Things that apparently cause cancer
breakthroughjournal.org
breakthroughjournal.org
https://web.archive.org/web/20200221175201/http://kill-or-cu...
Too bad it's down, but here's an archive of it.
"Correlation is not causation" ?I'm starting to think that "Correlation is not causation" is a kind of slippery slope toward a world where nobody can ever prove the cause of anything. At the same time, just about everything is at least a mild carcinogen including food, the sun, air particulates, etc. But knowing that everything causes cancer isn't useful information. Knowing the strength of the correlations of each of these things is actually useful.
Without correlation, what are we left with?
Mechanism. Testable causality. X causes cancer by doing y.
Yea..
A deer in a forest who heard the foot steps of a lion and thought "hey Correlation is not causation" would soon be a goner...
Saying 'Correlation isn't causation' doesn't disprove causation.
The strength of correlation is NOT the only useful metric and should not be mistaken for more rigorous statistical analysis regarding causality.
Though it is kind of wasted. Dihydrogen monoxide would be the chemical compound without any salts, minerals or other additives we normally get from water.
It would likely not be beneficial for you to drink it as opposed to water.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxidative_stress
Not breathing may have more immediate side-effects though.
Being accidentally correct is only barely better than being wrong, and for many uses (such as when the reasoning is extrapolated and used elsewhere) is no better at all.
> It is especially telling that no matter what landmark we applied to the methodology, we have yet to get a negative result. There is, in fact, a real chance that you simply cannot get a negative result from this method.
My guess: The code is not shareable. Maybe its method is laughably disprovable?
1) If applied to any landmark, that landmark causes significant cancer deaths.
2) The result is impossible because these people aren't exposed to anything from the nuclear power plants. The average nuclear plant is a remarkably environmentally-friendly thing.
[0] "There is, in fact, a real chance that you simply cannot get a negative result from this method."
Meanwhile I'd guess around Harvard the population would be richer. Hypothesis: Being rich and being able to survive to old age also means a higher chance of cancer to be the thing that offs you.
In reading the criticism, I noticed the authors keep using the term "prove" and they also keep trying to come up with mechanisms ("refueling of the plant"). Even the argument about plant worker exposure compared to people living far away doesn't completely work, because the plant workers are taking all sorts of precautions to minimize exposure to radiation, but there are still mechanisms where something could go out the cooling stacks and deliver something harmful downwind.
The biophysics of cancer causation is entirely nontrivial and looking for the actual sources of the cancer risk is challenging, and watching physics people argue with epidemiologists gets old quickly (my field is biophysics, and I've had a few physics people insist that non-ionizing radiation couldn't possibly cause cancer, "because it doesn't damage DNA". Unfortunately, that argument isn't good, because it presupposes a mechanism (DNA damage due to radiation); we know now that non-ionizing radiation causes cellular heating, stress response, and more, which are all associated (based mostly on in vitro studies) with increased rate of cancer.
Note the authors (and the institute they work for) have vested interest: Dr. Adam Stein is the Director of the Nuclear Energy Innovation program at the Breakthrough Institute, where his work centers on the technology, regulation, economics, and risk governance of advanced nuclear energy.
Deric Tilson is a Senior Nuclear Energy Innovation Analyst at The Breakthrough Institute, where he focuses on advancing nuclear energy as a critical pathway to a carbon-free and energy-abundant future.
To answer your question: without other data, generally I would expect a person who works for an industry supporting institute to have greater vested interest than academics working at a university- academics mainly just want to get more funding for their individual research, while the industry is dealing with multi-billion-dollar industries and they get paid well to write articles like this. But now that I look carefully, I don't think their institute is funded directly by the nuclear power/plant industry.
Social Economic Status is certainly associated with all sorts of things, but being near a freeway means being near brake dust (which used to have asbestos), being near all sorts of tailpipe nasties, being near tire dust, etc. I'd be surprised if it was all explained by money.
Take the analysis here on its face, instead: the same methodology (as much as can be reproduced - which is itself a huge problem) produces nonsense results in controls. The original paper did not have these controls.
The original paper is nonsense. It doesn't pass rudimentary bars for a scientific result, and should never have been published.
> Petrofac designs, builds, manages and maintains oil, gas, refining, petrochemicals and renewable energy infrastructure.
