Health Risks of Ionizing Radiation: - Clark University

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$Subspaces of Vector Spaces Math 130 Linear Algebra$

we consider this group of a few hundred children to be the cohort at risk then a spontaneous case of leukemia would be unlikely and an excess of the degree that is seen in other studies would be impossible to detect. In conclusion, this analysis supports the idea that paternal preconception exposure to radiation is a risk factor for childhood leukemia. Under the traditional statistical ‘null hypothesis’ that there is no real relationship, there would be, at most, about a 7% chance of generating data as suggestive of a real relationship as these in the absence of a true relationship (based on the second pooled result in Table C-4). This is, we believe, an informative measure of the overall state of the science and one that is intuitive enough to be useful in dealing with the public. Even without such results it could be argued that, in the context of a body of literature that has shown the same effect in mice and has also shown evidence of increases in solid cancer and adverse birth outcomes, the standard test of statistical significance should not be the sole criterion by which we judge this risk. It is our interpretation of the discussions accompanying many of these studies that the scientific community has been unwilling to consider this as a serious issue, even in light of convincing evidence, primarily because a) it seems mechanistically unlikely that a sperm cell mutation could be a leukemia risk factor in the child (which would carry such a mutation in the paternal allele of every cell), and b) the atomic bomb survivors have not demonstrated an effect. One potential solution to the first problem involves recent animal studies in the area of chromosomal instability--these indicate that post-concep- 193 Appendix C tion mutations can occur following preconception exposures (Niwa 2003), and it is therefore not necessary to have a germ cell mutation. In vivo and in vitro studies (not transgenerational studies) have detected elevated levels of instability for as long as two years after exposure in exposed mice. If this kind of persistence is assumed to hold for transgenerational instability then leukemogenic mutations could theoretically occur during embryogenesis, or even later, following preconception exposures. Evidence for such an effect has in fact been generated in mice. It is also puzzling that many discussions have implicitly treated two potential leukemia factors, preconception irradiation and viruses transmitted during high population mixing, as independent and mutually exclusive. Again, animal studies provide useful information. In an early study, dramatic reductions in radiation-induced leukemias were observed in mice that were housed in a microbe-free environment (Warburg 1968). More recently, preconception irradiation of male mice has been shown to increase the sensitivity of offspring to chemical- or radiationinduced leukemias (Lord et al. 1998). Two risk factors such as radiation and a virus could be linked in a two-mutation model of leukemogenesis, through a model of induced instability and oxidative stress (Clutton et al. 1996, Limoli et al. 2003), or through some unknown mechanism; in any case, interpretations of the Seascale leukemia cluster, where both factors have been implicated, could consider them jointly. Finally, the atomic bomb survivor data have very simply not demonstrated the absence of an effect and they are in fact not very informative data. This has not been adequately appreciated in most discussions.
Recent information Three critical references became available after we completed our overview. These are discussed briefly below. Fifteen-country worker study Appendix D Cardis et al. (2005) published the results of an international cohort study of cancer mortality among radiation workers. This cohort drew over 400,000 workers from fifteen countries receiving an average cumulative external dose of 19.4 mSv. Confounding by internal radiation exposures was controlled by excluding workers who potentially received more than 10% of their total cumulative dose from internally-deposited radionuclides. The ERR for solid cancer mortality was estimated to be 0.87/Sv (0.03-1.88) . Among male atomic bomb survivors aged 20-60 at exposure the corresponding estimate is 0.32/Sv (0.01-0.50) . These are statistically compatible estimates, but we might want to consider the possibility that they reflect a true difference in risk. These workers differ from atomic bomb survivors in that they were exposed to lower cumulative doses spread out over time. The mean dose among the workers was 19.4 mSv. Among atomic bomb survivors with doses less than 50 mSv the solid cancer mortality ERR was 0.93/Sv (Figure 13-1), a figure much closer to what was observed among the workers. These data are therefore consistent with the idea that the linear model might underestimate risks at low doses, although there is considerable uncertainty around these estimates. This study assessed leukemia risks using a linear excess relative risk model. The ERR estimate for non-CLL leukemia mortality was 1.93/Sv (
Page 1 and 2:
Health Risks of Ionizing Radiation:
Page 3 and 4:
Contents List of Tables ...........
Page 5 and 6:
Contents iii Rocky Flats ..........
Page 7 and 8:
Contents v APPENDIX A .............
Page 9 and 10:
List of Figures Figure 1-1 Average
Page 11 and 12:
We are indeed grateful to those who
Page 13 and 14:
2 Introduction 1.2 A brief history
Page 15 and 16:
4 Introduction Figure 1-2. The evol
Page 17 and 18:
6 Introduction Figure 1-5(a). Alpha
Page 19 and 20:
8 Introduction In epidemiological s
Page 21 and 22:
10 Introduction precision to detect
Page 23 and 24:
12 Introduction available informati
Page 25 and 26:
14 Background Radiation Figure 2-1.
Page 27 and 28:
16 Background Radiation Figure 2-3.
Page 29 and 30:
18 Background Radiation
Page 31 and 32:
20 Medical Exposures Fi
Page 33 and 34:
22 Medical Exposures
Page 35 and 36:
24 Medical Exposures with national
Page 37 and 38:
26 Medical Exposures localized expo
Page 39 and 40:
28 Medical Exposures (2.1-28.7). Th
Page 41 and 42:
30 Medical Exposures posed 2.69 tim
Page 43 and 44:
32 Medical Exposures with diagnosti
Page 45 and 46:
34 Medical Exposures Table 3-1. Stu
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
44 Atomic Bomb Survivors Figure 4-2
Page 57 and 58:
46 Atomic Bomb Survivors
Page 59 and 60:
48 Atomic Bomb Survivors approximat
Page 61 and 62:
50 Atomic Bomb Survivors (ALL), acu
Page 63 and 64:
52 Atomic Bomb Survivors of the 8 t
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
5 Nuclear Weapons Testing Over 500
Page 71 and 72:
60 Nuclear Weapons Testing by disti
Page 73 and 74:
62 Nuclear Weapons Testing Figure 5
Page 75 and 76:
64 Nuclear Weapons Testing near the
Page 77 and 78:
66 Nuclear Weapons Testing
Page 79 and 80:
68 Nuclear Weapons Testing
Page 81 and 82:
6 RADIATION WORKERS Introduction Th
Page 83 and 84:
72 Radiation Workers • 50 rem (0.
Page 85 and 86:
74 Radiation Workers work, reports
Page 87 and 88:
76 Radiation Workers Figure 6-5. A
Page 89 and 90:
78 Radiation Workers Figure 6-8. To
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
82 Radiation Workers Feed Material
Page 95 and 96:
84 Radiation Workers by Beral et al
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
88 Radiation Workers Table 6-1. Leu
Page 101 and 102:
90 Radiation Workers No
Page 103 and 104:
92 Radiation Workers N
Page 105 and 106:
94 Radiation Workers S
Page 107 and 108:
96 Radiation Workers ERR estim
Page 109 and 110:
98 Mayak Workers Table 1. Dose (Gy)
Page 111 and 112:
100 Mayak Workers workers at the ra
Page 113 and 114:
102 Mayak Workers
Page 115 and 116:
104 Uranium Miners enrichment facil
Page 117 and 118:
106 Uranium Miners Samet et al. (19
Page 119:
108 Uranium Miners were selected 12
Page 122 and 123:
Uranium Miners 111
Page 124 and 125:
9 RADIATION EXPOSURE IN FLIGHT The
Page 126 and 127:
DNA damage (a chemical change in DN
Page 128 and 129:
10 PRECONCEPTION EXPOSURES Several
Page 130 and 131:
of risk in the lowest dose groups,
Page 132 and 133:
found elevated solid cancer risk wi
Page 134 and 135:
preconception doses between 2.5 and
Page 136 and 137:
Table 10-1. Preconception irradiati
Page 138 and 139:
Preconception Exposures 127
Page 140 and 141:
Tracheoesophageal fistula and conge
Page 142 and 143:
cancer were both associated with th
Page 144 and 145:
0.10-4.71) while respiratory system
Page 146 and 147:
elationship was not significant for
Page 148 and 149:
times higher than in less-contamina
Page 150 and 151:
Nuclear Power Accidents 139
Page 152 and 153:
Nuclear Power Accidents 141
Page 154 and 155: Nuclear Power Accidents 143
Page 156 and 157: 12 COMMUNITIES NEAR NUCLEAR FACILIT
Page 158 and 159: levels (this could not in itself be
Page 160 and 161: Figure 12-3. Native Americans from
Page 162 and 163: of leukemia was measured over a lar
Page 164 and 165: (RR 1.06; 1.00-1.11) and risks of s
Page 166 and 167: more that we can say about this app
Page 168 and 169: Communities Near Nuclear Facilities
Page 176 and 177: 54 observed vs. 46.1 expected death
Page 178 and 179: 13 DISCUSSION Our intention in crea
Page 180 and 181: myeloid leukemia) was significantly
Page 182 and 183: 0.1-3.5 WLM; this is roughly equiva
Page 184 and 185: adon (Lubin et al. 1997). These res
Page 186 and 187: Leukemia Leukemia, a general term t
Page 188 and 189: vical cancer. The doses to these pa
Page 190 and 191: England have found it convenient to
Page 192 and 193: Thyroid disease Thyroid cancer is a
Page 194 and 195: 1986 through 1995. These workers sh
Page 196 and 197: dence of this disease includes elev
Page 198 and 199: Analysis of preconception exposure
Page 200 and 201: Paternal age, education, drinking O
Page 202 and 203: Gardner et al. 1990 Employed at Sel
Page 206 and 207: Leukemia risk (excluding CLL) among
Page 208 and 209: Glossary of Terms for Epidemiology
Page 210 and 211: Glossary 199 Beta radiation: Stream
Page 212 and 213: Dosimetry: Measurement or estimatio
Page 214 and 215: Glossary 203 Hypothyroidism: The cl
Page 216 and 217: Glossary 205 Metastasis: 1. Movemen
Page 218 and 219: Glossary 207 waves, ultra violet (U
Page 220 and 221: Glossary 209 Thyroid Disease: disea
Page 222 and 223: Bibliography ATSDR. Public Health A
Page 224 and 225: Bhatia S, Sklar C. Second cancers i
Page 226 and 227: Bibliography 215 Cavallo D, Tomao P
Page 228 and 229: Bibliography 217 Department of Ener
Page 230 and 231: Bibliography 219 Gardner MJ, Hall A
Page 232 and 233: Haldorsen T, Reitan JB, Tveten U. C
Page 234 and 235: Bibliography 223 Howe GR, Nair R, N
Page 236 and 237: of Mayak, A comparison of numerical
Page 238 and 239: Bibliography 227 Laird NM. Thyroid
Page 240 and 241: control population. International J
Page 242 and 243: Bibliography 231 Neel JV, Schull WJ
Page 244 and 245: 2003.160:381-407. Bibliography 233
Page 246 and 247: Bibliography 235 Saccomanno G, Auer
Page 248 and 249: Bibliography 237 analysis of cancer
Page 250 and 251: Bibliography 239 Tokarskaya ZB, Sco
Page 252 and 253: Journal of Epidemiology 1987.125(2)
Page 254 and 255:
Actinium, 84 Acute lymphocytic leuk
Page 256 and 257:
and Nevada Test Site, 60-61, 62 nuc
Page 258 and 259:
Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, 185 Heal
Page 260 and 261:
studies, 101-2 Medical exposure, 19
Page 262 and 263:
(RERF), 43 Radiation Exposure Compe
Page 264:
Viruses, 118, 154, 193 West Germany
show all

Health Risks of Ionizing Radiation: - Clark University

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?