Health Risks of Ionizing Radiation: - Clark University

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$Subspaces of Vector Spaces Math 130 Linear Algebra$

2 BACKGROUND RADIATION 2.1 Introduction Exposures to ionizing radiation that result from human activities such as nuclear testing often receive significant popular attention. However, the largest proportion of radiation around the world is emitted by natural sources. Most of the exposure typically received by the public is produced by cosmic rays, terrestrial radiation, and internally deposited natural radionuclides (Samet 1997). According to Hoel (1995), radon alone, one source of background radiation that enters indoor environments from the soil and irradiates the lung through inhalation, accounts for over fifty percent of the world’s total estimated effective dose of radiation. While these exposures are termed “natural radiation” this does not indicate an inherently benign nature. It is necessary to look further into the health effects of background radiation because “there is a mistaken tendency to assume that natural radiation is harmless” (Caufield 1989). Claims that man-made exposures are the same or only a fraction higher than natural radiation levels imply that the effects are insignificant, and this is a false assurance. A substantial body of research suggests that natural radiation can be harmful, and as we increase our exposure through intensified dependence on mineral processing, airplane flights, phosphate and potassium fertilizers and fossil fuels, we also increase our exposure and related health risks. Outcomes associated with background radiation include chromosomal aberrations and childhood and adult cancers including leukemia, osteosarcoma, and melanoma (Henshaw et al. 1990). Indeed, as of 1989 according to Caufield, “most scientists believe[d] that natural radiation cause[d] about one per cent of all fatal cancers”. Estimates of average annual background radiation exposure center around 0.003 Sv (3 mSv), about two-thirds of which comes from radon. There is considerable variability in individual annual exposure according to geology, elevation, and other factors. Smokers, for example, are exposed to roughly twice as much radiation as nonsmokers due to radionuclides in tobacco smoke 1 . These are within the range of doses that would be considered low, although a lifetime dose can exceed our cutoff (as we have defined it,
14 Background Radiation Figure 2-1. A bar graph showing average annual natural radiation doses worldwide. The radiation is measured in mSv and shows the approximate distribution of natural radiation doses from radon, indoor gamma, outdoor gamma and cosmic rays (http://www.uic.com.au/ral.htm). or multiplicative in its effect combined with other doses (Samet 1997). Due to these weaknesses and constraints, most researchers advocate for more research to be dedicated to understanding the impacts of background radiation and other chronic low-dose exposures (Hoel 1995, Ron 1998). 2.2 Summary of studies External exposure. Two ecologic studies conducted in Great Britain and the US found positive correlations between childhood cancers and external gamma exposure. In Great Britain a positive correlation was found for fetal exposures and childhood cancers (Knox et al. 1988). This study used gamma exposure estimates for Great Britain in a grid of 10-km squares; the average dose accumulated by a fetus during gestation was estimated to be ~0.2 mGy. After controlling for a variety of factors including maternal age and prenatal x-rays this study estimated that prenatal gamma exposures were about 3.6 times as effective, per Gy, as prenatal x-rays in the induction of childhood cancer. The US study analyzed the area within 10 miles of the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania, with a population of about 160,000 (Hatch and Susser 1990). Annual estimated gamma exposure in the area ranged from 0.5-0.9 mGy. When comparing childhood cancers in areas with 0.8-0.9 mGy against areas with 0.5-0.6 mGy the authors found an OR of 2.4 (1.2-4.6). A highly questionable ecologic experiment which assessed the cancer death rates of the Rocky Mountain states compared with the Gulf Coast states did not find any correlation between background radiation and cancer mortality (Jagger 1998). Jagger did not address any confounding factors in his analysis, used speculative estimates of radon exposure levels, and his approach was inherently incapable of generating meaningful results; this was effectively demonstrated in a response by Archer (1999). High exposure areas. Several locations have become notorious for their high levels of background
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: 12 Introduction available informati
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 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 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:
Page 154 and 155:
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 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
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 204 and 205:
we consider this group of a few hun
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?