Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Environmental Health Perspectives logoLink to Environmental Health Perspectives
. 1997 Jan;105(1):52–57. doi: 10.1289/ehp.9710552

A reevaluation of cancer incidence near the Three Mile Island nuclear plant: the collision of evidence and assumptions.

S Wing 1, D Richardson 1, D Armstrong 1, D Crawford-Brown 1
PMCID: PMC1469835  PMID: 9074881

Abstract

Previous studies concluded that there was no evidence that the 1979 nuclear accident at Three Mile Island (TMI) affected cancer incidence in the surrounding area; however, there were logical and methodological problems in earlier reports that led us to reconsider data previously collected. A 10-mile area around TMI was divided into 69 study tracts, which were assigned radiation dose estimates based on radiation reading and models of atmospheric dispersion. Incident cancers from 1975 to 1985 were ascertained from hospital records and assigned to study tracts. Associations between accident doses and incidence rates of leukemia, lung cancer, and all cancer were assessed using relative dose estimates calculated by the earlier investigators. Adjustments were made for age, sex, socioeconomic characteristics, and preaccident variation in incidence. Considering a 2-year latency, the estimated percent increase per dose unit +/- standard error was 0.020 +/- 0.012 for all cancer, 0.082 +/- 0.032 for lung cancer, and 0.116 +/- 0.067 for leukemia. Adjustment for socioeconomic variables increased the estimates to 0.034 +/- 0.013, 0.103 +/- 0.035, and 0.139 +/- 0.073 for all cancer, lung cancer, and leukemia, respectively. Associations were generally larger considering a 5-year latency, but were based on smaller numbers of cases. Results support the hypothesis that radiation doses are related to increased cancer incidence around TMI. The analysis avoids medical detection bias, but suffers from inaccurate dose classification; therefore, results may underestimate the magnitude of the association between radiation and cancer incidence. These associations would not be expected, based on previous estimates of near-background levels of radiation exposure following the accident.

Full text

PDF
52

Images in this article

52p52-a
on p.52

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Appelbaum F. R. The influence of total dose, fractionation, dose rate, and distribution of total body irradiation on bone marrow transplantation. Semin Oncol. 1993 Aug;20(4 Suppl 4):3–11. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Beyea J. Three Mile Island--six years later. J Nucl Med. 1985 Nov;26(11):1345–1346. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Checkoway H., Pearce N., Crawford-Brown D. J., Cragle D. L. Radiation doses and cause-specific mortality among workers at a nuclear materials fabrication plant. Am J Epidemiol. 1988 Feb;127(2):255–266. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a114801. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Doll R. An epidemiological perspective of the biology of cancer. Cancer Res. 1978 Nov;38(11 Pt 1):3573–3583. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Frome E. L. The analysis of rates using Poisson regression models. Biometrics. 1983 Sep;39(3):665–674. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Greenberg M. The evolution of attitudes to the human hazards of ionizing radiation and to its investigators. Am J Ind Med. 1991;20(6):717–721. doi: 10.1002/ajim.4700200602. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Greenland S. Divergent biases in ecologic and individual-level studies. Stat Med. 1992 Jun 30;11(9):1209–1223. doi: 10.1002/sim.4780110907. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Greenland S. Tests for interaction in epidemiologic studies: a review and a study of power. Stat Med. 1983 Apr-Jun;2(2):243–251. doi: 10.1002/sim.4780020219. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Hatch M. C., Beyea J., Nieves J. W., Susser M. Cancer near the Three Mile Island nuclear plant: radiation emissions. Am J Epidemiol. 1990 Sep;132(3):397–417. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a115673. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Hatch M. C., Wallenstein S., Beyea J., Nieves J. W., Susser M. Cancer rates after the Three Mile Island nuclear accident and proximity of residence to the plant. Am J Public Health. 1991 Jun;81(6):719–724. doi: 10.2105/ajph.81.6.719. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Hornung R. W., Meinhardt T. J. Quantitative risk assessment of lung cancer in U.S. uranium miners. Health Phys. 1987 Apr;52(4):417–430. doi: 10.1097/00004032-198704000-00002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Kimball Daryl G. U.S. advisory committee investigates human radiation experiments. Med Glob Surviv. 1994 Sep;1(3):180–181. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Kneale G. W., Stewart A. M. Reanalysis of Hanford data: 1944-1986 deaths. Am J Ind Med. 1993 Mar;23(3):371–389. doi: 10.1002/ajim.4700230302. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. McMichael A. J. Setting environmental exposure standards: the role of the epidemiologist. Int J Epidemiol. 1989 Mar;18(1):10–16. doi: 10.1093/ije/18.1.10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Nussbaum R. H., Köhnlein W. Inconsistencies and open questions regarding low-dose health effects of ionizing radiation. Environ Health Perspect. 1994 Aug;102(8):656–667. doi: 10.1289/ehp.94102656. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Pool R. Three Mile Island. A stress-cancer link following accident? Nature. 1991 Jun 6;351(6326):429–429. doi: 10.1038/351429c0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Rose G. Environmental health: problems and prospects. J R Coll Physicians Lond. 1991 Jan;25(1):48–52. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Wahlen M., Kunz C. O., Matuszek J. M., Mahoney W. E., Thompson R. C. Radioactive plume from the Three Mile Island accident: xenon-133 in air at a distance of 375 kilometers. Science. 1980 Feb 8;207(4431):639–640. doi: 10.1126/science.7352276. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Wing S., Shy C. M., Wood J. L., Wolf S., Cragle D. L., Frome E. L. Mortality among workers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Evidence of radiation effects in follow-up through 1984. JAMA. 1991 Mar 20;265(11):1397–1402. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Environmental Health Perspectives are provided here courtesy of American Chemical Society

RESOURCES