2006
DOI: 10.1080/08035320600886547
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Ionizing radiation and children's health: Conclusions

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…According to data from the Ukrainian Ministry of Social Protection (January 2005) and Ministry of Emergency, more than half a million children reside in areas with chronic exposure to low radiation due to soil contamination with 137 Cs. We believe that it is extremely important to analyze not only cancer-related outcomes but also non-neoplastic effects [ 31 ], which are much more frequent than cancer. It is surprising that the UN Chernobyl Forum Report [ 2 ] did not consider multiple publications by Ukrainian, Russian, and Byelorussian researchers about the excess of non-cancer morbidity in children living in the territory contaminated by the Chernobyl accident [ 9 , 32 - 37 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…According to data from the Ukrainian Ministry of Social Protection (January 2005) and Ministry of Emergency, more than half a million children reside in areas with chronic exposure to low radiation due to soil contamination with 137 Cs. We believe that it is extremely important to analyze not only cancer-related outcomes but also non-neoplastic effects [ 31 ], which are much more frequent than cancer. It is surprising that the UN Chernobyl Forum Report [ 2 ] did not consider multiple publications by Ukrainian, Russian, and Byelorussian researchers about the excess of non-cancer morbidity in children living in the territory contaminated by the Chernobyl accident [ 9 , 32 - 37 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Busby and Fucic [2006]) is likely to have been more important in the case of fallout from atmospheric nuclear tests and the Chernobyl accident.…”
Section: Summary Discussion and Future Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This defines an error in the use of a risk coefficient defined by the obstetric X-ray data of at minimum of 160-fold and an even greater error in the predictive radiation risk model of the ICRP. The ICRP model has been criticized for lack of scientific method and for failures to predict or explain a number of observations in children [11–13,16]. In particular, it has been argued that the use of acute external irradiation data to inform the model for health risks from internal chronic irradiation involved misuse of scientific method, and employed deductive rather than inductive reasoning [9,12,13].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The ICRP model has been criticized for lack of scientific method and for failures to predict or explain a number of observations in children [11–13,16]. In particular, it has been argued that the use of acute external irradiation data to inform the model for health risks from internal chronic irradiation involved misuse of scientific method, and employed deductive rather than inductive reasoning [9,12,13]. If these criticisms are valid then clearly it is not possible to employ risk factors culled from the Japanese A-Bomb external high-dose acute exposure series to inform risk about chronic low-dose internal irradiation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%