Skip to main content

View Diary: Radiation, Cancer, and the Linear No-Threshold Model (143 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That they are extremely controversial (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ice Blue, worldlotus

    I can only comment on the article you cite from pubmed, Wing et al. in EHP. I know it well.  It was written in response to another article showing no statistically signficiant increase in cancer risks.  The author of the original article commenting on the Wing et al. paper:

    Our results and those of Wing et al. (2)
    differ in no important respect. Our conclusions
    do differ: we saw no convincing evidence
    that cancer incidence was a consequence
    of the nuclear accident; they claim
    there is such evidence.

    There is neither mystery nor obfuscation
    in our presentation of the data. We are not
    sure we can say the same for Wing et al.

    Scientists are usually not quite so blunt.  

    I'm not enough of an expert in the field to make conclusions about who is right and who is not.  I'll note that the most recent paper published is from the authors of the original article, and you can find it here.

    From the abstract:

    Although the surveillance within the TMI cohort provides no consistent evidence that radioactivity released during the nuclear accident has had a significant impact on the overall mortality experience of these residents, several elevations persist, and certain potential dose-response relationships cannot be definitively excluded.

    •  The Physicians for Social Responsibility have (0+ / 0-)

      sided with Wing et al.  It was from the PSR's nuclear fact sheet, "Dirty, Dangerous and Expensive: The Truth About Nuclear Power", that I quoted in my above post and which provided a footnote that pointed me  to the Wing etal. article.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site