Leading Cause of Cancer: Nuclear Fallout Under the Scrutiny of Modern Medicine
Nuclear fallout under the lens of modern medicine: the first cause of cancer
[But if viruses didn't exist, what would cause influenza epidemics?]
Cancer Mortality in the US and the Atmospheric Fallout Ratio from Nuclear Weapons Tests. Identifying the Major Source of the Global Cancer Epidemic
BUSBY, Christopher. Cancer mortality in the USA and atmospheric nuclear weapons test fallout ratio. Identifying the principal origin of the global cancer epidemic. Medical Research Archives, [S.l.], v. 12, n. 11, nov. 2024. ISSN 2375-1924. Available at: <https://esmed.org/MRA/mra/article/view/5859>. Date accessed: 05 dec. 2024. doi: https://doi.org/10.18103/mra.v12i11.5859.
This paper brings together information on the research paper linking fallout from atmospheric nuclear weapons testing to increased cancer death rates, focusing specifically on a U.S. population cohort born between 1955 and 1964. The study uses a novel metric comparing cancer rates in high- and low-fallout states, revealing a significantly higher excess relative risk (ERR) in the high-fallout group, particularly among older individuals within the cohort. This “fallout cohort effect” strengthens the argument that fallout is a major, previously underappreciated, contributor to the global cancer epidemic since the 1980s, challenging existing radiation risk models and prompting calls for further research on the long-term health consequences of nuclear testing. The collected materials, including a timeline of related research, key figures involved, and frequently asked questions, provide a comprehensive overview of the study findings and their broader implications.
Podcast: Cancer Mortality and Nuclear Weapons Test Fallout https://spotifycreators-web.app.link/e/GhXRRa5B5Ob
Key Topics
Main Theme: This research paper examines the link between atmospheric fallout from nuclear weapons testing and cancer mortality in the United States, proposing that fallout is a significant contributing factor to the global cancer epidemic.
Key Ideas and Facts:
● Relapse Metric: The study employs a metric (R) that compares cancer death rates in high-relapse states (AR, KY, LA, MS, TN) to those in low-relapse states (AZ, CA, NM). This grouping of states is based on rainfall patterns and is validated by Strontium-90 measurements in baby teeth.
● Relapse Cohort Effect: The analysis reveals a significant “relapse cohort effect” with a maximum impact on individuals born between 1955 and 1964. This cohort experienced the greatest exposure to relapse during their early development due to the peak in atmospheric nuclear testing in 1959-63.
● Age-Dependent Increase: The study finds that the effect of cancer death rate increases with age, suggesting a long-term impact of relapse exposure on cancer development.
● Excess risk: In 2019, the excess risk (ERR) for those born between 1955 and 1964 was 52% higher in regions at high risk of relapse compared to regions at low risk of relapse (ERR = 1.52; 95% CI 1.48, 1.57; p < 0.00000000).
● Primary Source of Cancer Epidemic: The author argues that these findings point to atmospheric fallout from nuclear weapons testing as the primary factor in the global cancer epidemic that began in the 1980s.
Important Quotes:
● “The findings likely identify the primary cause of the cancer epidemic that began in the 1980s.”
● “The results comparing white cancer mortality for the high-relapse states AR/KY/LA/MS and TN with the low-relapse states AZ/CA/NM reveal a highly significant relapse cohort effect that peaks in those born between 1955 and 1964 across all age groups of the 10-year birth cohort.”
Implications:
● Re-evaluation of radiation risk models: This research questions the adequacy of current radiation risk models and calls for their re-evaluation.
● Public health significance: The findings underscore the significant public health implications of atmospheric nuclear weapons testing and highlight the long-term consequences of radioactive fallout.
● Further research: Further research is needed to understand the specific mechanisms by which fallout contributes to cancer development and to explore the potential to mitigate the ongoing impact on affected populations.
Note: This information document provides a concise summary of the main findings and arguments presented in the source. It is important to consult the original source for a complete understanding of the study methodology, data analysis, and conclusions.
Timeline of major events
● 1950s-1960s: Atmospheric nuclear weapons testing conducted globally, leading to a peak in fallout between 1959 and 1963.
