Cargando…

A reevaluation of cancer incidence near the Three Mile Island nuclear plant: the collision of evidence and assumptions.

Previous studies concluded that there was no evidence that the 1979 nuclear accident at Three Mile Island (TMI) affected cancer incidence in the surrounding area; however, there were logical and methodological problems in earlier reports that led us to reconsider data previously collected. A 10-mile...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wing, S, Richardson, D, Armstrong, D, Crawford-Brown, D
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: 1997
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1469835/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9074881
_version_ 1782127694808350720
author Wing, S
Richardson, D
Armstrong, D
Crawford-Brown, D
author_facet Wing, S
Richardson, D
Armstrong, D
Crawford-Brown, D
author_sort Wing, S
collection PubMed
description Previous studies concluded that there was no evidence that the 1979 nuclear accident at Three Mile Island (TMI) affected cancer incidence in the surrounding area; however, there were logical and methodological problems in earlier reports that led us to reconsider data previously collected. A 10-mile area around TMI was divided into 69 study tracts, which were assigned radiation dose estimates based on radiation reading and models of atmospheric dispersion. Incident cancers from 1975 to 1985 were ascertained from hospital records and assigned to study tracts. Associations between accident doses and incidence rates of leukemia, lung cancer, and all cancer were assessed using relative dose estimates calculated by the earlier investigators. Adjustments were made for age, sex, socioeconomic characteristics, and preaccident variation in incidence. Considering a 2-year latency, the estimated percent increase per dose unit +/- standard error was 0.020 +/- 0.012 for all cancer, 0.082 +/- 0.032 for lung cancer, and 0.116 +/- 0.067 for leukemia. Adjustment for socioeconomic variables increased the estimates to 0.034 +/- 0.013, 0.103 +/- 0.035, and 0.139 +/- 0.073 for all cancer, lung cancer, and leukemia, respectively. Associations were generally larger considering a 5-year latency, but were based on smaller numbers of cases. Results support the hypothesis that radiation doses are related to increased cancer incidence around TMI. The analysis avoids medical detection bias, but suffers from inaccurate dose classification; therefore, results may underestimate the magnitude of the association between radiation and cancer incidence. These associations would not be expected, based on previous estimates of near-background levels of radiation exposure following the accident.
format Text
id pubmed-1469835
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 1997
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-14698352006-06-01 A reevaluation of cancer incidence near the Three Mile Island nuclear plant: the collision of evidence and assumptions. Wing, S Richardson, D Armstrong, D Crawford-Brown, D Environ Health Perspect Research Article Previous studies concluded that there was no evidence that the 1979 nuclear accident at Three Mile Island (TMI) affected cancer incidence in the surrounding area; however, there were logical and methodological problems in earlier reports that led us to reconsider data previously collected. A 10-mile area around TMI was divided into 69 study tracts, which were assigned radiation dose estimates based on radiation reading and models of atmospheric dispersion. Incident cancers from 1975 to 1985 were ascertained from hospital records and assigned to study tracts. Associations between accident doses and incidence rates of leukemia, lung cancer, and all cancer were assessed using relative dose estimates calculated by the earlier investigators. Adjustments were made for age, sex, socioeconomic characteristics, and preaccident variation in incidence. Considering a 2-year latency, the estimated percent increase per dose unit +/- standard error was 0.020 +/- 0.012 for all cancer, 0.082 +/- 0.032 for lung cancer, and 0.116 +/- 0.067 for leukemia. Adjustment for socioeconomic variables increased the estimates to 0.034 +/- 0.013, 0.103 +/- 0.035, and 0.139 +/- 0.073 for all cancer, lung cancer, and leukemia, respectively. Associations were generally larger considering a 5-year latency, but were based on smaller numbers of cases. Results support the hypothesis that radiation doses are related to increased cancer incidence around TMI. The analysis avoids medical detection bias, but suffers from inaccurate dose classification; therefore, results may underestimate the magnitude of the association between radiation and cancer incidence. These associations would not be expected, based on previous estimates of near-background levels of radiation exposure following the accident. 1997-01 /pmc/articles/PMC1469835/ /pubmed/9074881 Text en
spellingShingle Research Article
Wing, S
Richardson, D
Armstrong, D
Crawford-Brown, D
A reevaluation of cancer incidence near the Three Mile Island nuclear plant: the collision of evidence and assumptions.
title A reevaluation of cancer incidence near the Three Mile Island nuclear plant: the collision of evidence and assumptions.
title_full A reevaluation of cancer incidence near the Three Mile Island nuclear plant: the collision of evidence and assumptions.
title_fullStr A reevaluation of cancer incidence near the Three Mile Island nuclear plant: the collision of evidence and assumptions.
title_full_unstemmed A reevaluation of cancer incidence near the Three Mile Island nuclear plant: the collision of evidence and assumptions.
title_short A reevaluation of cancer incidence near the Three Mile Island nuclear plant: the collision of evidence and assumptions.
title_sort reevaluation of cancer incidence near the three mile island nuclear plant: the collision of evidence and assumptions.
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1469835/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9074881
work_keys_str_mv AT wings areevaluationofcancerincidencenearthethreemileislandnuclearplantthecollisionofevidenceandassumptions
AT richardsond areevaluationofcancerincidencenearthethreemileislandnuclearplantthecollisionofevidenceandassumptions
AT armstrongd areevaluationofcancerincidencenearthethreemileislandnuclearplantthecollisionofevidenceandassumptions
AT crawfordbrownd areevaluationofcancerincidencenearthethreemileislandnuclearplantthecollisionofevidenceandassumptions
AT wings reevaluationofcancerincidencenearthethreemileislandnuclearplantthecollisionofevidenceandassumptions
AT richardsond reevaluationofcancerincidencenearthethreemileislandnuclearplantthecollisionofevidenceandassumptions
AT armstrongd reevaluationofcancerincidencenearthethreemileislandnuclearplantthecollisionofevidenceandassumptions
AT crawfordbrownd reevaluationofcancerincidencenearthethreemileislandnuclearplantthecollisionofevidenceandassumptions