Leukaemia in young children living in the vicinity of German nuclear power plants
✍ Scribed by Peter Kaatsch; Claudia Spix; Renate Schulze-Rath; Sven Schmiedel; Maria Blettner
- Publisher
- John Wiley and Sons
- Year
- 2008
- Tongue
- French
- Weight
- 310 KB
- Volume
- 122
- Category
- Article
- ISSN
- 0020-7136
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
✦ Synopsis
Abstract
A case control study was conducted where cases were children younger than 5 years (diseased between 1980 and 2003) registered at the german childhood cancer registry (GCCR). Population‐based matched controls (1:3) were selected from the corresponding registrar's office. Residential proximity to the nearest nuclear power plant was determined for each subject individually (with a precision of about 25 m). The report is focused on leukaemia and mainly on cases in the inner 5‐km zone around the plants. The study includes 593 leukaemia cases and 1,766 matched controls. All leukaemia combined show a statistically significant trend for 1/distance with a positive regression coefficient of 1.75 [lower 95%‐confidence limit (CL): 0.65]; for acute lymphoid leukaemia 1.63 (lower 95%‐CL: 0.39), for acute nonlymphocytic leukaemia 1.99 (lower 95%‐CL: −0.41). This indicates a negative trend for distance. Cases live closer to nuclear power plants than the randomly selected controls. A categorical analysis shows a statistically significant odds ratio of 2.19 (lower 95%‐CL: 1.51) for residential proximity within 5 km compared to residence outside this area. This result is largely attributed to cases in previous studies of the GCCR (especially in the inner zone) as there is clearly some overlap between those studies. The result was not to be expected under current radiation‐epidemiological knowledge. Considering that there is no evidence of relevant accidents and that possible confounders could not be identified, the observed positive distance trend remains unexplained. © 2007 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.
📜 SIMILAR VOLUMES
Since the Three Mile Island (TMI) accident, it has been well recognized that humans are integral to the safe operation of a nuclear power plant (NPP). Unfortunately, "to err is human." One may suggest, Why don't we take out the human element from a NPP system with advanced automation technology? Is
## Abstract Recent technical developments in computer hardware and software have meant that human–machine systems can be automated in many respects. If automation fails, however, human operators can have difficulty in recognizing the existence of a problem, identifying what has failed, and taking c
## Abstract Recently, with the progress of computer technology, the digitalization of human–system interface (HSI) in the main control room (MCR) of advanced nuclear power plants (NPPs) has become an important issue. A higher level of automation means that the computers execute the greater part of