Why Can't We Be Friends?

You don't often see pro-nuclear AND anti-nuclear folks agree on a radiation cancer risk study.

But they do in regards to a U.S. NRC initiated plan to have the National Academy of Sciences assess the cancer risk in populations around nuclear power plants.  The study is being done in two phases.  The first is assessing whether it seems likely that a statistically valid study could be accomplished at such low dose levels.  This phase is currently in progress. If not, there is no need for a second phase.  If so, the second phase would perform the epidemiology based on findings in the first phase.

This type of study is called an ecologic study, because it uses average population doses and cancer rates instead of assessing individuals' doses and cancer rates.  This frequently leads to poor conclusions.  The LSS study (of A-bomb survivors) is a cohort study.  It follows individuals over time and looks at their individual doses and individual incidence of cancer.  It is the best epidemeological study we have on radiation cancer risk.  I discussed the LSS study in a series of posts, the first of which can be found here.

Both the Nuclear Energy Institute (pro-nuclear) and the National Resources Defense Council (anti-nuclear) agree that ecologic studies have so many inherent problems, that the study isn't worth doing.

HAPPY THANKSGIVING!