Incidence of childhood leukaemia in the vicinity of nuclear sites in France, 1990–1998

White-Koning, Mélanie; Hémon, Denis; Laurier, Dominique; Tirmarche, M.; Jougla, Éric; Goubin, Aurélie; Clavel, Jacqueline

doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6602068

Cited by 37 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…"Our study shows no evidence of a generally increased risk of childhood leukaemia within 20km of the 29 nuclear sites under study" (White Koning et al 2004). …”

Section: Empirical Studies Of Cancer Incidence Around Nuclear Power Pcontrasting

confidence: 52%

“True Believers” or Numerical Terrorism at the Nuclear Power Plant

Kraemer¹,

Arminger

2011

Methodological Artefacts, Data Manipulation and Fraud in Economics and Social Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. For decades, there has been a heated debate about whether or not nuclear power plants contribute to childhood cancer in their respective neighbourhoods, with statisticians testifying on both sides. The present paper points to some flaws in the pro-arguments, taking a recent study prepared for the political party "Bündnis 90 / Grüne" as a specimen. Typical mistakes include an understatement of the size of tests of significance, disregard of important covariates and extreme reliance on very few selected data points. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may

show abstract

“…"Our study shows no evidence of a generally increased risk of childhood leukaemia within 20km of the 29 nuclear sites under study" (White Koning et al 2004). …”

Section: Empirical Studies Of Cancer Incidence Around Nuclear Power Pcontrasting

confidence: 52%

“True Believers” or Numerical Terrorism at the Nuclear Power Plant

Kraemer¹,

Arminger

2011

Methodological Artefacts, Data Manipulation and Fraud in Economics and Social Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A previous study of the incidence of leukaemia around all French nuclear installations found neither evidence of an overall increased incidence of childhood leukaemia in the vicinity of the 29 main nuclear installations during 1990 -1998 nor a trend in standardised incidence ratio (SIR) with increasing distance from the sites for all children under 15 years of age (White-Koning et al, 2004). Compared to this study, the present study includes three additional years of observation (1990 -2001).…”

mentioning

confidence: 72%

Childhood Leukaemia Incidence Around French Nuclear Installations Using Geographic Zoning Based on Gaseous Discharge Dose Estimates

Evrard¹,

Hémon²,

Morin³

et al. 2006

Epidemiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study investigated for the first time the incidence of childhood leukaemia (1990 -2001) around French nuclear installations using a geographic zoning based on estimated doses to the red bone marrow due to gaseous radioactive discharges. The observed number of cases of acute leukaemia (O ¼ 750) in 40 km 2 centred on 23 French nuclear installations between 1990 and 2001 was lower than expected (E ¼ 795.01), although not significantly so (standardised incidence ratio SIR ¼ 0.94, 95% confidence interval ¼ (0.88 -1.01)). In none of the five zones defined on the basis of the estimated doses was the SIR significantly 41. There was no evidence of a trend in SIR with the estimated doses for all the children or for any of the three age groups studied. This study confirmed that there was no evidence of an increased incidence of childhood leukaemia around the 23 French nuclear sites.

show abstract

“…The use of residential proximity as surrogate exposure assumes an isotropic and isotonic decrease of exposure with distance. However, although commonly used [28,29], this approach ignores among others the impact of wind direction and is therefore radio-ecologically not plausible [30]. The same holds true when using prevailing wind directions as surrogate of exposure, by which the impact of distance is ignored.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%