A Risk Comparison between Lifestyle, Socioeconomic Status, and Radiation: A Cohort Study of Cancer Mortality among Japanese Nuclear Workers (J-EPISODE)

Kudo, Shinichi; Nishide, Akemi; Furuta, Hiroshige; Ishizawa, Noboru; Saigusa, Shin

doi:10.1097/hp.0000000000001525

Cited by 4 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, in the present paper, the response date was used as the entry date for person-year calculations because the effect was not considered to be large. For comparison with the previous paper (Kudo et al 2022), we also performed the same analysis with the observation start date being 2 y after the response date, which was conducted as a supplementary analysis.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Poisson regression was also used to quantify the RRs of lifestyle, socioeconomic status, and radiation. The model to estimate RRs was a log linear model, which was used in the previous analysis (Kudo et al 2022). Further, the model to estimate dose response of radiation (excess relative risk per sievert: hereafter ERR Sv −1 ) as follows.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…where l is the death rate and l 0 is the background death rate [stratified by a: 5-y attained age categories (20-, 25-, ... and 100+)]; r = residence, which is divided into eight regional categories within Japan (Kudo et al 2018a(Kudo et al and 2018b(Kudo et al , 2022; and z 1 -z 11 represent the variables used to estimate RRs. More specifically, z 1 was smoking (pack-y), z 2 was alcohol consumption (ethanol in grams per day), z 3 was health consciousness, z 4 was frequency of medical examination, z 5 was breakfast intake, z 6 was sleep, z 7 was BMI, z 8 was job category, z 9 was job position, z 10 was years of education, and z 11 was the cumulative radiation dose, assuming a 10-y lag.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, the individual workers’ observation periods differed, but they were within 2003 to 2010. In the previous paper (Kudo et al 2022), the entry date for person-year calculations was set as 2 y after the date of the questionnaire response to exclude the effect of health status at the time of the survey (Goodman et al 1995). However, in the present paper, the response date was used as the entry date for person-year calculations because the effect was not considered to be large.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A Risk Comparison of Non-cancer Mortality between Lifestyle, Socioeconomic Status, and Radiation among Japanese Nuclear Workers (J-EPISODE)

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many epidemiological studies have been conducted to investigate the health effects of low-dose radiation. Most of these investigations have focused on cancer, and fewer studies have examined non-cancer topics than cancer subjects. The purpose of this study is to compare the relative risks of non-cancer mortality from low-dose radiation with lifestyle factors (such as smoking habits) and socioeconomic status (such as years of education). The cohort consisted of 43,692 males who responded to a lifestyle questionnaire survey conducted from 2003 to 2004 among nuclear workers in Japan. Missing questionnaire data were imputed by multiple imputation, each variable was categorized, and the relative risks for the reference group were calculated using Poisson regression. The total number of observed person-years was 300,000, and the mean age and dose were 55.2 y and 24.5 mSv (10-y lagged dose), respectively. For many of the causes of death in this analysis, significantly high risks existed for lifestyle differences, such as smoking, alcohol consumption, frequency of medical examination, breakfast intake, sleep, and BMI, but few for socioeconomic status. Radiation showed no significantly high risks. Taken together, the risk of non-cancer mortality from low-dose radiation is likely smaller than that from lifestyle factors.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A Risk Comparison of Non-cancer Mortality between Lifestyle, Socioeconomic Status, and Radiation among Japanese Nuclear Workers (J-EPISODE)

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…But even within this context, meta-analysis or pooled analysis of piecemeal data has limitations no matter how large the sample size. Demonstrating the insignificance of low-dose exposure compared to other lifestyle factors in well-organized epidemiological studies (e.g., Kudo et al 2022) will be more meaningful as real-life evidence. Precise estimates of health effects and their frequencies need sufficient follow-up, case ascertainment through high-quality cancer registry systems, and accurate information on risk factors other than radiation exposure.…”

Section: The Linear No-threshold Regulatory Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why Low-level Radiation Exposure Should Not Be Feared

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this paper is to address the public fear that is usually associated with low-level radiation exposure situations. Its ultimate objective is to provide persuasive assurances to informed but skeptical members of the public that exposure situations involving low-level radiation are not to be feared. Unfortunately, just acquiescing to an unsupportive public fear of low-level radiation is not without consequences. It is causing severe disruptions to the benefits that harnessed radiation can produce for the well-being of all humanity. In this pursuit, the paper provides the scientific and epistemological basis needed for regulatory reform by reviewing the history in quantifying, understanding, modeling, and controlling radiation exposure, including some of the evolving contributions of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, the International Commission on Radiological Protection, and the myriad of international and intergovernmental organizations establishing radiation safety standards. It also explores the various interpretations of the linear no-threshold model and the insights gained from radiation pathologists, radiation epidemiologists, radiation biologists, and radiation protectionists. Given that the linear no-threshold model is so deeply imbedded in current radiation exposure guidance, despite the lack of a solid scientific base on the actually proven radiation effects at low-doses, the paper suggests near-term ways to improve regulatory implementation and better serve the public by excluding and/or exempting trivial low-dose situations from the regulatory scope. Several examples are given where the unsubstantiated public fear of low-level radiation has resulted in crippling the beneficial effects that controlled radiation offers to a modern society.

show abstract

Establishment and activity of the planning and acting network for low dose radiation research in Japan (PLANET): 2016–2023

Yamada,

Imaoka,

Iwasaki

et al. 2024

Journal of Radiation Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Planning and Acting Network for Low Dose Radiation Research in Japan (PLANET) was established in 2017 in response to the need for an all-Japan network of experts. It serves as an academic platform to propose strategies and facilitate collaboration to improve quantitative estimation of health risks from ionizing radiation at low-doses and low-dose-rates. PLANET established Working Group 1 (Dose-Rate Effects in Animal Experiments) to consolidate findings from animal experiments on dose-rate effects in carcinogenesis. Considering international trends in this field as well as the situation in Japan, PLANET updated its priority research areas for Japanese low-dose radiation research in 2023 to include (i) characterization of low-dose and low-dose-rate radiation risk, (ii) factors to be considered for individualization of radiation risk, (iii) biological mechanisms of low-dose and low-dose-rate radiation effects and (iv) integration of epidemiology and biology. In this context, PLANET established Working Group 2 (Dose and Dose-Rate Mapping for Radiation Risk Studies) to identify the range of doses and dose rates at which observable effects on different endpoints have been reported; Working Group 3 (Species- and Organ-Specific Dose-Rate Effects) to consider the relevance of stem cell dynamics in radiation carcinogenesis of different species and organs; and Working Group 4 (Research Mapping for Radiation-Related Carcinogenesis) to sort out relevant studies, including those on non-mutagenic effects, and to identify priority research areas. These PLANET activities will be used to improve the risk assessment and to contribute to the revision of the next main recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection.

show abstract

A Risk Comparison between Lifestyle, Socioeconomic Status, and Radiation: A Cohort Study of Cancer Mortality among Japanese Nuclear Workers (J-EPISODE)

Abstract: Supplemental digital content is available in the text.

Cited by 4 publications

References 22 publications

A Risk Comparison of Non-cancer Mortality between Lifestyle, Socioeconomic Status, and Radiation among Japanese Nuclear Workers (J-EPISODE)

A Risk Comparison of Non-cancer Mortality between Lifestyle, Socioeconomic Status, and Radiation among Japanese Nuclear Workers (J-EPISODE)

Why Low-level Radiation Exposure Should Not Be Feared

Establishment and activity of the planning and acting network for low dose radiation research in Japan (PLANET): 2016–2023

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About