In 2008, the Kinderkrebs in der Umgebung von KernKraftwerken (KiKK) study in Germany reported a 60% increase in solid cancer incidence and a 120% increase in leukaemia incidence among children living within 5 km of all German nuclear power stations. The study has triggered debates as to the cause(s) of these increased cancers. This article reports on the findings of the KiKK study; discusses past and more recent epidemiological studies of leukaemias near nuclear installations around the world, and outlines a possible biological mechanism to explain the increased cancers. In essence, this suggests that doses to embryos/foetuses in pregnant women from environmental emissions from nuclear power plants (NPPs) may be larger than suspected, and that haematopoietic tissues may be considerably more radiosensitive in embryos/foetuses than in children and adults. The article concludes with recommendations for further research.
COMARE (1986) Committee on the Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment. The implications of the new data on the releases from Sellafield in the 1950s for the possible increased incidence of cancer in west Cumbria. First report. London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office;
2.
COMARE (1988) Committee on the Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment. Investigation of the possible increased incidence of childhood cancer in young persons near the Dounreay nuclear establishment, Caithness, Scotland. Second report. London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office.
3.
COMARE (1989) Committee on the Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment. Report on the incidence of childhood cancer in the West Berkshire and North Hampshire area which are situated the atomic weapons research establishment, Aldermaston and Royal Ordnance Factory, Burghfield. Third report. London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office.
4.
COMARE (1996) Committee on the Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment. The incidence of cancer and leukaemias in young people in the vicinity of the Sellafield site, West Cumbria: Further studies and an update of the situation since the publication of the report of the Black Advisory Group in 1984. Fourth report. London: Department of Health.
5.
KaatschPSpixCSchulze-RathRSchmiedelSBlettnerM (2008) Leukaemias in young children living in the vicinity of German nuclear power plants. Int J Cancer.;122:721–726.
6.
SpixCSchmiedelSKaatschPSchulze-RathRBlettnerM (2008) Case–control study on childhood cancer in the vicinity of nuclear power plants in Germany 1980–2003. Eur J Cancer. 2008;44:275–284.
7.
WeissW (2007) Background information on the KiKK study. Federal Office for Radiation Protection [cited 2008 March 30]; Berlin: 2007. Available from: http://www.bfs.de/en/kerntechnik/papiere/kikk.html.
8.
BfS (2007) Unanimous Statement by the Expert Group commissioned by the Bundesamt fur Strahlenschutz. (German Federal Office for Radiation Protection) on the KiKK Study [cited 2008 March 30], 5 Dec 2007. Available in English at http://www.bfs.de/de/bfs/druck/Ufoplan/4334_KIKK_Zusamm.pdf.
9.
StewartAWebbJ and HewittD (1958) A survey of childhood malignancies. British Medical Journal1, 1495–1508.
10.
Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiations, Board on Radiation Effects Research, Commission on Life Sciences, National Research Council (1990) Health effects of exposure to low levels of ionizing radiations. BEIR V Report. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
11.
PrestonDLKusumiSTomonagaM (1994) Cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors. III. Leukaemia, lymphoma and multiple myeloma, 1950–1987. Radiat Res.1994;137(Suppl): S68–S97.
12.
International Agency for Research on Cancer (1999) Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. I. X- and gamma radiation, and neutrons. Ionizing radiation. Vol. 75. Lyon: IARC.
13.
FormanDCook-MozaffariPDarbySDaveyGStrattonIDollRPikeM (1987) Cancer near nuclear installations. Nature. Oct 8–14;329(6139):499–505.
14.
GardnerMJ (1991) Father's occupational exposure to radiation and the raised level of childhood leukaemias near the Sellafield nuclear plant. Environ Health Perspect. 1991; 94:5–7.
15.
PobelDVielJF (1997) Case–control study of leukaemias among young people near La Hague nuclear reprocessing plant: The environmental hypothesis revisited. BMJ.;314:101–106.
