If people think the 1986 Chernobyl accident was a nuclear disaster, what about the epidemiologic studies following in its wake?
In 1996, researchers from the Harvard Center for Cancer Prevention (Petridou and Trichopoulos) published a study claiming that an observed increase in infant leukemia in Greece was caused by in utero exposure to radiation from Chernobyl. [Nature 1996;382:352-355]. Now, Michaelis et al. report also report an increase in leukemia in western Germany following the accident. But they say Chernobyl had nothing to do with the increase in leukemia.
Unlike the Harvard study, Michaelis et al. did more detailed analysis of different contamination levels and dose rates associated with Chernobyl fallout. Michaelis also used a more reliable cancer registry than the Harvard researchers. In the end, Michaelis concluded that the highest leukemia rates occurred in the areas with the lowest contamination by radioactive fallout.
Michaelis also noted the radiation dose rate from fallout was greatest in the first days after the accident (i.e., 23 times greater than by the end of 1987). If the Harvard claim was correct, then one would expect more leukemia in children exposed in utero immediately after the accident as opposed to later. But Michaelis determined that the leukemia rate among earlier exposed kids is less than half of the later-exposed kids.
What's the Harvard researchers' response? They say nothing but the Chernobyl accident explains the increase in infant leukemia in Greece at that particular time.
Yeah nothing... except better analysis.
Material presented on this home page constitutes opinion of the author.
Copyright © 1997 Steven J. Milloy. All rights reserved. Site developed and hosted by WestLake Solutions, Inc.