Health Risks of Ionizing Radiation: - Clark University

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$Subspaces of Vector Spaces Math 130 Linear Algebra$

and lung cancer incidence from around the world. If these studies were assessed individually it would be hard to draw a conclusion; four studies indicated a significantly positive risk and four did not. When Lubin and Boice combined the results, however, a significantly positive risk estimate was obtained for an exposure level of 150 Bq/m 3 (RR 1.14, 1.0-1.3). This estimate is in agreement with the estimated risk from radon in mines at the same concentration (RR 1.13, 1.0-1.2). The authors also detected a significant log-linear 5 dose-response relationship. Recently, Lubin et al. (2004) have pooled the results of two case-control studies in China, one urban and one rural. The estimated RR at 150 Bq/m 3 based on this analysis would be 1.2-1.5 6 . Krewski et al. (2005) pooled the data of seven North American case-control studies. This analysis would estimate a RR at 150 Bq/m3 of 1.17 7 . Finally, Darby et al. (2005) pooled the data of 13 European case-control studies. The RR at 150 Bq/m3 based on this analysis would be 1.24 8 . All of these estimates are similar and all are compatible with miner-based risk estimates (see section 8); these data therefore lend support to the conclusion of the BEIR VI committee that residential radon may account for 10-15% of lung cancer in the US (NRC 1999). 2.3 Discussion Background Radiation 17 Studies of background radiation have been largely of ecologic design and this type of study is limited in its informative ability. Based on the linear no-threshold model we can expect some cancer risk to be associated with background radiation. Detecting this risk is very challenging because of uncertainty and variability in individual exposure to both radiation and the variety of other factors contributing to background cancer risk. Studies like the meta-analysis of Lubin and Boice (1997) are useful in demonstrating that background radiation risk estimates are consistent with other estimates, in this case miner data. Knox et al. (1988) and Hatch and Susser (1990) have generated childhood cancer risk estimates that are larger than what we might expect based on studies of in utero x-ray exposures or risk estimates from larger exposures. Although the exact magnitude of the background risk from radiation exposure is unclear we can see that there is likely to be some risk; natural radiation is not harmless. This is an important context in which to consider the additional exposures that we discuss in the rest of the overview. 5 In a log-linear model the logarithm of the relative risk is directly proportional to exposure level; at low levels of risk the differences between log-linear and linear models are minimal. 6 3 Lubin et al. (2004) used a linear excess odds ratio model and calculated excess odds ratios at 100 Bq/m of 0.133 (0.01-0.36) and 0.315 (0.07-0.91), the latter estimate for a more restricted cohort with better dose estimates. 7 Like Lubin et al. (2004), Krewski et al. (2005) used a linear excess odds ratio model and presented the risk estimate at 100 Bq/m3 (RR 1.11, 1.00-1.28). 8 Darby et al. (2005) used a linear excess relative risk model. At 100 Bq/m3 the ERR was reported to be 0.16 (0.05- 0.31) after correction for random errors in dose estimation.
18 Background Radiation Significant chromosome break increase in Guarapari relative to a control area 640 mR/yr (6.4 mGy/yr) Cross sectional survey of chromosome aberrations in Guarapari, Brazil Barcinski et al. 1975 Maximum 260 mGy/yr No significant difference between exposed and control areas Preliminary survey of chromosome aberrations in Ramsar, Iran Ghiassi-nejad et al. 2002 0.5-0.9 mGy/yr Significantly greater childhood cancer incidence in high vs. low exposure areas 1 (OR 2.4, 1.2-4.6) Ecologic study of childhood cancer within 10 miles of Three Mile Island plant 1975-1985 Hatch and Susser 1990 2-4 mGy/year No significant difference between exposed and control areas Cross sectional survey of chromosome aberrations in Yangjiang, China Hayata et al. 2000 Significant correlations between domestic radon and both myeloid leukemia and childhood cancers. Mean worldwide concentration ~50 Bq/m 3 A preliminary international ecologic survey of myeloid leukemia and other cancers Henshaw et al. 1990 0.1-0.5 mGy/yr 0.0034 change in ln(RR) per nGy hr -1 (~5-23% increase in childhood cancer risk over exposure range) Ecologic study of childhood cancer in Great Britain 1953-1979 Knox et al. 1988 15-30 mGy/yr Significantly increase in chromsome-type aberrations and Down’s syndrome in study area relative to control area Cross sectional survey of Down’s syndrome and chromosome aberrations in Kerala, South India Kochupillai et al. 1976 RR 1.14 (1.0-1.3) at 150 Bq/m 3 Mean US concentration of 46 Bq/m 3 Meta-analysis of 8 case-control studies of lung cancer and domestic radon Lubin and Boice 1997 No observed correlation Panchayat median exposure rates of 1-5 mGy/yr, up to 76 mGy/yr in some houses Cross sectional survey of cancer incidence in Kerala, South India Nair et al. 1999 6.4 mSv/year (internal and external) Cancer mortality RR 0.96 (0.80-1.15) relative to a control area Cohort study of cancer mortality in Yangjiang, China 1979-1995 Sun et al. 2000, Tao et al. 2000 6.4mSv/year (internal and external) OR 0.87 (0.45-1.67) relative to a control area A case-control study of nasopharyngeal carcinoma in Yangjiang, China 1987-1995 Zou et al. 2000 1 High exposure was defined by the fourth exposure quartile (0.8-0.9 mGy/yr); low exposure was defined by the first exposure quartile (0.5-0.6 mGy/yr)
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: 16 Background Radiation Figure 2-3.
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?