Effect of Nuclear Power Plants on Cancer Incidents - Essay Example

Effect of Nuclear Power Plants on Cancer Incidents April 19, Table of Contents Introduction 3 Nuclear Power Plant Accidents 3 Sellafield Nuclear Power Plant 4 Measurement of power plants’ contribution to Cancer Occurences 5 Government’s nuclear power plant research 5 Feller et al. Research 7 Conclusion 20 References: 21 Introduction Nuclear power plants generate electricity for the community. The plants generate radiation. The radiation boils the trapped water. The boiled water is transformed to thermal energy. The thermal energy makes the turbines to run. The running turbine makes generators produce electricity. There is a causal relationship between the proximity of the nuclear power plants and the number of cancer patients (Murray, 2008). Nuclear Power Plant Accidents The Chernobyl explosion polluted the milk and other food products in Ukraine, the place where the Chernobyl nuclear power plant exploded. Research shows that the milk in the Drozdyn and Vezhitsia villages were contaminated by the Chernobyl radiation. The floating Chernobyl explosion radiation particles contaminated the cow’s milk products. Similarly, milk products from the nearby Satre Selo Village and the Perehodichi Village were contaminated. The Chernobyl cows’ ate the radiation-infected grass. The grass grew on radiation- contaminated farm soil (Stepanova et al., 2008). The residents’ eating contaminated cow’s milk was a confounder variable. The winds’ blowing the radioactive particles to particular community is another confounder variable. The people’s long exposure within the vicinity of the Chernobyl community is a third confounder variable. If there were no cows eating the grass, the people will not drink the cows’ milk or eat the infected cows’ meat. Consequently, the number of cancer incidents would favourably decline. Consequently, the contamination spread. The contaminated soil contaminated the grass that grew on the contaminated soil. Next, the cows ate the -radiation contaminated grass. By eating the contaminated grass, the cows were contaminated with radiation. When the farmers extracted the milk from the cows, the milk products were contaminated by the Chernobyl radiation (Zamostian et al., 2002). The contaminated soil was another confounder that increased the number of cancer incidents within the Chernobyl community. Another confounder was the quantity of contaminated food eaten. With more people eating radiation-contaminated food, more people died from the deadly cancer ailment. Further, the Chernobyl accident research focused on soil contamination measurements from Ukraine’s 38 Narodichesky region communities (Karmaus et al., 2008) The six year research included children respondents belonging to the 18 years old and below age range. The PROC MIXED linear measurement model to gather radiation data, controlling confounders. The findings indicate erythrocyte, blood platelet count and hemoglobin are lower in children living within the Chernobyl explosion area. After 6 years, the erythrocyte, starting at 4 x 1012 cells per liter to 4.1 x 1012 cells per liter, and blood platelet counts of the “infected” children improved. However, there was no improvement in the affected children’s hemoglobin status. The two power plant accidents, Chernobyl nuclear power plant explosion and Three Mile Island China Syndrome meltdown, results to thousands of funds allocated to cleaning the escaped radioactive materials from the atmosphere and the community environment (Caldicott, 2006). Sellafield Nuclear Power Plant Another research conducted showed nuclear power plant emits unhealthy radiation. The radiation triggered the increase in the thyroid cancer incidents. The thyroid cancer deaths increased 300 percent among people working within the Sellafield nuclear power plant. The research results came from data taken from an estimated 14, 300 workers working within the Sellafield nuclear power plant (McDougall, 2010). Measurement of power plants’ contribution to Cancer Occurences In terms of measuring whether nuclear power plants contribute to the cancer occurrences, there are no difficulties. In 2008, one research was conducted in Germany (Fairlie, 2009). The German research focused on the effect of nuclear power plants on children. The research contributed to the reported increases in the number of children suffering from the Leukemia ailment. Leukemia is defined as cancer of the blood. The initial reports showed the Leukemia increases among children started as far back as the 1980s period. There were several alternative reasons for the unexplainable Leukemia increases. In response, the United Kingdom government decided to conduct a formal investigation. Government’s nuclear power plant research The governments successfully contributed their share to determine if the nuclear power plants contributed to higher cancer-related incidents (Fairlie, 2009). The United Kingdom government’s Government Committee on the Medical Aspects of Radiation and the Environment, or COMARE, conducted the formal Leukemia investigation. The research focused on determining which of several possible factors triggered the increase in the number of Leukemia occurrences. Prior to the COMPARE government investigation, several possible reasons or causes were contributed. Furthermore, the KiKK or Kinderkrebs in der Umgebung von KernKraftwereken conducted its own German research on the Leukemia issue (Spix et al., 2008). The Kikk also meant Childhood