Cancer in Burnham-on-Sea, Somerset
The environmental consultancy Green Audit has answered criticism from the UK Government's influential advisory group COMARE (Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment). Response dated 30th March 2004
Background:-
In 2002, in a citizens' epidemiology study unique in the UK, Parents Concerned About Hinkley (PCAH) conducted a door-to-door survey of cancer in the North ward of Burnham-on-Sea, Somerset. ("Wards" are local authority administrative areas.) Green Audit analysed the results, showing significant excesses of cancer. The cause is thought to be internal radiation following inhalation and ingestion of radioactivity blowing inland from nearby mud-flats, which are contaminated by discharges from Hinkley Point Nuclear Power Station.
In September the South West Cancer Intelligence Service published a study of cancer incidence in both the Burnham wards and two neighbouring wards. The data confirm what PCAH found in Burnham North and also confirm that proximity to the sea is associated with increased cancer incidence.
In November COMARE issued a Statement condemning the Questionnaire study. Green Audit has now rejected most of COMARE's Statement because:
* it attacks PCAH's Questionnaire Survey for not being a definitive study, whereas it was intended to be indicative; as a doorstep questionnaire administered by volunteers it could never have been anything else.
* it makes a fatal error about the way the PCAH was conducted, assuming that 30% of households had responded to a 100% canvass, which could have introduced bias. In fact there was a 100% response to a 30% sample. COMARE have allowed this error to remain although they have been told about it repeatedly.
* it overlooks flawed analysis in the subsequent extended study conducted by the South West Cancer Intelligence Service (SWCIS).
* it overlooks the fact that once the flaws are corrected the SWCIS study confirms PCAH's findings.
* it uses a selective subset of the SWCIS data.
* it uses wrong significance testing.
* it says that chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (which accounts for much of the excess leukaemia in Burnham) is not caused by radiation. This assumption has no scientific basis since it relies on studies of external radiation at Hiroshima.
Speaking on behalf on Green Audit Richard Bramhall said: "I have great admiration for the courage of the local volunteers who knocked on people's doors asking for sensitive personal information about their health. COMARE pays lip service to them, claiming that they "don't wish to criticise either the idea of carrying out such a survey or the involvement of the local community." But they demonstrate a complete failure to understand the realities of public concern and grass roots action, condemning the study for not checking medical and histological records. How can a local campaign group have access to such records? How does COMARE think volunteers could interrogate people on their doorsteps about whether their cancers were primaries or secondaries, or whether they were distinguishing correctly between malignant or in situ or benign cancers?
The local health authorities have been remote, arrogant and dismissive. They have refused to work with local campaign groups for fear of "compromising their impartiality and public perceptions of their role".
Now, both COMARE and the cancer registry have applied inappropriate statistical techniques in an effort to deny obvious enhancements of risk near the mud-flats. They have even blamed X-ray mammography for apparent excesses of breast cancer incidence. They seem to be unaware that since mortality from breast cancer is also double what would be expected in Burnham, blaming X-ray mammography suggests that it is killing women.
Cancer data have been withheld from competent public interest epidemiologists on the basis of a rule which the Department of Health adopted as a temporary measure for a different purpose - stopping open reports and web sites from revealing too much information about patients. Even the National Radiological Protection Board has criticised the rule; at a recent meeting Board members were concerned that it would be an obstacle to many studies crucial for public health. The NRPB's Chairman has addressed their concerns to the UK Department of Health."
The Green Audit response is hosted on
http://www.llrc.org/health/subtopic/comareonburnham.htm or go to http://www.llrc.org and click on the NEWS icon. It can be downloaded as html or as a PDF file.
The COMARE Statement is on
http://www.comare.org.uk/statements/comare_statement_burnham.htm]
Informant: Richard Bramhall
Background:-
In 2002, in a citizens' epidemiology study unique in the UK, Parents Concerned About Hinkley (PCAH) conducted a door-to-door survey of cancer in the North ward of Burnham-on-Sea, Somerset. ("Wards" are local authority administrative areas.) Green Audit analysed the results, showing significant excesses of cancer. The cause is thought to be internal radiation following inhalation and ingestion of radioactivity blowing inland from nearby mud-flats, which are contaminated by discharges from Hinkley Point Nuclear Power Station.
In September the South West Cancer Intelligence Service published a study of cancer incidence in both the Burnham wards and two neighbouring wards. The data confirm what PCAH found in Burnham North and also confirm that proximity to the sea is associated with increased cancer incidence.
In November COMARE issued a Statement condemning the Questionnaire study. Green Audit has now rejected most of COMARE's Statement because:
* it attacks PCAH's Questionnaire Survey for not being a definitive study, whereas it was intended to be indicative; as a doorstep questionnaire administered by volunteers it could never have been anything else.
* it makes a fatal error about the way the PCAH was conducted, assuming that 30% of households had responded to a 100% canvass, which could have introduced bias. In fact there was a 100% response to a 30% sample. COMARE have allowed this error to remain although they have been told about it repeatedly.
* it overlooks flawed analysis in the subsequent extended study conducted by the South West Cancer Intelligence Service (SWCIS).
* it overlooks the fact that once the flaws are corrected the SWCIS study confirms PCAH's findings.
* it uses a selective subset of the SWCIS data.
* it uses wrong significance testing.
* it says that chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (which accounts for much of the excess leukaemia in Burnham) is not caused by radiation. This assumption has no scientific basis since it relies on studies of external radiation at Hiroshima.
Speaking on behalf on Green Audit Richard Bramhall said: "I have great admiration for the courage of the local volunteers who knocked on people's doors asking for sensitive personal information about their health. COMARE pays lip service to them, claiming that they "don't wish to criticise either the idea of carrying out such a survey or the involvement of the local community." But they demonstrate a complete failure to understand the realities of public concern and grass roots action, condemning the study for not checking medical and histological records. How can a local campaign group have access to such records? How does COMARE think volunteers could interrogate people on their doorsteps about whether their cancers were primaries or secondaries, or whether they were distinguishing correctly between malignant or in situ or benign cancers?
The local health authorities have been remote, arrogant and dismissive. They have refused to work with local campaign groups for fear of "compromising their impartiality and public perceptions of their role".
Now, both COMARE and the cancer registry have applied inappropriate statistical techniques in an effort to deny obvious enhancements of risk near the mud-flats. They have even blamed X-ray mammography for apparent excesses of breast cancer incidence. They seem to be unaware that since mortality from breast cancer is also double what would be expected in Burnham, blaming X-ray mammography suggests that it is killing women.
Cancer data have been withheld from competent public interest epidemiologists on the basis of a rule which the Department of Health adopted as a temporary measure for a different purpose - stopping open reports and web sites from revealing too much information about patients. Even the National Radiological Protection Board has criticised the rule; at a recent meeting Board members were concerned that it would be an obstacle to many studies crucial for public health. The NRPB's Chairman has addressed their concerns to the UK Department of Health."
The Green Audit response is hosted on
http://www.llrc.org/health/subtopic/comareonburnham.htm or go to http://www.llrc.org and click on the NEWS icon. It can be downloaded as html or as a PDF file.
The COMARE Statement is on
http://www.comare.org.uk/statements/comare_statement_burnham.htm]
Informant: Richard Bramhall
Starmail - 7. Apr, 09:54
