer as adults that is comparable to that of women with a high genetic risk of the disease, according to a study being presented Monday.

Researchers analyzed data from 1,268 women who survived childhood cancer treated between 1970 and 1986 and found that by age 50, 24% had been diagnosed with breast cancer. Wall Street Journal

And from the Washington Post:

“We find that by age 50, approximately 30 percent of women treated with radiation for Hodgkin lymphoma” as girls have developed breast cancer, said Chaya Moskowitz, a biostatistician at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York who led the study.

That is far higher than the 4 percent rate for the general population, and is comparable to the rate in women who have mutations in inherited BRCA genes that increase risk. Among women who had chest radiation for any type of childhood cancer, 24 percent developed breast cancer by age 50.

The study was to be presented Monday at an American Society of Clinical Oncology conference in Chicago.