● 1955-1964: Individuals born during this period form a distinct birth cohort that experienced high levels of exposure to fallout.
● 1961: Dr. LJ leVann conducts an investigation of congenital anomalies in children born in Alberta, Canada, hypothesizing a connection to relapses.
● 1969: First analysis of cancer mortality data begins, comparing high-relapse states (AR/KY/LA/MS/TN) with low-relapse states (AZ/CA/NM) in the USA.
● 1980s: Global cancer epidemic begins, with a dramatic increase in observed cancer rates.
● 1992: Whyte re-examines neonatal mortality data since 1935, looking at the impact of relapses on childhood health. Darby et al. study childhood leukemia trends in Nordic countries, linking them to relapses.
●1995: Busby publishes “Wings of Death,” highlighting the connection between nuclear pollution and health. Bentham and Haynes analyse childhood leukaemia cases in Britain, linking them to fallout.
● 2000: UNSCEAR publishes reports on the sources and effects of atomic radiation, including data on exposure to fallout.
● 2019: Latest analysis of cancer mortality data reveals a significantly higher cancer death rate in high-fallout states compared to low-fallout states, particularly for those born between 1955 and 1964. This effect increases with age, with the oldest group (55–64 years in 2019) experiencing a 52% higher excess risk.
● 2023: Koerblein conducts statistical modelling of child mortality trends, demonstrating the impact of atmospheric nuclear weapons testing. Mangano et al. use strontium-90 levels in baby teeth to estimate U.S. cancer deaths caused by fallout. Zhao et al. publish research on global trends in early cancer, sparking debate about the role of fallout. Busby responds to Zhao et al., stating that fallout is a significant contributing factor to the observed trends.
● 2024: Busby publishes “U.S. Cancer Mortality and the Fallout Ratio from Atmospheric Nuclear Weapons Tests: Identifying the Major Source of the Global Cancer Epidemic,” which presents evidence linking the cancer epidemic to fallout from atmospheric nuclear weapons testing.
Personages
● Christopher Busby: Lead author of the 2024 study and a leading researcher on the health effects of radiation. He has authored numerous books and publications on this topic, advocating for reassessment of radiation risk models.
● LJ leVann: Canadian physician who conducted a 1961 study of birth defects in Alberta, suggesting a potential link to fallout from nuclear weapons testing.
● RK Whyte: Researcher who re-examined neonatal mortality data in 1992, highlighting the possibility that fallout affects infant health outcomes.
● G. Bentham and R. Haynes: Researchers who published a 1995 study analyzing childhood leukemia cases in Britain and their association with fallout from nuclear weapons testing.
● SC Darby, JH Olsen, R. Doll et al.: Research team that studied childhood leukemia trends in Nordic countries in relation to fallout in 1992.
● A. Koerblein: Researcher who statistically modeled infant mortality trends through 2023, demonstrating the impact of atmospheric nuclear weapons testing on infant mortality.
● J. Mangano, KS Gaus, TA Mousseau, and M. Ketterer: Research team that used strontium-90 levels in baby teeth to estimate US cancer deaths attributable to nuclear weapons fallout in 2023.
● J. Zhao, L. Xu, J. Sun et al.: Research team that published a 2023 study on global early cancer trends, prompting further discussion of the role of fallout as a contributing factor.
● UNSCEAR (United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation): International organization responsible for assessing and reporting the levels and effects of ionizing radiation, including that from nuclear weapons testing.
● ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection): Independent organization that provides recommendations and guidelines on radiation protection.
This timeline and cast of characters provide a framework for understanding the main points and figures involved in research into the link between atmospheric fallout from nuclear weapons testing and the global cancer epidemic.
Definitions
Atmospheric nuclear weapons testing
The detonation of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere, releasing radioactive fallout into the environment.
Relapse
Radioactive particles released into the atmosphere following a nuclear explosion, which can be carried long distances by wind and deposited on the ground.
Strontium-90
A radioactive isotope of strontium, a bone-seeking element that can replace calcium in bones and teeth, posing a significant health risk.
