Literature DB >> 19066487

Background radiation and cancer incidence in Kerala, India-Karanagappally cohort study.

Raghu Ram K Nair1, Balakrishnan Rajan, Suminori Akiba, P Jayalekshmi, M Krishnan Nair, P Gangadharan, Taeko Koga, Hiroshige Morishima, Seiichi Nakamura, Tsutomu Sugahara.   

Abstract

The coastal belt of Karunagappally, Kerala, India, is known for high background radiation (HBR) from thorium-containing monazite sand. In coastal panchayats, median outdoor radiation levels are more than 4 mGy y-1 and, in certain locations on the coast, it is as high as 70 mGy y-1. Although HBR has been repeatedly shown to increase the frequency of chromosome aberrations in the circulating lymphocytes of exposed persons, its carcinogenic effect is still unproven. A cohort of all 385,103 residents in Karunagappally was established in the 1990's to evaluate health effects of HBR. Based on radiation level measurements, a radiation subcohort consisting of 173,067 residents was chosen. Cancer incidence in this subcohort aged 30-84 y (N = 69,958) was analyzed. Cumulative radiation dose for each individual was estimated based on outdoor and indoor dosimetry of each household, taking into account sex- and age-specific house occupancy factors. Following 69,958 residents for 10.5 years on average, 736,586 person-years of observation were accumulated and 1,379 cancer cases including 30 cases of leukemia were identified by the end of 2005. Poisson regression analysis of cohort data, stratified by sex, attained age, follow-up interval, socio-demographic factors and bidi smoking, showed no excess cancer risk from exposure to terrestrial gamma radiation. The excess relative risk of cancer excluding leukemia was estimated to be -0.13 Gy-1 (95% CI: -0.58, 0.46). In site-specific analysis, no cancer site was significantly related to cumulative radiation dose. Leukemia was not significantly related to HBR, either. Although the statistical power of the study might not be adequate due to the low dose, our cancer incidence study, together with previously reported cancer mortality studies in the HBR area of Yangjiang, China, suggests it is unlikely that estimates of risk at low doses are substantially greater than currently believed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19066487     DOI: 10.1097/01.HP.0000327646.54923.11

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Phys        ISSN: 0017-9078            Impact factor:   1.316


  46 in total

Review 1.  Ethical Issues Related to the Promotion of a "100 mSv Threshold Assumption" in Japan after the Fukushima Nuclear Accident in 2011: Background and Consequences.

Authors:  Toshihide Tsuda; Lena Lindahl; Akiko Tokinobu
Journal:  Curr Environ Health Rep       Date:  2017-06

2.  Modelling the bimodal distribution of indoor gamma-ray dose-rates in Great Britain.

Authors:  G M Kendall; P Chernyavskiy; J D Appleton; J C H Miles; R Wakeford; M Athanson; T J Vincent; N P McColl; M P Little
Journal:  Radiat Environ Biophys       Date:  2018-08-21       Impact factor: 1.925

3.  Radiation survey on Fukushima Medical University premises about four years after the Fukushima nuclear disaster.

Authors:  Yasutaka Omori; Hiroaki Wakamatsu; Atsuyuki Sorimachi; Tetsuo Ishikawa
Journal:  Fukushima J Med Sci       Date:  2016-02-25

Review 4.  Dose limits for occupational exposure to ionising radiation and genotoxic carcinogens: a German perspective.

Authors:  Werner Rühm; Joachim Breckow; Günter Dietze; Anna Friedl; Rüdiger Greinert; Peter Jacob; Stephan Kistinger; Rolf Michel; Wolfgang-Ulrich Müller; Heinz Otten; Christian Streffer; Wolfgang Weiss
Journal:  Radiat Environ Biophys       Date:  2019-11-01       Impact factor: 1.925

5.  Gamma dose rate distribution in the Unegt subbasin, a uranium deposit area in Dornogobi Province, southeastern Mongolia.

Authors:  Yasutaka Omori; Atsuyuki Sorimachi; Manlaijav Gun-Aajav; Nyamdavaa Enkhgerel; Ganbat Munkherdene; Galnemekh Oyunbolor; Amarbileg Shajbalidir; Enkhtuya Palam; Chieri Yamada
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2019-09-16       Impact factor: 4.223

6.  Tracking radiation exposure from diagnostic imaging devices at the NIH.

Authors:  Ronald D Neumann; David A Bluemke
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 5.532

7.  Low-dose cancer risk modeling must recognize up-regulation of protection.

Authors:  Ludwig E Feinendegen; Myron Pollycove; Ronald D Neumann
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2009-12-10       Impact factor: 2.658

8.  Radiation hormesis: historical perspective and implications for low-dose cancer risk assessment.

Authors:  Alexander M Vaiserman
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2010-01-18       Impact factor: 2.658

9.  Study of stillbirth and major congenital anomaly among newborns in the high-level natural radiation areas of Kerala, India.

Authors:  G Jaikrishan; K R Sudheer; V J Andrews; P K M Koya; M Madhusoodhanan; C K Jagadeesan; M Seshadri
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2012-08-09

10.  Abnormal tissue proliferation and life span variability in chronically irradiated dogs.

Authors:  A N Shoutko; L P Ekimova
Journal:  Radiat Environ Biophys       Date:  2013-12-06       Impact factor: 1.925

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.