cancer in the Vicinity of Nuclear Power Plants. A prior German research on the relationship of Leukemia and Childhood cancer was used as the starting point for the Kikk research (Kaatschetal, 2008). Korblein and Hoffmann conducted the earlier German Leukemia research. The Korblein and Hoffman research showed that there was a significant increase in the number of children living within five miles of the nearest nuclear power plant. Further, the same German research was expertly conducted. In terms of size, the research included research on 16 nuclear power plants in Germany the research gathered the minimum required data to arrive at a very convincing research conclusion. The Korblein and Hoffmann German research was conducted from 1980 to 2003. The research focused on the 1,592 children having cancer out of the 4,735 control research population. The research also focused on the 593 children diagnosed with Leukemia out of the 1,766 control research population. Consequently, the research proved to comply with strong statistical requirements. To generate convincing research findings, a significant amount of research data had to be gathered. The strong statistical data of the Korblein and Hoffmann German research precipitated to the statistically significant research findings and conclusions (Kaatsch et al., 2008). In terms of funding, the German government sponsored the Korblein and Hoffmann German research. Specifically, the German Government’s Bundesamt fur Strahlenschutz Department’s research was implemented in order to cater to the strong demand by the German residents for the radiation-based cancer research. The epidemic research team from the University of Mainz showed that their research was not implemented because the Mainz team opposed the installation and continuing operation of the nuclear power plants. The German government’s Bundesamt fur Strahlenschutz proclaimed that the research was safe. The German government accepted the research outcomes (Kaatsch et al., 2008). The 1950s Strahlenschutz children’s research affirmed that radiation from the nuclear power plants contributed to the increase in the number of Leukemia -diagnosed children. The 1950s research affirmed fears that exposure to radiation triggered an increase in the number of Leukemia among the nearby children (Kaatsch et al., 2008). The prior Laurier and Bard research included 50 prior researches proving there was an increase in the Leukemia occurrences among children living within nuclear power plant range (1999). Moreover, the prior Bithell et al. research affirms the prior research findings. The research proved that there was a significantly small increase in the number of children afflicted with the Leukemia illness (Bithell et al., 2008). The research proved that children living within five kilometers from the 13 United Kingdom nuclear power plants had increased occurrences of Leukemia. However, the same Bithell et al. research only proved there was a significantly small amount. Feller et al. Research Graph 1 Feller et al., Childhood Leukemia Research In the above Feller et al research, the Switzerland respondents were children belonging to two groups (2011). The first group is composed of children belonging to the 4 years old and younger level. The second group is composed of children belonging to the 15 years old and younger age level. The research was conducted children born during the 1985 to 2009 time period. The incident rate ratio at 95 percent confidence level tool was used. Within the 4 years old and younger age group, the above graph shows the research findings showed children living within 5 kilometers of the nearest nuclear power plant had the highest Leukemia occurrences. Within the 15 years old and younger age group, the above graph shows the research findings showed children living within 5 kilometers of the nearest nuclear power plant had the highest Leukemia occurrences. The Switzerland government funded the above Ferrell et al., research. There are no difficulties related to the definition and measurement of both the environmental factor as well as the health outcome, including establishing the causal relationship. The Baker and Hoel study showed startling findings (Baker &Hoel , 2007). The Baker and Hoel research on children belonging to the 9 years of age or younger bracket showed that there were 1.05 incidents of death among children who were living more than 16 kilometers from each nuclear power plants. On the other hand, the research proved that there were 1.24 incidents of death among children within the 9 years or younger age range living within 16 kilometers from each nuclear power plants. This proves that children belonging to the 9 years or younger age range living within the vicinity of the nuclear power plants had higher chances of being afflicted with Leukemia. Moreover, the prior Kikk research also showed convincing findings (Kaatsch et al., 2008). In terms of those living within 74 kilometers of the nearest nuclear power plant, the research showed a 1.02 odds ratio possibility that children belonging to the 5 years of age or younger age bracket will succumb to Leukemia. In terms of those living within 37 kilometers of the nearest nuclear power plant, the same research showed that there was a 1.05 odds ratio possibility that children belonging to the 5 years of age or younger age bracket will succumb to Leukemia . Clearly, those living nearer the nuclear power plants had higher chances of succumbing to cancer. In terms of children belonging to