Leukaemia Near Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant, Massachusetts

Poole, Charles; Rothman, Kenneth J.; Dreyer, Nancy A

doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(88)92915-7

Cited by 8 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Given the borderline statistical significance of the pooled results pertaining to nuclear generating stations, further analyses of the data were performed to determine whether leukemia risk varied according to age at death (0-4, 5-9, [10][11][12][13][14] or year of birth (1967-73, 1974-78, 1979-87). The pooled mortality ratios by residence at birth did not vary according to age at death, as shown by the range that went from O/E -- Mortality ratios were calculated for the periods before and after the initial operation of the nuclear generating station at Pickering.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Childhood leukemia in the vicinity of Canadian nuclear facilities

McLaughlin¹,

Clarke²,

Nishri³

et al. 1993

Cancer Causes Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An ecologic study was conducted to determine whether leukemia rates among children born to mothers residing in the vicinity of Ontario (Canada) nuclear facilities differed from the provincial average. Childhood leukemia mortality and incidence ratios for the period 1950 to 1987 were examined for five regions within 25 km of a nuclear facility. The nuclear facilities included a research development facility, a uranium refinery, a uranium mining and milling facility, and two nuclear-power generating stations. Overall, the observed number of leukemia deaths (O = 54) was slightly greater than expected (E = 46.1) during the period when the facilities operated, but the difference was not statistically significant (O/E = 1.17, 95 percent confidence interval [CI] = 0.88-1.53). There was no indication of a birth cohort effect, as the mortality ratios based on place of birth were not significantly greater than the mortality ratios based on place of death. In the analyses of individual facilities, CIs included the null value and were generally wide because of the small observed and expected numbers; however, in the vicinity of the nuclear generating stations, the observed relative excess of leukemia deaths (O = 36, O/E = 1.40) had a lower confidence limit that was close to the null value.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Childhood leukemia in the vicinity of Canadian nuclear facilities

McLaughlin¹,

Clarke²,

Nishri³

et al. 1993

Cancer Causes Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Between 1982 and 1984 an excess number of leukaemia cases was noted around the Pilgrim plant, Massachusetts (26), but was counterbalanced by a de cit of cases between 1985 and 1986 (27). The incidence of leukaemia among children (0-14 years of age, during 1975-1985) increased with reconstructed doses in the region of the Three Mile Island plant, Pennsylvania, but the study involved 4 cases and was not statistically signi cant (28,29).…”

Section: Local Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk of Childhood Leukaemia in the Vicinity of Nuclear Installations: Findings and Recent Controversies

Laurier¹,

Grosche

Hall

2002

Acta Oncologica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The identification of a local excess of cancer cases, possibly associated with ionizing radiation, always receives substantial media coverage and communication about clusters is difficult. We reviewed studies that examined the risk of leukaemia among young people near nuclear installations. An excess of leukaemia exists near some nuclear installations, at least for the reprocessing plants at Sellafield and Dounreay and the nuclear power plant Krümmel. Nonetheless, the results of multi-site studies invalidate the hypothesis of an increased risk of leukaemia related to nuclear discharge. Up until now, analytic studies have not found an explanation for the leukaemia clusters observed near certain nuclear installations. The hypothesis of an infectious aetiology associated with population mixing has been proposed, but needs to be investigated further. The review illustrates two recent examples in France (La Hague reprocessing plant) and in Germany (Krümmel power plant), where controversies developed after reports of increased leukaemia risks. These examples show the importance of recalling the current epidemiological knowledge and of using systematic recording of cases to replace the alleged excesses in a more general framework. Some elements should also be suggested from the recent French and German experiences to reinforce credibility in the results.

show abstract