nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

Limited study shows Fukushima kids’ cancer risk raised, especially amongst 1 year old females – Plus link to report methodology

 Kouji H. Harada et. al. “Radiation dose rates now and in the future for residents neighboring restricted areas of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant” PNAS 2014 ; published ahead of print February 24, 2014, doi:10.1073/pnas.1315684111

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/02/19/1315684111.full.pdf+html

The external radiation exposure was measured using personal dosimeters, while the internal exposure was determined through examination of what the test subjects ate and the measurement of atmospheric dust.

Screenshot from 2014-02-28 06:52:45

The researchers found the annual average exposure, excluding average natural doses in Fukushima Prefecture before the March 2011 nuclear accident, was 2.51 millisieverts for Tamano district residents, 1.51 millisieverts for Haramachi district residents and 0.89 millisieverts for residents of Kawauchi village.

The study estimates that residents of the Tamano district, starting from the age of 1 in 2012, will be exposed to 42.8 millisieverts by the time they turn 89, the highest of the three areas.

The study said the radiation exposure in the Tamano district would raise the risk of cancer by 0.71 percentage points for men and 1.06 percentage points for women compared with normal levels.

About 44 percent of men and 32 percent of women develop tumors in their lifetime.

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201402260076

Exposure study: 1-year-old girls face slight hike over lifetime

In Tamano, the rate was 0.82 point higher than average for 10-year-old girls, 0.71 point higher for 1-year-old boys and 0.59 point higher for 20-year-old women.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/02/25/national/study-finds-rise-in-lifetime-cancer-risk-among-fukushima-1-year-old-girls/#.UxAsnJjbBol

Kyodo

The lifetime risk of developing cancer has risen slightly among 1-year-old girls in an area affected by the crisis at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant, according to a study published online in a U.S. science journal Monday.

The assessment was based on an August-September 2012 study by Japanese researchers conducted about a year and a half after the March 2011 nuclear disaster started. The study checked the radiation exposure of around 460 residents living near the crippled plant.

The health risk assessment indicates that doses after 2012 will raise the lifetime solid cancer incidence rate among 1-year-old girls by 1.06 percentage points in the Tamano area of Soma, Fukushima Prefecture, from the average rate of 31.76 percent, according to the study published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The study covered both male and female residents aged 3 to 96 in the village of Kawauchi, the Haramachi district of Minamisoma and the Tamano area, all located 20 to 50 km from the plant.

The study says that increases in the lifetime solid cancer incidence rate were relatively higher in the Tamano area than the other two areas among all age groups.

In Tamano, the rate was 0.82 point higher than average for 10-year-old girls, 0.71 point higher for 1-year-old boys and 0.59 point higher for 20-year-old women.

It is the first time projections have been made regarding the probability of cancer risk related to the disaster, the team said.

February 28, 2014 - Posted by | Uncategorized

6 Comments »

  1. Asahi Shimbun, May 24, 2012: The WHO […] thyroid gland dose estimates for 1-year-old infants were […] 10-100 millisieverts in Tokyo and Osaka. Tokyo sent health ministry officials to the WHO headquarters and went through diplomatic channels to call for revisions. “The figures are just impossibly high,” a government official said at the time. “If they are released, that will not only arouse unnecessary anxiety among the Japanese public but also serve as negative publicity.”
    http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201205240083

    Comment by arclight2011part2 | February 28, 2014 | Reply

  2. Experts differ over nuclear accident’s effect on cancer rate in children

    December 22, 2013

    “The rate at which children in Fukushima Prefecture have developed thyroid cancer can be called frequent because it is several times to several tens of times higher,” said Toshihide Tsuda, a professor of epidemiology at Okayama University, at the meeting on Dec. 21 conducted by the Environment Ministry and Fukushima prefectural government at which experts offered their opinions.

    Tsuda used the results of cancer registration statistics kept in Japan to support his theory. Those statistics showed that between 1975 and 2008, an estimated annual average of between five to 11 people in their late teens to early 20s developed thyroid cancer for every 1 million people.

    “Because there is the possibility that the number of cases could increase in the future, there is a need to implement measures now,” he said.