Cohort effect
A statistical phenomenon in which a group of individuals who share a common characteristic, such as birth year or exposure to a specific event, exhibit distinctive patterns in health outcomes.
Excess relative risk (ERR)
A measure of the increased risk of a particular outcome (e.g., cancer) in an exposed group compared to an unexposed group.
Radiation risk models
Mathematical models used to estimate the likelihood of developing health effects, such as cancer, from exposure to ionizing radiation.
Epidemiology
The study of the distribution and determinants of health-related states or events in specific populations and the application of this study to the control of health problems.
Genotoxicity
The ability of a substance to damage DNA, potentially leading to mutations and cancer.
Low-dose radiation
Exposure to relatively small amounts of ionizing radiation, generally below levels considered to cause immediate health effects.
Cancer epidemic
A significant increase in the incidence of cancer in a population over a period of time.
Exploring the Link Between Nuclear Fallout and Cancer Mortality: Index
I. Introduction
● Briefly describes the article's focus on the potential connection between atmospheric nuclear weapons testing and increased cancer mortality, challenging current models of radiation risk.
II. Methodology
● Explains the use of a relapse ratio (R) to compare cancer death rates in high- and low-relapse states in the United States.
● Details the selection criteria for high- and low-relapse states based on precipitation and strontium-90 measurements in primary teeth.
III. Results
● Presents findings of a significant fallout cohort effect, particularly among individuals born between 1955 and 1964.
● Demonstrates increasing cancer mortality rates with age, highlighting a substantial excess risk in older age groups from regions with high fallout.
IV. Discussion
● Argues that the study findings identify atmospheric fallout from nuclear weapons testing as a primary contributing factor to the global cancer epidemic since the 1980s.
● Discusses the implications of these findings for understanding cancer causation and the potential limitations of current radiation risk models.
V. Conclusion
● Summarize the key findings and their significance, highlighting the need for further research to consolidate the link between nuclear fallout and cancer mortality.
VI. References
● Lists all sources cited, allowing for further investigation and verification of the information presented.
FAQ: Cancer Mortality and Fallout from Nuclear Weapons Testing
1. What is the main point of the research article “US Cancer Mortality and Fallout from Atmospheric Nuclear Weapons Testing Relationship: Identifying the Major Source of the Global Cancer Epidemic”?
This article examines the link between atmospheric nuclear weapons testing and increased cancer mortality rates, focusing specifically on the peak fallout period between 1959 and 1963. It challenges current radiation risk models and suggests that fallout from these tests may be a significant contributor to the global cancer epidemic.
2. How did the researchers measure the impact of relapses on cancer mortality?
The study focused on cancer death rates in high- and low-relapse states in the United States, using rainfall patterns and measurements of strontium-90 in baby teeth to categorize the states. The researchers then calculated a ratio (R) comparing cancer death rates between these two groups across different birth cohorts and time periods.
3. What were the main findings of the study?
The study found a significant “fallout cohort effect,” with higher cancer death rates among individuals born in 1955-1964, the period that coincides with the peak of fallout. This effect was more pronounced in older age groups and in states with higher levels of fallout. For example, in 2019, individuals born between 1955 and 1964 and living in regions with high levels of fallout had a 52% higher risk of cancer death than those living in regions with low levels of fallout.
4. What is the meaning of the “fallout cohort effect”?
The “fallout cohort effect” refers to the observed increase in cancer mortality specifically among individuals born during the peak period of fallout from nuclear weapons testing. This finding strongly suggests a link between exposure to fallout during early childhood and the development of cancer later in life.
5. What implications does this research have for our understanding of cancer?
This research suggests that fallout from atmospheric nuclear weapons testing may have played a larger role in increasing cancer rates than previously recognized. It calls into question the adequacy of current radiation risk models and highlights the potential long-term health consequences of nuclear activities.
6. Does this research suggest that relapses are the sole cause of the cancer epidemic?
Although the research identifies a strong correlation between exposure to relapses and increased cancer mortality, it does not definitively state that relapses are the sole cause of the cancer epidemic. However, it does suggest that relapses are a significant factor that warrants further investigation.