16.
LaurierDBardD (1999) Epidemiologic studies of leukaemia among persons under 25 years of age living near nuclear sites. Epidemiol Rev.1999;21(2):188–206.
17.
GuizardAVBoutouOPottierDTroussardXPhebyDLaunoyGSlamaRSpiraA (2001) The incidence of childhood leukaemias around the La Hague nuclear waste reprocessing plant (France): A survey for the years 1978–1998. J Epidemiol Community Health;55:469–474.
18.
HoffmannWTerschuerenCRichardsonDB. (2007) Childhood leukaemias in the vicinity of the Geesthacht nuclear establishments near Hamburg, Germany [cited 30 March 2008]. Environ Health Perspect. 2007;115:947–952. Available from: http://www.ehponline.org/members/2007/9861/9861.pdf.
19.
Committee on the Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (2005) The incidence of childhood cancer around nuclear installations in Great Britain. Tenth report. London: Health Protection Agency.
20.
Committee on the Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (2006) The distribution of childhood leukaemias and other childhood cancer in Great Britain 1969–1993. Eleventh report. London: Health Protection Agency;
21.
White-KoningMLHemonDLaurierDTirmarcheMJouglaEGoubinAClavelJ.Incidence of childhood leukaemias in the vicinity of nuclear sites in France, 1990–1998. (2004) Br J Cancer.;91:916–922.
22.
LaurierDGroscheBHallP (2002) Risk of childhood leukaemia in the vicinity of nuclear installations—findings and recent controversies. Acta Oncol;41(1):14–24.
23.
BithellJTKeeganTJKrollMEMurphyMFG and VincentTJ (2008) Childhood Leukaemia near British Nuclear Installations: Methodological Issues and Recent Results. Radiation Protection Dosimetryvol.45. pp. 1–7.
24.
LaurierDHémonD, and ClavelJ (2008) Childhood leukaemia incidence below the age of 5 years near French nuclear power plants. J. Radiol. Prot.28 (2008) 401–403.
25.
SterneJA and SmithGD (2001) Sifting the evidence—what's wrong with significance tests?Physical Therapy. Vol. 81, No. 8, August, pp. 1464–1469.
26.
AxelsonO (2004) Negative and non-positive epidemiological studies. Int J Occup Med Environ Health; 17: 115–121.
27.
PooleC (2001) Low p-values or narrow Confidence Intervals: Which are more durable?Epidemiology. Vol 12No 3. pp 291–294.
28.
AltmanDGBlandJM (1995) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. BMJ. Aug 19;311(7003):485.
29.
BakerPJHoelD (2007) Meta-analysis of standardized incidence and mortality rates of childhood leukaemias in proximity to nuclear facilities. Eur J Cancer Care;16:355–363.
30.
LaurierDJacobSBernierMOLeuraudKMetzCSamsonELaloiP (2008) Epidemiological studies of leukaemia in children and young adults around nuclear facilities: A critical review. Radiat Prot Dosimetry;132(2):182–90.
31.
KörbleinA (2009) Neue Ökologische Studien zu Leukämien bei Kleinkindern um Kernkraftwerke. Strahlentelex528–529: 1–2.
32.
KoppeJGBartonovaABolteGBistrupMLBusbyCButterMDorfmanPFucicAGeeDVan Den HazelPHowardVKohlhuberMLeijsMLundqvistCMoshammerHNaginieneRNicolopoulou-StamatiPRonchettiRSalinesGSchoetersGTusscherGTWallisMZuurbierM (2006) Exposure to multiple environmental agents and their effect. Acta PaediatrSuppl. Oct;95(453):106–13.
FairlieI (2005) Uncertainties in Doses and Risks from Internal Radiation. Medicine, Conflict and Survival, Vo l 21:2. pp 111–126.
35.