    However, Tetsuya Ohira, a professor of epidemiology at Fukushima Medical University, criticized Tsuda’s conclusion saying it was not appropriate in scientific terms to compare the results of the testing in Fukushima with cancer registry statistics.

    Fukushima prefectural government officials plan to look further into the relationship between radiation exposure and thyroid cancer after analyzing future test results…….
    http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201312220021

    Comment by arclight2011part2 | February 28, 2014 | Reply

  3. Even though the global media is controlled by just a handful of mega-corporations (4; 5), some people (perhaps too few of them) – to their credit – do not instantly accept the WHO’s findings and are now becoming more vocal in their demands for accurate information……..

    In contrast to WHO disinformation and what may only be described as pro-nuclear propaganda, a report from the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) has analyzed some of the available data from Japan and found “[t]he initial health consequences of the nuclear catastrophe are now, two years after the incident, scientifically verifiable” (9)……. http://rense.com/general95/wholies.html

    https://nuclear-news.net/2013/03/30/physicians-counter-the-lies-of-world-health-organisation-on-fukushima-radiation/

    Comment by arclight2011part2 | February 28, 2014 | Reply

  4. The Russian radiation legacy: its integrated impact and lessons.
    February 20, 2014

    The Russian radiation legacy: its integrated impact and lessons.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1469939/
     Environ Health Perspect
     v.105(Suppl 6); Dec 1997
     PMC1469939

    by Dr Marvin Goldman, Harvard University, former AEC.

    “We were able to use satellite images to delineate the Chernobyl damage to the adjacent radiosensitive pine forest that runs 8 to 10 kms west of the Chernobyl reactor . Infra red images were taken weekly by the Landsat 4 Thermic Mapper Satellite as it passed over most of the Earth. Images from Chernobyl region were used and by enhancing the infrared reflectance wavelengths for those bands corresponding to chlorophyll and moisture, it was possible to discern living from dead pine trees. Thus, from an altitude of 700km, a crude spatial and temporal map of the heaviest hit region was developed……the trees had actually received doses of over 100 Gy.

    “Children under 15 years of age rarely show thyroid neoplasms; the normal rate per 5 year interval is thought to be less than 0.5 per million children. With what appeared to be a very short latent period, about 4 to 5 years, (NOTE: as the most common, but NOT the shortest latent period, latency potentially covering decades at its longest, and less than a year at its shortest. .P.Langley) the comparable rate since 1990 seems to have increased up to 3 to 100 per million children..”

    “Another consequence of the Chernobyl accident is related to communication, miscommunication, and a lack of communication. A serious cloud of doubt arose. Especially about the manner in which the initial official information was disseminated. Fear precipitated by exaggeration in the popular press was mixed with public pronouncements attempting to minimize the risks.
    http://nuclearhistory.wordpress.com/2014/02/20/the-russian-radiation-legacy-its-integrated-impact-and-lessons/

    Comment by arclight2011part2 | February 28, 2014 | Reply

  5. Laurie Garrett is senior fellow for global health at the Council on Foreign Relations and a Pulitzer Prize winning science writer.

    The World Health Organization estimates that at its worst meltdown point, the Chernobyl reactor emitted 5,000 mSv per hour, causing terminal radiation sickness in all the exposed workers.
    […]
    Japanese nuclear authorities say that the area within 30 kilometers of the power plant was showered between March 12 and March 24, 2011 with enough radioactive iodine to deliver a dose as high as 10,000 mSv per hour to every child.

    Epidemiologist Eriko Sase, who has appointments with both Harvard and the University of Tokyo, estimates that those who are the most psychologically devastated are the mothers who did not leave the hard-hit areas right after the tsunami, but stayed with their children in Futaba, Iwaki, and other suburbs and towns. The government estimates that these youth will have double the risk of developing thyroid cancer compared to their peers in Tokyo, Sase said.

    But people did not understand the gravity of these dangers at the time of the nuclear accident, and Tepco and government authorities were slow to reveal the scale of the radiation devastation.

