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 readings 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.
\Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP) is a monthly peer-reviewed journal of research and news published with support from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The mission of EHP is to serve as a forum for the discussion of the interrelationships between the environment and human health by publishing high-quality research and news of the field. With an impact factor of 7.03, EHP is the third-ranked journal in Public, Environmental, and Occupational Health, the fourth-ranked journal in Toxicology, and the fifth-ranked journal in Environmental Sciences Current Issues of Environmental Health Perspectives are freely available to all users on the journal's website.
The mission of the NIEHS is to reduce the burden of human illness and disability by understanding how the environment influences the development and progression of human disease. To have the greatest impact on preventing disease and improving human health, the NIEHS focuses on basic science, disease-oriented research, global environmental health, and multidisciplinary training for researchers.
This item is part of a JSTOR Collection.
For terms and use, please refer to our Terms and Conditions
Environmental Health Perspectives
© 1997 The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
Request Permissions