the 5 years of age or younger who were living within 18 kilometers of the nearest nuclear power plant, the research proved that there was 1.10 odds ratio possibility that residents will succumb to Leukemia. In terms of children belonging to the 5 years of age or younger age bracket living within 8 kilometers of the nearest nuclear power plant, the same research affirmed that there was 1.26 odds ratio possibility that will succumb to Leukemia. Lastly, the research convincingly affirmed that there was 1.76 odds ratio possibility that children belonging to 5 years of age or younger who lived within 3 kilometers of the nearest nuclear power plant will die from Leukemia. The research affirms that distance contributes to the occurrences and severity of the Leukemia attacks. Further, there were no difficulties associated with defining and measuring both the environmental factor and the health outcome with establishing a cause –effect relationship. To define and measure the environmental factors, the researchers gathered data. The data included the number of cancer occurrences within the vicinity of the nuclear power plants. Next, the researchers gathered data relating the number of patients living outside the vicinity of nuclear power plants afflicted with cancer. The researchers compared the differences between the cancer occurrences of residents living within the nuclear power plants and the cancer occurrences of residents living outside the nuclear power plants’ radiation ranges. The researchers then defined number of cancer occurrences outside the nuclear power plants’ ranges and cancer occurrences within the nuclear power plants’ ranges as the health outcome. Next, the researchers defined the environment as the proximity of the residents to the nearest nuclear power plants. There are two environment groups. One group is composed of individuals living within five kilometers or a similar number from the nuclear power plant’s location. The second group is composed of residents living outside the five kilometers or similar distance from the nuclear power plants. Further, the outcome or causal relationship is defined as determining if the distance between the residents and the nuclear power plants affected or triggered an increase in the number of cancer incidents. If the number of cancer occurrences within the two groups (one group lived within the five or similar distance range. The other group is classified as living outside the five or similar km distance ranges) have similar cancer occurrences, then the nuclear power plants do not significantly contribute to or cause cancer among the people. On the other hand, the nuclear power plants do not significantly contribute or cause cancer among the people when the number of cancer occurrences within one group (people living within the five or similar distance range) and the other group (people living outside the five km or similar distance range) show influentially different cancer occurrences. Based on the above definition of factors related to the research, it is very clear that there are no difficulties in measuring whether nuclear power plants affect the number of occurrences. To easily measure whether the nuclear power plants affect the number of cancer occurrences, the researchers simply compared the data gathered. Compared to the number of cancer patients living outside the vicinity of the nuclear power plants, the gathered data shows convincing evidences that more people living within the vicinity of the nuclear power plants were diagnosed with cancer. The research conducted in more than 14 nuclear power plants showed convincing evidences that nuclear power plants trigger an increase in the number of cancer incidents. Recommendations to the Department of Health There are some recommendations to the government, United States’ Department of Health. First, the Department of Health must scrutinize prior researches to determine whether the distance between the residents trigger cancer incidents (Agency, 2007). The Department of Health can fund its own research. The health department’s research will focus on replicating the prior researches. After the health department confirms that distance between the nuclear power plants affects the number of cancer patients, the health department must seek the help of other authorities (Bithell et al., 2008). The health department can seek the police department’s help and law making authorities to prevent people from living within five kilometers or similar distances from the nearest power plant. The city government and congressmen can initiate laws that will prevent people from setting up their homes within five kilometers or similar distances from the nearest nuclear power plants. Further, the department of health should implement effective strategies to warn the public of the nuclear power plants’ effect on cancer incidents. The department of health will advertise that it is dangerous to stay within the vicinity of the nuclear power plants. One of the advertising media outlets is newspaper advertising. Another advertising media outlet is the radio advertising. A third advertising outlet is the television advertising. The fourth media advertising venue is the online internet advertising. Furthermore, the Department of Health will offer proofs to convince the people to stay away from the nuclear power plants. A picture of a Leukemia victim will increase the intensity of the warnings. A picture of several Leukemia victims will increase further the intensity of the nuclear power plant warning message. The department of health will include statistics to back up the warnings. The attachment of statistical the reports must show there more Leukemia patients living within the capacity of the radius of the nuclear power plants compared to the number of patients living within the nuclear power plants. By comparing the number of cancer occurrences between those living near the nuclear power plants and those living outside the reach of the nuclear power plants, the readers of the Department of Health nuclear power plant report will enthusiastically accept the hypothesis of the government health agency as true and correct. Moreover, the Department of Health must remind the public of a possibility of another Three Mile Island meltdown. The Three Mile Island power plant is remembered for its nuclear power plant incident (Walker, 2006). The nuclear power plant accident occurred when a nuclear meltdown occurred During March of 1979. The meltdown resulted to the avoidable release of dangerous radioactive gases as well as radioactive iodine into the atmosphere. The release endangered the lives of the affected community. Further, Physics professor Elliot Lowell described the danger of nuclear power plant accidents (Walker, 2006). Lowell emphasized that the nuclear power plant’s fuel rods located at the center of the nuclear power plant’s had overheated, the activity will result to the meltdown of the power plant’s floor area. The meltdown will take only a few minutes to complete. Next, the meltdown will release dangerously life –threatening and unhealthy radioactive particles into the environment. Furthermore, the radioactivity will make life within the vicinity of the nuclear power plant meltdown uninhabitable, with the danger of the China syndrome possibly becoming a reality (Tucker, 2009). The Three Mile Island incident was made into a movie entitled The China Syndrome. In the three mile incident, a nuclear engineer was killed for insisting that the poorly constructed Three Mile Island nuclear plant should be rehabilitated. The nuclear power plant’s control room engineer Goodall reported that he discovered the nuclear power plant used poor quality materials. The poor quality materials increased the probability that a meltdown will occur. The meltdown would melt into the core of the earth’s crust and reach the other side of our planet, possibly China. The Three Mile Island explosive incident shows the dangers of living within the vicinity of a nuclear power plant (Ferguson, 2011). Picture 1 Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant Moreover, the movie, The China Syndrome, opened the eyes of the public to the dangers of nuclear power plant technology. The movie shows how Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island resulted to the meltdown of the nuclear power plant. The principle of The China Syndrome is that when nuclear power plant meets an unexpected accident, the nuclear radiation may trigger a meltdown. The meltdown will enter into the Earth’s crust. Next, the radiation will infiltrate into China, triggering unhealthy conditions. Further, the Department of Health must remind the residents to stay outside the reach of a possible nuclear power plant explosion. The infamous Chernobyl accident convincingly proves that living within the vicinity of a nuclear power plant increases the risk of the residents’ untimely deaths or being radiation- damaged (Stepanova et al., 2008). The Chernobyl Accident occurred during April of 1986. After the Chernobyl power plant explosion, the Ukraine government conducted radiation-related research on the population directly affected by the Chernobyl nuclear power plant explosion. Moreover, the Chernobyl explosion contributed to the higher number of residents affects on the residents living within the vicinity of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (Stepanova et al., 2008). Specifically, the Chernobyl explosion affected an estimated 2,300 Ukrainian villages as well as towns. The explosion contaminated an estimated 2.58 million residents. Next, the radioactive particles floated over Europe’s atmosphere. The floating radiation particles contaminated several villages as well as towns in Europe. The radiation reached as far as the United States. Further, several groups presented their opinions on the nuclear power plant issue (Walker, 2006). The pro-nuclear power plant groups distributed information to prove the China syndrome story is an exaggeration. On the other hand, other anti-nuclear power plant groups distributed information to prove living within the vicinity of a nuclear power plant is very dangerous (Ingram, 2009).The research proved that the pro-nuclear power plant group generated erroneous concepts. Research Study design (pros and cons) There are advantages in the researchers’ study design. One advantage is ease of implementation. The second advantage is consistency of application of the study design to all nuclear plant location researches. A third advantage is assurance of generating reliable research findings (Stribley, 2010). To ensure the advantages of research design are achieved, the researchers simply gathered data from children and adults within the selected research design areas. The design included comparing the occurrences of cancer incidents among the children and adults living in two areas. One area includes children and adults living within the vicinity of each power plant. The second area includes all children and adults living outside the vicinity of each power plant. After gathering the data, the researchers compared the results of the two areas. The research design contributed to realistic research findings. The findings precipitated to the presentation of very convincing research conclusions (Mitchell, 2012). Specifically, the prior researches proved proximity to nuclear power plants contribute to cancer increase (Kaatsch et al., 2008). The same research shows that there was an estimated 53 percent increase in the number of cancer incidents among children living within the five mile area of the nearest nuclear power plant. Next, the same prior research proved that there was an estimated 75 percent increase in the number of Leukemia afflicted children living within five miles of the nearest nuclear power plant. Further, the same prior research was conducted among the 16 power plants strategically located in Germany (Kaatsch et al., 2008). The same German research showed that there was an estimated 1.5 percent increase in embryonal cancer among the children living within the five mile radius of the nearest German nuclear power plant. The research of Korblein and Hoffmann German research was released in 2007 in Germany. The release caused a public outcry to remedy the health risks of the nuclear power plants on the Children of the German nation. Further, there are contradictory comments on the research study design. First, the research may not be able to gather enough research data. The lack of data may generate questionable research findings. Consequently, the lackluster findings will precipitate to doubtful research design conclusions. Likewise, there is a possibility that different locations generate different findings. In addition, the current findings may run counter to the findings of prior researches. When this happens, there are some doubts pertaining to how well the current researches and prior researches were conducted (Dunning, 2012). How the exposure and health outcomes were measured (pros and cons) There are advantages on how the researchers were able to clearly measure the nuclear power plant exposure and health outcomes from the plants’ radiation activities (Hekim, 2012). By focusing only on two major factors, the jobs of researches were maximised. Compared to researchers where more than two research factors are gathered, less time was used to gather two data factors needed to generate the findings. Another advantage is research expense savings. By focusing on only two research factors, the researchers were able to reduce the research costs. Further, there are disadvantages on how the prior researchers measured the relationship between the exposure and health outcomes (Mitchell, 2012). By using only two factors during the research design and implementation, the research findings will not quench the other research questions lodged by many individuals and groups. Focusing only on the two factors will generate lesser research finding areas, compared to incorporating three or more factors in the research design and implementation. Furthermore, a prior research shows that radioactive elements emitted by the nuclear power plants may contaminate plants. When the contaminated food is eaten by animals, the animals are contaminated. When humans eat the contaminated animals, the radiation enters the human body. Consequently, there is an increased probability of increased cancer in humans who ate radiation-contaminated food. Radiation emitted by nuclear power plants can contaminate the rivers, lakes, and other sources of drinking water (Sharma, 2009). Moreover, the findings of the current research shows the children were unfavorably affected by the Chernobyl nuclear power plant explosion. The affected children suffered from lower red blood cells. The children suffered from lower white blood cells. There was an unfavorable decline in the affected children’s blood hemoglobin levels. Lastly, the children suffered from lower blood platelet counts (Stepanova et al., 2008). Furthermore, the hypothesized impact indicates exposures to the escaped radioactive materials from the nuclear power plants caused an increase in the number of cancer incidents. The primary health concern of the nuclear power plant is reducing the possibility of the unexpected escape of radioactive materials into the atmosphere. After the accidental release, the radioactive materials will permeate and remain in the breathing range of the community. The radioactive materials will stay for thousands of years. The inhalation of the radioactive materials, exposure to ground contamination, as well as consuming food that had been infected with the radioactive materials endanger the lives of the community. The exposure to the radioactive materials will trigger cancer ailments. Likewise, the radioactive materials will trigger mutations as well as hereditary side effects on the population (Landon, 2006). Further, Baker and Hoel team conducted similar cancer research in other countries. Their researches focused on 136 nuclear power plant data. The researches were conducted in Germany, Spain and Japan. The same Baker and Hoel cancer research team also conducted researches among children in France, Canada, United Kingdom, and United States. The findings of the two researchers showed that there as a maximum 24 percent increase in the number of children belonging to the 9 years old or younger age group who were diagnosed with Leukemia deaths. Consequently, the Baker and Hoel research affirmed the prior KiKK nuclear power plant cancer research findings (Baker and Hoel, 2007). Furthermore, the same researchers conducted the same research design among the adults (Baker and Hoel , 2007). The Baker and Hoel research on persons from the ten years old or older age range showed that there were 1.02 incidents of death among children who were living within and outside 16 kilometers from each nuclear power plant. On the other hand, the research proved that there were 1.18 incidents of death among persons from the ten years old or older age range living within 16 kilometers from each nuclear power plants. This proves that persons living within the vicinity of the nuclear power plants had higher chances of being afflicted with Leukemia. Addressing the potential Confounders The researchers ignored the confounders during the research activities. The confounders are variables that may affect the outcomes of the research. The confounders included the gender, family cancer history, smoking habits, drinking habits, regular radiation-alleviation medicines, and body resistance to radiation’s effects, degree of radiation exposure. The confounders may aggravate or mitigate the research outcomes. By ignoring the confounders, the researchers were able to finish the research on time (Dunning, 2012). Further, one research shows the researchers did not include the confounders in generating the research findings and conclusions. One of the discarded confounders was the respondents’ diet itinerary. Another ignored confounder was the ethnicity or race of the respondents. A third disregarded confounder was the gender of the respondents (Seymour et al., 1991). Conclusion Nuclear power plants produce electricity for the residents. The Three Mile Island accident and the Russian Chernobyl accident prove that there is a high probability that accidents may occur during the nuclear power plants’ operations. During normal operations there is a high probability that the nuclear power plants may unintentionally emit escaping radiation. The escaped radiation may contaminate the food and water resources. Consequently, the nuclear power plants’ radiation may contribute to the higher incidents of radiation-caused cancer. The prior researches show that the radiation coming from the nearby nuclear power plants unfavorably triggered a higher occurrence of cancer ailments, specifically Leukemia. Confounders either increase or decrease the cancer incidence ratios. Evidently, several researches prove there is a causal relationship between the proximity of the nuclear power plants and cancer cases. Research findings affirm those living within the vicinity of the nuclear power plants had higher cancer incidents compared to those living outside the vicinity of the same plants. References: Baker, P., Hoel, D., 2007. Meta-Analysis of Standardised Incidence and Mortality Rates of Childhood Leukemia s in Proximity of Absence. European Journal of Cancer Care , 16 (1), 355-363. Bithell et al., 2008. Childhood Leukemia Near British Nuclear Installations: Methodological Issues and Recent Results. Radiation Protection Dosimetry , 45 (1), 1-7. Caldicott, H. 2006. Nuclear Power is not the Answer to Global Warming . Melbourne: Melbourne University Press. Dunning, T. 2012. Natural Experiments in the Social Sciences: A Design-Based Approach. London: University Press. Fairlie, I., 2009. Commentary: Childhood Cancer Near Nuclear Power Stations. Environmental Health , 8 (43), 1-12. Ferguson, C., 2011. Nuclear Energy. London: University Press. Hekim, C., 2012. Research Design: Successful Designs For Social Economics Research. London: Routledge Press. Ingram, S., 2009. The Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster. London: Infobase Press. International Atomic Agency, 2007. Safety of Nuclear Power Plants. New York: University of Michigan Press. Kaatsch et al., 2008. Leukemia s in Young Children Living in the Vicinity of German Nuclear Power Plants. International Journal of Cancer , 122 (1), 721-726. Landon, M., 2006. Environment, Health and Sustainable Development. New York: McGrawHill Press. Laurier D., Bard, D., 1999. Epidemiologic Studies of Leukemia Among Persons under 25 Years of Age Living Near Nuclear Sites. Epidemiology Review , 21 (2), 188-206. McDougall, R., 2010. Throid Cancer in Clinical Practice. London: Springer Press. Mitchell, M., 2012. Research Design Explained . London: Cengage Learning. Murray, R., 2008, Nuclear Energy. London: Butterworth-Heinemann. Seymour et al., 1991. Cancer in Populations Living Near Nuclear Facilities. Journal of American Medical Association , 265 (11), 1-8. Sharma, P., 2009. Ecology and the Environment. New York: Rastlogi Press. Spix et al., 2008. Case Control Study on Childhood Cancer in the Vicinity of Nuclear Power Plants in Germany 1980 to 2003. European Journal of Cancer , 44 (1), 375-284. Stepanova et al., 2008. Exposure from the Chernobyl Accident had Adverse Effects Erythrocytes, Leukocytes, and Platelets in Children in the Narodichesky Region, Ukraine. Environmental Health , 7 (21), 7-21. Stribley, K., 2010. Research Design: the Logic of Social Inquiry. London: Aldine Press. Tucker, T., 2009. Atomic America: How a Deadly Explosion and a Feared Admiral Changed History. London: Simon and Schuster. Walker, S., 2006. Three Mile Island: A Nuclear Crisis in Historical Perspective. Los Angeles: University of California Press. Zamostian et al., 2002. Influence of Various Factors on Individual Radiation Exposure From the Chernobyl Disaster. Environmental Health , 1 (4), 1-8. Read More