    The Iwakuras were hunkered down in a community center with neighbors long after the power plant exploded, feeling safe until Kimura, the Tokyo Medical University professor, showed up, measured radiation dosimetry in and around their shelter, and told them that they had to leave
    […]
    Where in the United States of America would a power company or government authority safely bury 250,000 tons of radioactive soil, millions of gallons of high-radiation water, and the detritus of abandoned homes and farms across thousands of acres of land? How would the U.S. government alert families like the Iwakuras, hunkered down after an earthquake and tsunami without electricity or any connection to the outside world? How would it compassionately relocate 160,000 people and help them rebuild their lives?…..
    http://kanto.stripes.com/news/fukushima-radioactive-mess-wrapped-plastic-nowhere-go

    Comment by arclight2011part2 | February 28, 2014 | Reply

  6. Rise of Thyroid Cancer Is Oversimplified, Say Critics

    Nick Mulcahy
    February 21, 2014

    …….However, Dr. Siperstein said that their graph depicting mortality rate is misleading. It gives the impression of a flat rate because it is over such a long period of time (nearly 35 years).

    Statistics from the past 10 years, he said, tell another story. They indicate that the death rate from thyroid disease is not flat; it is increasing faster than any other cancer except liver cancer.

    Whereas Drs. Welch and Davies got their mortality data from the CDC, Dr. Siperstein pointed to a set of mortality data from the SEER program to illustrate his contention.

    SEER data indicate that the death rate from thyroid cancer increased an average of 1.2% per year from 2001 to 2010. That is second only to liver cancer, which increased an average of 2.4% per year during that decade. This is in contrast to most major cancers, which saw a decrease — not an increase — in death rates during these years. …….

    Thyroid cancer is yet another cancer on the rise in the United States because of overdiagnosis, according to a study published online February 20 in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery.

    But such a sweeping analysis is simplistic and ignores key facts, countered study critics interviewed by Medscape Medical News.

    The increasing rate of the thyroid cancer over the past 30 years seems to be “not an epidemic of disease but rather an epidemic of diagnosis,” say study authors Gilbert Welch, MD, and Louise Davies, MD, both from the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire.

    In their report, the pair suggest that there is overdiagnosis and overtreatment of papillary thyroid cancer, and propose active surveillance as an alternative management option to surgery and radiation.

    However, the study “fails to give a balanced view of the facts,” said critic Allan Siperstein, MD, from the Department of Endocrine Surgery at the Cleveland Clinic.

    “Everyone agrees that the incidence of thyroid cancer is increasing,” Dr. Siperstein told Medscape Medical News. But he disagrees with the authors’ contention that it is increasing solely because of increased detection (usually with a physical exam or imaging for other conditions).

    “The paper also says that the death rate [from thyroid cancer] has been flat. That’s not true,” he noted.

    This is an important criticism because the overdiagnosis argument hinges, in part, on the notion that the death rate is flat (indicating that mostly indolent tumors are being found with increased scrutiny).

    Another critic also agrees that the study is imbalanced.

    There is something else likely going on in the American population, said Raymon Grogan, MD, from the endocrine surgery group at the University of Chicago.

    Increased detection resulting from commonplace imaging has “probably” resulted in some overdiagnosis in the United States, but that is only part of the story, he said.

    Thyroid cancer is also increasing in parts of the world where imaging is uncommon, suggesting that other factors are driving the rising incidence all over the globe. “The incidence rates are increasing in China, Brazil, India, and other countries,” said Dr. Grogan.

    As for active surveillance, Dr. Grogan believes there is a basic problem. “We don’t know who will have a bad cancer,” he told Medscape Medical News. “If papillary thyroid cancer is diagnosed, we can’t just let it sit there,” he explained, because there are no prognostic tools that provide strong guidance on whether to treat or whether to watch and wait.

    A Closer Look at Death Rates

    Dr. Welch is arguably America’s most high-profile researcher of cancer incidence, overdiagnosis, and overtreatment. He has published many studies on, among other things, prostate cancer incidence in the age of prostate-specific antigen testing and breast cancer incidence in the age of mammography.

    In this study, Drs. Welch and Davies looked at trends in thyroid cancer from 1974 to 2009.