7. What are the limitations of this study?
Like any research study, this study has limitations. It focuses on a specific geographic area (the United States) and a particular historical period. Further research is needed to confirm these findings in other populations and to understand the specific mechanisms by which relapses may contribute to cancer development.
8. What future research is needed in this area?
Future research should aim to replicate this study in other populations and to further investigate the biological mechanisms linking fallout exposure to cancer development. This research could lead to a reevaluation of radiation risk models and inform public health policies related to nuclear activities and environmental contamination.
References:
https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/genetic-regulation-of-cancer-891/
4. Sakharov A. (1958) Radioactive Carbon from Nuclear Explosion and Non-threshold Biological Effects, Soviet Journal Atomic Energy, vol.4, pp. 757–62. Following Sakharov’s death in 1989, the U.S. Government translation was reprinted in Science and Global Security (1990) vol.1, pp. 175–87. https://scienceandglobalsecurity.org/archive/1990/01/radioactive_carbon_from_nuclea_1.html
5. Wallace B, Dobzhansky T. (1959) Radiation, Genes and Man. New York: Holt
6. Sternglass, E.J (1971) Environmental Radiation and Human Health, in Proceedings of the Sixth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, ed. J.Neyman Berkeley, Calif.: University Press
7. Eisenbud M and Gesell T (1997) Environmental Radioactivity San Diego: Academic Press
8. NCRP (1987) Exposure of the population of the United States and Canada from natural background radiation. NRCP Report 94, Bethesda MD: NCRP
9. Whyte, R.K (1992) `First Day Neonatal Mortality since 1935: A Re-examination of the Cross Hypothesis’, British Medical Journal, vol. 304, pp. 343-6.
10. Busby, C. C. (1995), Wings of Death: Nuclear Pollution and Human Health Aberystwyth: Green Audit
11. Busby C (2017) Radiochemical Genotoxicity Risk and Absorbed Dose. Res Rep Toxi. Vol.1 No.1:1 https://www.imedpub.com/articles/radiochemical-genotoxicity-risk-and-absorbed-dose.php?aid=20305
12. Koerblein A (2023) Statistical modelling of trends in infant mortality after atmospheric nuclear weapons testing. PloS, vol. 1 18 (5) e0284482
13. leVann LJ (1963) Congenital abnormalities in children born in Alberta in 1961: a survey and a hypothesis. Can. Med. Assoc. J, vo. 89, pp. 120-126
14. Bentham G and R. Haynes, (1995) ‘Childhood leukemia in Great Britain and fallout from nuclear weapons testing.’ Journal of Radiological Protection, vol. 15/1, pp. 37-43.
15. Archer, V. E. (1987), `Association of Nuclear Fallout with Leukemia in the United States’, Archives of Environmental Health, vol.42, pp. 263-71.
16. Luning, K. G., Frolen, H., Nelson, A., and Ronnback, C. (1963), `Genetic Effects of Strontium-90 Injected into Male Mice’, Nature, No 4864 197: 304-5.
17. Schmitz-Feuerhake, Busby C, Pflugbeil P (2016) Genetic Radiation Risks-A Neglected Topic in the Low Dose Debate. Environmental Health and Toxicology. 31 Article ID e2016001. http://dx.doi.org/10.5620/eht.e2016001.
18. Busby C (2006) Wolves of Water: A study constructed from atomic radiation, morality, epidemiology, bias, philosophy and death. Aberystwyth: Green Audit
19. Zhao Jianhui, Xu Liyang, Sun Jing et al (2023) Global trends inincidence, death, burden and risk factors of early onset cancer from 1990 to 2019. BMJ Oncology, vol. 2; e000049
20. Doll, R. and Peto, R. (1981), The Causes of Cancer, Oxford: University Press
21. Busby, C. (1994), `Increase in Cancer in Wales Unexplained’, British Medical Journal, vol. 308: 268
22. ICRP (2007) International Commission on Radiological Protection. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP-Publication 103 Oxford: Pergamon
23. ICRP 60. (1990) International Commission on Radiological Protection 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 60. ICRP 21 (1-3), 1991.
24. Busby Christopher (2013). Aspects of DNA Damage from Internal Radionuclides, New Research Directions in DNA Repair, Prof. Clark Chen (Ed.), ISBN: 978-953-51-1114-6, InTech, DOI: 10.5772/53942. Available from:
http://www.intechopen.com/books/new-research-directions-in-dna-repair/aspects-of-dna-damage-from-internal-radionuclides
25. Busby Christopher (2022) Ionizing radiation and cancer—the failure of the risk model. Cancer Treatment and Research Communications (invited review). Vol 31, 100565. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctarc.2022.100565
26. Busby Christopher and Mangano Joseph J (2017) There’s a world going on underground—infant mortality and fracking in Pennsylvania. Journal of Environmental Protection, vol8 no 4, doi: 10.4236/jep.2017.84028
27. UNSCEAR 2000 (2000) Sources and Effects of Atomic Radiation. Vol 1: Sources. New York: United Nations.
28. CERRIE (2004) Report of the Committee Examining Radiation Risk from Internal Emitters (CERRIE) Chilton, UK: National Radiological Protection Board
29. Fliess J R (2002) Statistical methods for rates and proportions. New Jersey: Wiley Interscience
30. ECRR (2010) Busby C, Yablolov AV, Schmitz Feuerhake I, Bertell R and Scott Cato M. The 2010 Recommendations of the European Committee on Radiation Risk. The Health Effects of Ionizing Radiation at Low Doses and Low Dose Rates. Brussels: ECRR; Aberystwyth Green Audit
31. Federal Research Council (1962) Health implications of fallout from nuclear weapons testing through 1961. Report No 3. Washington USA: Government Printing Office
32. Simon SL and Bouville A (2015) Health effects of nuclear weapons testing. The Lancet, vol. 386, pp. 407-409.
33. Busby Christopher (2021) The Hiroshima A-Bomb Black Rain and the Lifespan Study; a Resolution of the Enigma, Cancer Investigation, DOI: 10.1080/07357907.2021.1977818
34. Busby C (2023) Evidence that nuclear atmospheric test fallout is responsible. Response to: Zhao Jianhui, Xu Liyang, Sun Jing et al (2023) Global trends inincidence, death, burden and risk factors of early onset cancer from 1990 to 2019. BMJ Oncology, 2; e000049
https://bmjoncology.bmj.com/content/evidence-nuclear-atmospheric-test-fallout-responsible
35. Annual Reports (Medical) of the Registrar General for England and Wales. London: HMSO
36. Office for National Statistics. Ser. DH2. Mortality Statistics Cause. Review of the Registrar General on Deaths by Cause, Sex and Age (annually). London: ONS
37. UNSCEAR 2000 (2000) Sources and Effects of Atomic Radiation. Vol 2: Effects. New York: United Nations.
38. Rosenthal HL, Le Cam LM, Neyman J and Scott EL (1972) Implication of environmental Sr90 accumulation in teeth and bone of children. in Proceedings of the Sixth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, ed. J.Neyman (Berkeley, Calif.: University Press)
39. Rosenthal HL, Austin S, O Niell S. (1964) Incorporation of fallout Strontium90 in deciduous incisors and foetal bones. Nature, vol. 4945, pp. 615-616
40. Mangano J, Gaus KS, Mousseau TA, Ketterer M (2023) Strontium-90 in baby teeth as a basis for estimating US cancer deaths from nuclear weapons fallout. International Journal of Social Determinants of Health and Health Services. 1-11.
41. Darby, S. C., Olsen, J. H., Doll, R., Thakrar, B., de Nully Brown, P., Storm, H. H., Barlow, L., Langmark, F., Teppo, L., and Tulinius, H. (1992), `Trends in Childhood Leukemia in the Nordic Countries in Relation to Fallout from Nuclear Weapons Testing’, British Medical Journal, vol. 304, pp. 1005-9.
42. Busby Christopher. (2016) Letter to the Editor on “The Hiroshima Nagasaki survivor studies. Discrepancies between results and general perception.” By Bernard R Jordan. Genetics. Vol. 204, no.4, pp. 1627-1629
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento