Department of Human Ecology, Graduate School of Environmental and Life Science, Okayama University, 3-1-1 Tsushima-naka, Kita-ku, Okayama, 700-8530, Japan.
Department of Epidemiology, Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama University, Okayama, Japan.
Environ Health. 2023 Sep 2;22(1):62. doi: 10.1186/s12940-023-01013-7.
After reviewing selected scientific evidence, Schüz et al. made two recommendations in the 2018 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Technical Publication No. 46. Their first recommendation was against population thyroid screening after a nuclear accident, and the second was that consideration be given to offering a long-term thyroid monitoring program for higher-risk individuals (100-500 mGy or more radiation) after a nuclear accident. However, their review of the scientific evidence was inadequate and misrepresented the information from both Chernobyl and Fukushima. We wrote a review article published in Environmental Health in 2022 using the "Toolkit for detecting misused epidemiological methods." Schüz et al. critiqued our 2022 review article in 2023; their critique, based also on their 2018 IARC Technical Publication No. 46, was so fraught with problems that we developed this response.
Schüz et al. suggest that hundreds of thyroid cancer cases in children and adolescents, detected through population thyroid examinations using ultrasound echo and conducted since October 2011 in Fukushima, were not caused by the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident. Schüz et al. compared thyroid cancers in Fukushima directly with those in Chernobyl after April 1986 and listed up to five reasons to deny a causal relationship between radiation and thyroid cancers in Fukushima; however, those reasons we dismiss based on available evidence. No new scientific evidence was presented in their response to our commentary in which we pointed out that misinformation and biased scientific evidence had formed the basis of their arguments. Their published article provided erroneous information on Fukushima. The article implied overdiagnosis in adults and suggested that overdiagnosis would apply to current Fukushima cases. The IARC report did not validate the secondary confirmatory examination in the program which obscures the fact that overdiagnosis may not have occurred as much in Fukushima. The report consequently precluded the provision of important information and measures.
Information provided in the IARC Technical Publication No. 46 was based on selected scientific evidence resulting in both public and policy-maker confusion regarding past and present nuclear accidents, especially in Japan. It should be withdrawn.
在审查了部分科学证据后，Schüz 等人在 2018 年国际癌症研究机构（IARC）技术出版物第 46 号中提出了两项建议。他们的第一项建议是反对在核事故后进行人群甲状腺筛查，第二项建议是考虑为核事故后辐射剂量为 100-500mGy 或更高的高危个体提供长期甲状腺监测计划。然而，他们对科学证据的审查不充分，对切尔诺贝利和福岛的信息都存在错误表述。我们在 2022 年使用“检测误用流行病学方法工具包”撰写了一篇发表在《环境卫生》杂志上的综述文章。Schüz 等人在 2023 年对我们的 2022 年综述文章进行了批评；他们的批评也基于他们 2018 年的 IARC 技术出版物第 46 号，其中充满了问题，因此我们编写了这篇回应。
Schüz 等人认为，自 2011 年 10 月以来，在福岛使用超声回波进行人群甲状腺检查发现了数百例儿童和青少年甲状腺癌病例，但这些病例并非由 2011 年福岛第一核电站事故引起。Schüz 等人将福岛的甲状腺癌病例与 1986 年 4 月之后的切尔诺贝利的甲状腺癌病例直接进行了比较，并列出了五个否认福岛的甲状腺癌与辐射之间存在因果关系的理由；然而，我们根据现有证据否定了这些理由。在他们对我们的评论的回应中，没有提出新的科学证据，我们在评论中指出，错误信息和有偏见的科学证据构成了他们论点的基础。他们发表的文章提供了有关福岛的错误信息。该文章暗示成年人中存在过度诊断，并暗示当前福岛病例中也存在过度诊断。IARC 报告没有验证该计划中的二次确认性检查，这掩盖了过度诊断在福岛可能没有那么多的事实。因此，该报告没有提供重要的信息和措施。
IARC 技术出版物第 46 号中提供的信息是基于有选择的科学证据，这导致公众和政策制定者对过去和现在的核事故，尤其是日本的核事故产生了混淆。该报告应该撤回。