    Using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program, they found that the incidence of thyroid cancer nearly tripled during the study period, from 4.9 per 100,000 in 1975 to 14.3 per 100,000 in 2009.

    Using data from the National Vital Statistics System of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), they found that the mortality rate was “stable” (approximately 0.5 deaths per 100,000) during the same period.

    This is a key finding, because the proportion of people dying from thyroid cancer would be expected to increase over time if there was an epidemic of clinically significant disease (and not just an epidemic of the diagnosis of indolent cases), Drs. Welch and Davies point out.

    However, Dr. Siperstein said that their graph depicting mortality rate is misleading. It gives the impression of a flat rate because it is over such a long period of time (nearly 35 years).

    Statistics from the past 10 years, he said, tell another story. They indicate that the death rate from thyroid disease is not flat; it is increasing faster than any other cancer except liver cancer.

    Whereas Drs. Welch and Davies got their mortality data from the CDC, Dr. Siperstein pointed to a set of mortality data from the SEER program to illustrate his contention.

    SEER data indicate that the death rate from thyroid cancer increased an average of 1.2% per year from 2001 to 2010. That is second only to liver cancer, which increased an average of 2.4% per year during that decade. This is in contrast to most major cancers, which saw a decrease — not an increase — in death rates during these years.

    The increase in the death rate from thyroid cancer is evidence of a serious clinical issue, not just a case of overdiagnosis, suggested Dr. Siperstein.

    But in an email to Medscape Medical News, Dr. Welch did not concede Dr. Siperstein’s point. “I’m not sure whether this is a true ‘signal’ or ‘noise’,” he said about the more recent death rates. The death rate “has gone down and up a tiny bit,” he said, noting that mortality was 0.55 per 100,000 in 1975 and 0.51 per 100,000 in 2010.

    Another point of contention, Dr. Siperstein said, is the increase in the absolute number of larger tumors.

    Drs. Welch and Davies report that the size distribution of detected thyroid cancers has shifted toward smaller lesions (≤1 cm), and larger lesions (>2 cm) are now a lower percentage of the total. This is evidence of overdiagnosis, they say.

    But heightened diagnostic scrutiny alone does not fully explain the increase in large-sized thyroid cancers, said Dr. Siperstein.

    He acknowledged that the percentage of smaller lesions increased from 25% in 1988/89 to 39% in 2008/09. And during the same period, the percentage of larger lesions decreased from 42% to 33%. But the absolute numbers, which were not reported in the study, indicate that both the smaller and larger lesions were increasing. This does not happen in a population in which a phenomenon such as screening causes, all by itself, an uptick of cancer detection. Something else is at work, he said.

    Dr. Welch countered that “larger nonprogressive tumors may not have been diagnosed in the past, [but] now they are.” Also, he said that although size is “certainly relevant to overdiagnosis,” it is not “the whole story.”

    Active Surveillance and Other Ideas

    “We believe the time has come to address the problem of papillary thyroid cancer overdiagnosis and overtreatment,” write Drs. Welch and Davies in their conclusion.

    This statement refers to their finding that “virtually the entire increase” in the incidence of thyroid is attributable to papillary thyroid cancer, an abnormality that is usually asymptomatic.

    The authors argue that active surveillance is a “logical next step” for these patients. In both Japan and the United States, centers such as the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City have initiated active surveillance studies.

    However, Dr. Siperstein said that such an approach might not be appealing to thyroid cancer patients, who are usually in their 50s at diagnosis. “You may be asked to live with the disease for 30 to 40 years,” he said. It is a different situation for prostate cancer, where active surveillance is used as a strategy because that is often diagnosed in elderly men who have a shorter life expectancy.

    Drs. Welch and Davies also believe that clinicians should look at their thresholds for palpating, imaging, and biopsying the thyroid because these thresholds have “likely fallen too far.”

    Furthermore, to help rein in overtreatment and overdiagnosis, a reclassification of small thyroid neoplasms is in order. The word cancer should be dropped, they argue.

    The study was funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice. Dr. Welch and Dr. Davies have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

    JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. Published online February 20, 2014. Abstract

    http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/820919

    Comment by arclight2011part2 | February 28, 2014 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: