Literature DB >> 18648557

Effects of cobalt-60 exposure on health of Taiwan residents suggest new approach needed in radiation protection.

W L Chen1, Y C Luan, M C Shieh, S T Chen, H T Kung, K L Soong, Y C Yeh, T S Chou, S H Mong, J T Wu, C P Sun, W P Deng, M F Wu, M L Shen.   

Abstract

The conventional approach for radiation protection is based on the ICRP's linear, no threshold (LNT) model of radiation carcinogenesis, which implies that ionizing radiation is always harmful, no matter how small the dose. But a different approach can be derived from the observed health effects of the serendipitous contamination of 1700 apartments in Taiwan with cobalt-60 (T(1/2) = 5.3 y). This experience indicates that chronic exposure of the whole body to low-dose-rate radiation, even accumulated to a high annual dose, may be beneficial to human health. Approximately 10,000 people occupied these buildings and received an average radiation dose of 0.4 Sv, unknowingly, during a 9-20 year period. They did not suffer a higher incidence of cancer mortality, as the LNT theory would predict. On the contrary, the incidence of cancer deaths in this population was greatly reduced-to about 3 per cent of the incidence of spontaneous cancer death in the general Taiwan public. In addition, the incidence of congenital malformations was also reduced--to about 7 per cent of the incidence in the general public. These observations appear to be compatible with the radiation hormesis model. Information about this Taiwan experience should be communicated to the public worldwide to help allay its fear of radiation and create a positive impression about important radiation applications. Expenditures of many billions of dollars in nuclear reactor operation could be saved and expansion of nuclear electricity generation could be facilitated. In addition, this knowledge would encourage further investigation and implementation of very important applications of total-body, low-dose irradiation to treat and cure many illnesses, including cancer. The findings of this study are such a departure from expectations, based on ICRP criteria, that we believe that they ought to be carefully reviewed by other, independent organizations and that population data not available to the authors be provided, so that a fully qualified epidemiologically-valid analysis can be made. Many of the confounding factors that limit other studies used to date, such as the A-bomb survivors, the Mayak workers and the Chernobyl evacuees, are not present in this population exposure. It should be one of the most important events on which to base radiation protection standards.

Entities:  

Year:  2006        PMID: 18648557      PMCID: PMC2477708          DOI: 10.2203/dose-response.06-105.Chen

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dose Response        ISSN: 1559-3258            Impact factor:   2.658


  13 in total

Review 1.  Radiation hormesis: its historical foundations as a biological hypothesis.

Authors:  E J Calabrese; L A Baldwin
Journal:  Hum Exp Toxicol       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 2.903

2.  Estimation of organ dose equivalents from residents of radiation-contaminated buildings with Rando phantom measurements.

Authors:  J S Lee; S L Dong; T H Wu
Journal:  Appl Radiat Isot       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 1.513

Review 3.  Hormesis: a generalizable and unifying hypothesis.

Authors:  E J Calabrese; L A Baldwin
Journal:  Crit Rev Toxicol       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 5.635

4.  Dose reconstruction for residents living in buildings with moderate and minor 60Co contamination in rebar.

Authors:  F Y Hsu; H Y Tsai; C Y Hsu; C J Tung; C C Liao; Y S Tsay
Journal:  Health Phys       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 1.316

5.  Cytogenetic effect of chronic low-dose, low-dose-rate gamma-radiation in residents of irradiated buildings.

Authors:  W P Chang; B F Hwang; D Wang; J D Wang
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1997-08-02       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Proposed model for estimating dose to inhabitants of 60Co contaminated buildings.

Authors:  J Cardarelli; L Elliott; R Hornung; W P Chang
Journal:  Health Phys       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 1.316

7.  Dose reconstruction for residents living in 60Co-contaminated rebar buildings.

Authors:  C J Tung; T C Chao; T R Chen; F Y Hsu; I T Lee; S L Chang; C C Liao; W L Chen
Journal:  Health Phys       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 1.316

8.  60Co contamination in recycled steel resulting in elevated civilian radiation doses: causes and challenges.

Authors:  W P Chang; C C Chan; J D Wang
Journal:  Health Phys       Date:  1997-09       Impact factor: 1.316

9.  Chromosomal study in lymphocytes from subjects living or working in buildings constructed with radioactively contaminated rebar.

Authors:  W L Chen; C L Taur; J J Tai; K D Wuu; S Wang-Wuu
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  1997-07-03       Impact factor: 2.433

Review 10.  Radiation-induced versus endogenous DNA damage: possible effect of inducible protective responses in mitigating endogenous damage.

Authors:  Myron Pollycove; Ludwig E Feinendegen
Journal:  Hum Exp Toxicol       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 2.903

View more
  12 in total

1.  Residential radon appears to prevent lung cancer.

Authors:  Bobby R Scott
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2011-10-14       Impact factor: 2.658

2.  Radiation-hormesis phenotypes, the related mechanisms and implications for disease prevention and therapy.

Authors:  Bobby R Scott
Journal:  J Cell Commun Signal       Date:  2014-10-17       Impact factor: 5.782

3.  It's time for a new low-dose-radiation risk assessment paradigm--one that acknowledges hormesis.

Authors:  Bobby R Scott
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2007-09-30       Impact factor: 2.658

4.  Low-dose-radiation stimulated natural chemical and biological protection against lung cancer.

Authors:  B R Scott
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2008-03-20       Impact factor: 2.658

Review 5.  CT exposure in adult and paediatric patients: a review of the mechanisms of damage, relative dose and consequent possible risks.

Authors:  Stefano Colagrande; Daniela Origgi; Giovanna Zatelli; Andrea Giovagnoni; Sergio Salerno
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2014-03-06       Impact factor: 3.469

6.  The emerging low-dose therapy for advanced cancers.

Authors:  Jahangir Satti
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2009-03-24       Impact factor: 2.658

7.  Small γ-Ray Doses Prevent Rather than Increase Lung Tumors in Mice.

Authors:  B R Scott; V R Bruce; K M Gott; J Wilder; T March
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2012-10-09       Impact factor: 2.658

8.  Treatment of Cancer and Inflammation With Low-Dose Ionizing Radiation: Three Case Reports.

Authors:  Shuji Kojima; Mitsutoshi Tsukimoto; Noriko Shimura; Hironobu Koga; Akishisa Murata; Tsuyoshi Takara
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2017-03-23       Impact factor: 2.658

Review 9.  Influence of Individual Radiosensitivity on the Hormesis Phenomenon: Toward a Mechanistic Explanation Based on the Nucleoshuttling of ATM Protein.

Authors:  Clément Devic; Mélanie L Ferlazzo; Elise Berthel; Nicolas Foray
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2020-05-08       Impact factor: 2.658

Review 10.  Overview of Biological, Epidemiological, and Clinical Evidence of Radiation Hormesis.

Authors:  Yuta Shibamoto; Hironobu Nakamura
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2018-08-13       Impact factor: 5.923

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.