Also, they say:
"Over the last several months, we have replicated the results of these papers. The authors supplied us with eight lines of code and answered a couple of questions about the covariates, which did not replicate the results. Most of our replication was done through first principles combined with trial and error. Once we were reasonably close to the results of the first national study on cancer mortality, we took the methodology and applied it to numerous other landmarks."
I'm no expert in experiment design, but unless I missed something, I have qualms about calling this method a true "replication."
No, there aren't.
> where something could go out the cooling stacks and deliver something harmful downwind.
This is beyond ridiculous. EVERYTHING in nuclear power plants, that can feasibly be a vector for a radiation leak, is heavily monitored. And radiation leaks into the coolant loops is the most obvious thing.
> we know now that non-ionizing radiation causes cellular heating
At levels that are not achievable outside a microwave.
And the upper limits of possible exposures for the general public are well within the natural variability of the background levels. A person in Boulder, CO would receive more irradiation just due to higher levels of the cosmic rays than a person living next to Nine Mile Point power plant in NY.
So any possible cancers have to be caused by something else, and not by radiation exposure.
https://pubpeer.com/publications/AEA87585FB0365719098E2C0D06...
> While a broad set of confounding factors with distant relationship to cancer are included in the model, sources of carcinogenic pollutants are inexplicably missing. NPPs tend to be located in industrialized and densely populated regions to minimize cost of transmission. Other industries, particular chemical and petrochemical plants are well established sources of carcinogens, yet they are not considered as a confounding factor. Occupational hazards are also excluded from the model.
Any details of the methodology? Is it possible some mistakes were made during this "trial and error"?
edit: Some aggregated data is available from https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12929679/ , but far from enough to reproduce: https://media.springernature.com/original/springer-static/es...
It is quite odd that the authors say that they don’t know if the original method can yield negative results. Some of the results are expressed as relative risk, so there’s a numerator and denominator. That should be enough to begin to work it out, since all possible exclusive numerators sum to the denominator. It feels like if you don’t understand whether some areas will be lower than average, then perhaps you don’t understand the method sufficiently.
It sounds like they reverse engineered the original method, but that means they could be applying an overfit model and getting spurious results that the original wouldn’t give.
That’s all speculation, hence we need the technical write up.
A cornerstone of valid science is reproducibility. Even if the original author’s methodology is sound, we cannot know because we cannot reproduce it, ergo, it’s basically bunk science.
When we take out all of the “both sides” political motivations driving a lot of the discussion in this thread, the glaring lack of scientific rigor falls squarely on the original authors, regardless of the topic. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and it’s the responsibility of the original authors to provide that evidence, not the people providing the takedown.
Author implies that Alwadi et al. was not forthcoming with sharing the data underlying their studies. Because otherwise they should be able to exactly replicate their results. "Reasonably close" does not cut it.
The kind of crap “research” being criticized here makes me almost irrationally angry, because these people are at Harvard, and getting tons of international press for this slop - which they can crank out, precisely because they skip the hard parts that slow real researchers down. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of good researchers languish in anonymity, because it’s incredibly rare to find a high profile result using good methodology, and worse, it takes time.
In a just world, the people who get caught doing this stuff would be drummed out of academia.
[1] uncontrolled observational research
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EWNjw3pg9sA
Pretty much anything can cause cellular stress, including the normal operation of worn cells in an old body. Cataloguing the strength of the stressors is still useful.
Alchemists conjured thousands of weird new substances, and we just shoved them everywhere they seemed fit. Asbestos everywhere, lead in gasoline, expanded polypropylene wrapping food and holding warm coffee, plasticisers practically everywhere..
And we only really learned about the ones that stood out as the worst. The effect of others, slower acting will keep being uncovered for decades to come.
Even if the original authors never say anything about causation, inevitably the language of correlation (related to, is linked to, associated with, correlated with, coincides with, etc.) will turn into the language of causation (leads to, increases/decreases, has an effect on, causes, etc.) somewhere in this pipeline.
Then suddenly everybody around you is talking about how going to bed with shoes on causes headaches, or goes playing tennis increases longevity. There is some atrocious science journalism out there
The problem with nuclear is cost, not safety, and thus far it appears intractable in the real world rather than the fantasy world that the likes of BTI inhabit, whereas the problems and limitations of renewable energy are actually being solved.
Brutal.
Nothing more to add, but sadly bunk or not these papers will surely be quoted by a lot of entities for a long time no matter how blatantly broken they are.