Radiation andPublic Health Project
Home About RPHP Projects Publications & Reports Journal Press Room
   
   

Nuclink: Journal of Current Radiation and Public Health Issues

Volume 1, Number 6
November 15, 2000
Published by RPHP
PO Box 60 Unionville, NY 10988
Editor: William McDonnell
https://radiation.org


FURTHER OBSERVATIONS ON STRONTIUM-90 IN BABY TEETH AND EARLY CHILDHOOD CANCER (continued)
Jay M. Gould, Ernest J. Sternglass, Janette D. Sherman, William McDonnell, Joseph J. Mangano and Jerry Brown

REACTOR EMISSIONS AS A FACTOR IN CANCER MORTALITY AMONG THE ELDERLY

Following Mangano's findings that the closing of the Rancho Seco reactor in 1988 was soon followed by significant improvements in infant mortality, he found an even more statistically significant improvement in the cancer mortality rate for those over 65. This suggests that cancer from exposure to low-level radiation for the elderly may be equal to that of the developing fetus, because the immune response to toxic agents is as sensitive for the very old as it is for the very young.

For the US, the cancer mortality rate of the elderly rose by 14 percent from the 1979 rate of 986 deaths per 100000 to 1123 per 100000 by 1997. For Sacramento county, in which the reactor had been located, the corresponding rate rose by 11 percent to a peak level by 1989, followed by an equally sharp drop so that by 1997 the rate fell back to the level of 1979. As we shall observe below, this in sharp contrast to the pattern for almost every other "nuclear" county, defined as those within 50 miles of a reactor, which registered far greater percentages increases in the 1980s, and remained well above the 1979 rates by 1997.

Here we must distinguish between rural "nuclear" counties whose rates rose much more rapidly than those of the large urban counties, sometimes rising by 50 percent or more, from levels of 800 deaths per 100000 to 1200 or 1300 by 1997, equal to the levels attained by large urban counties. Urban cancer mortality rates in 1979 were uniformly far greater than those of rural counties, suggesting that with continued exposure to low-level radiation, rural cancer mortality rates will ultimately flatten out in accordance with previous findings that the cancer dose response is logarithmic, so that at high levels the rates can be expected to flatten out.

FIGURE 4
Figure 4

To dramatize the difference between the Sacramento experience and that of other urban counties close to operating reactors, in Figure 5 Sacramento is compared with five other large urban counties that are close to nuclear reactors that are still operating.

Cook county Illinois is downwind of the Dresden reactor, which according to the NRC has released more long-lived fission products than any other reactor in the nation. Wayne county (Detroit) is close to the Fermi #2 reactor, which began operations in 1985. Philadelphia is downstream of the Limerick reactor, activated in 1986 and Dallas and St. Louis are near the Comanche and Callaway reactors., both having been activated in the mid-1980s.

FIGURE 5
Figure 4

In Figure 6 the Sacramento experience with respect to elderly cancer mortality rates is contrasted with five other rural counties close to currently operating reactors.

Note that while the cancer mortality rates are seen to rise throughout the 1980s, only in Sacramento have the rates declined by 1996 to the level of 1980. The greatest overall increase since 1980 was registered by the rural counties of Hamblen and Anderson, close to the Oak Ridge nuclear facilties in Tennessee . By 1996 the highest elderly cancer rates were registered by Rockland and Putnam counties, directly downwind of the troubled Indian Point reactors in northern Westchester followed by Jefferson county LA close to the River Bend and Waterford reactors activated by the mid-1980s.

It should also be noted that no reactors have begun operations in the US since 1987, and all those activated in the mid-1980s now have elderly cancer mortality rates far higher than the US average 1996 rate of 1123 deaths per 100000.

FIGURE 6
Figure 4




More >