FairlieI (2007) RBE and wR values of Auger emitters and low-range beta emitters with particular reference to tritium. Journal of Radiological Protection. Vo l 27 pp 157–168. http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0952-4746/27/2/003/.
36.
CERRIE (2004) Report of the Committee Examining the Radiation Risks of Internal Emitters. Chilton: Health Protection Agency. www.cerrie.org.
37.
Provincial Government of Ontario (1978) Report of Ontario Select Committee on Hydro Matters. Toronto, Ontario, Canada. (available at http://www.ccnr.org/tritium_2.html#scoha).
38.
StatherJWPhippsAWHarrisonJDEckermanKFSmithTJFellTPNosskeD (2002) Dose coefficients for the embryo and foetus following intakes of radionuclides by the mother. J. Radiol. Prot.227–24 PII.
39.
HPA-RP (2008) Guidance on the application of dose coefficients for the embryo, fetus and breastfed infant in dose assessments for members of the public (RCE-5). Health Protection Agency, Chilton, Didcot. Oxon.
40.
StewartAWebbJGilesDHewittD (1956) Malignant disease in childhood and diagnostic irradiation in utero. Lancet271, 447.
41.
WakefordR (2008) Childhood Leukaemia Following Medical Diagnostic Exposure To Ionising Radiation In Utero Or After Birth Radiation Protection Dosimetry (2008), pp. 1–9 doi:10.1093/rpd/ncn272.
42.
WakefordRLittleMP (2003) Risk coefficients for childhood cancer after intrauterine irradiation: A review. Int. J. Radiat. Biol.79, 293–309 (2003).
43.
MonsonRRMacMahonB (1984) Prenatal X-ray exposure and cancer in children. In: Radiation Carcinogenesis: Epidemiology and Biological Significance. BoiceJDJr, and FraumeniJFJr, Eds. (New York: Raven Press) pp. 97–105 (1984).
44.
FucicABrunborgGLasanRJezekDKnudsenLE and MerloDF (2008) Mutat Res. Genomic damage in children accidentally exposed to ionizing radiation: A review of the literature. Jan–Feb;658(1–2):111–23.
45.
BaverstockK (2003) Childhood leukaemias are caused by background radiation. New Scientist. January 9, 2003. page 4.
46.
GardnerMJSneeMPHallAJPowellCADownesSTerrellJD (1990) Results of case-control study of leukemia and lymphoma among young people near Sellafield nuclear plant in West Cumbria. BMJ;300:423–429.
47.
MorrisJA (1990) Leukaemia and lymphoma among young people near Sellafield. BMJ. 1990 March 10; 300(6725): 676–678. (letter to BMJ).
48.
MorrisJA (1989) A mutational theory of leukaemogenesis. J Clin Pathol;42:337–40.
49.
LordBIMasonTM and HumphreysER (1992) Age-Dependent Uptake and Retention of 239Pu: Its Relationship to Haematopoietic Damage. Radiat Prot Dosim41:163–167.
50.
OhtakiKKodamaYNakanoMItohMAwaAACologneJ and NakamuraN (2004) Human fetuses do not register chromosome damage inflicted by radiation exposure in lymphoid precursor cells except for a small but significant effect at low doses. Radiat. Res.161, 373–379.
51.
WakefordR (2008) Childhood Leukaemia Following Medical Diagnostic Exposure To Ionising Radiation In Utero Or After Birth Radiation Protection Dosimetry132(2):166–74.
52.
JonesKPWheaterAW (1989) Obstetric outcomes in West Cumberland Hospital: Is there a risk from Sellafield?J R Soc Med.1989 Sep;82(9):524–7.
53.
DummerTJDickinsonHOPearceMSCharltonMESmithJSalottiJParkerLStillbirth rates around the nuclear installation at Sellafield, North West England: 1950–1989. Int J Epidemiol (1998) Feb;27(1):74–82.
54.
DownsS (1993) Hiroshima's shadow over Sellafield: Who's right about radiation?New Scientist, 13 November.
