Health Risks of Ionizing Radiation: - Clark University

152 Communities Near Nuclear Facilities
which cut across the middle of the study area. Five
of the cases were diagnosed between February
1990 and May 1991, six years after Krummel
began operations. To evaluate possible exposures
in the community, Schmitz-Feuerhake et al. (1997)
measured chromosome aberrations in local residents
and made a series of environmental radiation
measurements. Dicentric chromosomes were
significantly elevated in 21 residents 18 . There was
also evidence of increased chronic gamma radiation
close to Krummel (~0.1 mSv/yr, below the German
permissible limit of 0.3 mSv/yr), increased cesium
isotopes in rainfall and air downwind of Krummel,
and strontium and cesium contamination in local
soil and vegetation.
Michaelis et al. (1998) compiled information
on childhood cancer rates within 15 km of twenty
West German nuclear power plants, 1980-1990, and
compared them with rates in control regions. No
significant differences were found although there was
evidence of excess acute leukemia 19 . In a follow-up
study Kaatsch et al. (1998) examined subgroups of
disease type and age during 1991-95 and again found
no significant differences; in this study the relative
risk for acute leukemia among 0-4 year-olds within
5 km of a facility was 1.39 (0.69-2.57). Waller et al.
(1995) applied novel statistical techniques to look
for clusters of childhood leukemia in Sweden; they
found no significant clustering generally or around
the four Swedish nuclear power plants 20 .
Iwasaki et al. (1995) examined blood and lymph
cancers in communities around 18 nuclear power
facilities in Japan. Results were presented for each
site and the authors point out apparently random
fluctuations in the data, with some positive and some
negative results. They conclude from the absence of
a pattern that there is no observable effect. Although
they were not presented in the paper, it is possible to
calculate combined estimates of relative risk from
the data that were presented: For example, there were
33 observed childhood leukemia cases during 1973-
1987, compared to 31.05 expected, for a SMR of
1.06. The SMR for corresponding matched control
areas was 0.91. The relative risk is thus 1.06/0.91
= 1.17. The leukemia relative risk estimate for all
ages was also 1.17. The non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma
relative risk estimates were 1.26 and 1.09 for ages
0-14 and all ages, respectively. We did not calculate
confidence intervals around these estimates, and they
are likely to be nonsignificant, but they do suggest
the possibility of an increased risk.
Studies in Spain and the Slovak Republic
have addressed cancer risk at all ages near nuclear
facilities. Lopez-Abente et al. performed two
consecutive comparative studies of several nuclear
facilities in Spain (1999, 2001). Areas within 30
km of nuclear power plants or nuclear fuel facilities
were considered to be potentially exposed; areas 50-
100 km from each facility were used as controls. The
first study looked at mortality from hematological
tumors (leukemia, lymphoma and myeloma) at all
ages. Around nuclear power plants generally only
myeloma mortality was elevated (RR 1.47; 0.92-
2.36) 21 . Around nuclear fuel facilities generally
there was no evidence of any increased risk although
there was suggestive evidence of excess leukemia
near two facilities 22 . No childhood leukemia clusters
were detected in this study. The second study
investigated solid tumor mortality; around nuclear
power plants again there were no generally increased
risks. Around nuclear fuel facilities the total solid
cancer risk was slightly but significantly increased
18 At the same time, Bruske-Hohlfeld et al. (2001), including two of the same authors, did not detect increased dicentric
and ring chromosomes in 42 local children compared to children from a control area.
19 Although we never retrieved the full article, these authors report a RR of 1.06 for acute leukemias and in a technical
report (Kaletsch et al. 1997) they report a RR of 2.87 (1.34-6.86) for acute leukemias in ages 0-4 within 5 km of
facilities.
20 Using one statistic (Stone’s “T”) the authors derived a maximum relative risk of 2.182 around the four facilities with
a p-value of 0.426.
21 Myeloma mortality around the Zorita power plant was significantly increased (RR 4.35; 1.50-12.66) and the risk
appeared even higher within 15 km of the facility (RR 5.65; 1.61-19.85).
22 Within 30 km of the Andujar facility the RR was 1.30 (1.03-1.64). Within 15 km of the Ciudad Rodrigo facility the
RR was 1.68 (0.92-3.08).