|
Important Notice: The Hanford Health Information Network (HHIN) closed in
May, 2000. HHIN Web pages are provided as archived information only, and
are not currently maintained. Information contained on the HHIN Web pages may be
out-of-date.
Current information is available through the
Hanford Community Health Project,
which is updated by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry of the
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The Newsletter of the Hanford Health Information Network
 |
| Vol. 4, No. 1 | Winter/Spring 1998 |
Radiation Science Update:
Low Dose Exposures near a French Nuclear Plant
by Sandy Rock, HHIN Science Researcher
A study published of people living near a French nuclear plant examined the possible relationship between low-dose radiation exposures and childhood leukemia. The study, by D. Pobel and J-F. Viel and published in the British Medical Journal (January 11, 1997, pages 101-106), focused on young persons who lived or spent time near a nuclear waste reprocessing plant located on the sea coast in Normandy, France.
The study compared a group of 27 persons under age 25 who had developed leukemia with a matched group of 192 persons who had normal health. It found that those who had spent more time at the beaches near the nuclear plant had a higher risk of developing three different types of leukemia. Also at higher risk were children who had eaten more fish and shellfish from waters off the Normandy coast into which the plant discharges nuclear waste.
Children whose mothers had spent time at these beaches during their pregnancies also had an increased risk. There was no increased risk if fathers had been exposed.
Although the study group was small, the authors concluded that there seemed to be a greatly increased risk to those young people who lived and played in the coastal area around the nuclear plant.
The study is relevant to Hanford for several reasons. One is that people exposed from Hanford's radioactive releases received low-dose exposures over a period of time, as did the people involved in the French study. There are not yet many scientific studies that have shed light on the effects of low-dose exposures. One study that will provide more information is the Hanford Thyroid Disease Study, the results of which are due in early 1999.
The French study is also of interest because it illustrates the issues involved in linking adverse health effects with exposures to radioactive materials that were released into the environment (in this case, the water).
Scientists have raised the possibility of bias and statistical flaws in this study. As with all studies of this kind, there is a question of cause and effect. In other words, is the increase in leukemia due to radiation exposure through pathways in the marine ecosystem, or were there flaws in the design of the study?
Answering this question would require finding out what radiation doses people may have received through the water pathway and the food chain. However, the French study did not provide estimates of the radiation doses that increased risk for leukemia.
As shown in the Hanford Environmental Dose Reconstruction (HEDR) Project, it is a formidable task to determine what doses people received from exposure that took place in the past. The French study is yet another study that demonstrates the importance of careful dose reconstruction in determining cause and effect in a possible radiation exposure scenario. More studies with carefully done dose reconstruction are needed.
The following comments from Judith Jurji and Jim Thomas are summarized from the Health of the Hanford Site Conference. John Till's comments are based on an article he wrote, published in American Scientist (83:468-473, Sept.-Oct.1995). He expressed similar thoughts at the Health of Hanford conference.
Judith Jurji: Some Lessons Learned from Ten Years of Hanford Activism
Positive Observations: We have learned that the public can handle difficult scientific information and accept uncertainties if the material is presented honestly, clearly and without condescension.
- We have learned that the affected public must participate with scientists and government officials as equal partners for projects which concern and affect them.
- We have learned that downwinders now scattered all over the United States can, indeed, be found if the effort is made.
Negative Observations: We have learned that only downwinders and their families have a sense of urgency about accomplishing health-related activities and studies.
- We have learned that in the Hanford arena, conflict of interest abounds.
- We have learned that Hanford is out-of-sight and out-of-mind for most citizens, and of little interest to politiians.
- We have learned that our physicians have little interest in Hanford's past contamination.
- For long-time activists, we have learned to discreetly hide our deep personal grief and attempt to carry on despite the fact we are running out of time.
Jim Thomas: Prescription for Healing Hanford's Past--Tell the Whole Truth
The credibility of health studies is threatened by the failure to reveal the whole truth about Hanford's past. Within the next year, the Hanford Environmental Dose Reconstruction Project (HEDR) and the Hanford Thyroid Disease Study (HTDS) will issue final reports. Will the public, especially those who were exposed to Hanford's radiation, believe the conclusions? Or will the approximately $45 million have been spent in vain?
Why, after years of meetings and mountains of documents, is there so much distrust? The reason is that we have failed to probe the depths of official deception about Hanford's releases. The deception continues to receive the apparently active support of current government officials, Hanford contractors and their employees.
|
As part of the DOE's Openness Initiative, 270,000 pages of newly declassified Hanford documents are available on DOE's Web site. Go to http://www.doe.gov and click on "OpenNet."
"I believe the American people have a right to know about government actions that could affect their lives, their communities and their future."
- Energy Secretary Federico Peña, 12/22/97
|
The human rights of downwinders were violated. They were exposed to levels of radioactive contamination that Hanford officials knew were harmful. In 1949, Hanford's Manager wrote that "in 1945 iodine-131 contamination on vegetation was 45 to 70 times [the] accepted permissible maximum at Richland and Kennewick."
We should commit ourselves to end the deception of the past by telling the whole truth and so heal the divisions within the community.
Jim Thomas is Director of Hanford Research at Short Cressman & Burgess, P.L.L.C., Seattle, Wash.
John Till: Building Credibility in Public Studies
A call from a concerned citizen at Hanford was a turning point in my career as a scientist. My caller was angry at not being consulted earlier in the planning of our dose reconstruction study.
Scientific and public credibility of the research are equally important. One of the first problems that confronted us was the fact that the entity under scrutiny, the Department of Energy (DOE), was also providing the funding. The Technical Steering Panel had immediately to make clear that we would direct the study without interference from the DOE.
In a public study, ways must also be found for affected citizens to participate in the research. Our most successful method was workshops on specific topics. These encouraged people to provide input to ongoing work, rather than react to work already done.
Scientists must be prepared to explain the meaning of results. Although dose was our end point, the question we heard most often was, "What does the dose mean?"
Throughout a public study, openness, public involvement and clear communication of the findings will serve the public and strengthen the scientific work.
John Till is President of Radiological Assessments Corp. and former chair of the HEDR Project Technical Steering Panel.
|
