Letters to the Editor
Small Children Are Particularly Sensitive to Radiation
The predecessor of the so called KiKK study [“Epidemiologische Studie zu Kinderkrebs in der Umgebung von Kernkraftwerken”: epidemiologic study of childhood malignancies in the vicinity of nuclear power plants] in 1992 found no abnormalities in the incidence of childhood cancers. The evaluation criteria were specified and the updated study result published in 2007 only after critical feedback from the medical profession, especially the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (“Ärzt*innen zur Verhütung des Atomkrieges e.V.” and 10,000 letters of protest from concerned citizens). The main criticisms at the time concerned “statistical attenuation effects,” which falsified the study conclusions in a setting of altogether very few cases of disorders.
After the evaluation had been corrected the study result was as follows: the closer a child under the age of 5 years lives to a nuclear power plant (NPP), the higher the likelihood that s/he will get ill. In a 5 km radius around NPPs, the malignancy rate in small children rises by 60% and the rate of leukemia more than doubles.
The authors of the study were able to exclude numerous other possible causes of illness (confounders), and in the end only the close vicinity to the stack of an NPP was crucial. In spite of this, the authors maintained their conclusion that radioactive emissions cannot be the cause of the disorders since environmental radiation was low and below the threshold values. In this judgment they ignored the particular sensitivity of toddlers to radiation—the threshold values use young healthy men as the reference. Furthermore, opening the pressure vessel/tank of the reactor when exchanging fuel elements led to documented peak emissions that were limited to a few hours, but averaging meant that the data were leveled out over 24 hours and 7 days.
Since radioactive particles and gases are carried away from the NPP by winds, it would have made sense to consider the main direction of the wind in the 2007 study too—in a sector defined by wind, the highest degree of contamination would have had to be expected.
Russo et al. in their recent study did not undertake their sectoral evaluation by the main direction of the wind either (1). Furthermore, the control groups were spatially defined not by their distance to an NPP, but with a radius of >10 km around a power plant they remained within the contamination area of possible radioactive irradiation. The study result should therefore be critically scrutinized. In my opinion, the authors’ comment—that epidemiological surveillance of leukemia in the vicinity of NPPs be continued after they are shut down—makes sense since during deconstruction, the reactor’s pressure vessel/tank is opened up and consequently, radioactive substances escape.
DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.m2023.0281
Dr. med. Jörg Schmid
Stuttgart, joerg-schmid@gmx.net
| 1. | Russo A, Terracini B, Blettner M, Gianicolo E: The incidence of leukemia in children living near nuclear power plants in Germany (2004–2019)—a registry-based study. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2023; 120: 679–80 VOLLTEXT |
