Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (16)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by HATCH, M.
Right arrow Articles by SUSSER, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by HATCH, M.
Right arrow Articles by SUSSER, M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 1990 Oxford University Press

research-article

Background Gamma Radiation and Childhood Cancers within Ten Miles of a US Nuclear Plant

MAUREEN HATCH* and MERVYN SUSSER*,{dagger}

*Division of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Columbia University 600 West 168th Street, New York, New York 10032. USA
{dagger}G. H. Sergievsky Center. School of Public Health. Columbia University USA

Hatch M (Division of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, 10032, USA) and Susser M. Background gamma radiation and childhood cancers within ten miles of a US nuclear plant. International Journal of Epidemiology 1990; 19: 546–552.

In light of some recent reports concerning childhood leukaemia near nuclear installations, we examined rates of cancer in children in relation to background gamma ray exposure. Data from a national monitoring programme around nuclear facilities were used to map the distribution of background gamma radiation for 69 small geographical subunits (average population 2300) within ten miles of one US nuclear plant. An association was found for incidence of childhood cancers as a whole (odds ratio (OR) = 2.4; 95% confidence limits (CL) 1.2, 4.6). For leukaemias specifically, the odds ratio was also elevated but confidence limits were very wide (OR = 2.4; 95% CL 0.5, 12.9). Analyses adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics of study tracts (population density and income) gave similar results; data on other risk factors were unavailable.

Conventional risk models would not predict a detectable increase in childhood cancer from background gamma radiation, particularly not an increase of this magnitude. The large effect for solid tumours as well as leukaemias is also somewhat counter to expectation. Since a priori the association we observed was unlikely, it is important to know if similar trends in childhood cancer with background radiation are seen in other areas before rejecting chance or bias as an explanation for the result.

Revised 1 February 1990


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.