↓ Skip to main content

Are cancer risks associated with exposures to ionising radiation from internal emitters greater than those in the Japanese A-bomb survivors?

Overview of attention for article published in Radiation and Environmental Biophysics, July 2007
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Are cancer risks associated with exposures to ionising radiation from internal emitters greater than those in the Japanese A-bomb survivors?
Published in
Radiation and Environmental Biophysics, July 2007
DOI 10.1007/s00411-007-0122-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mark P. Little, Per Hall, Monty W. Charles

Abstract

After ingestion or inhalation of radionuclides, internal organs of the human body will be exposed to ionising radiation. Current risk estimates of radiation-associated cancer from internal emitters are largely based on extrapolation of risk from high-dose externally exposed groups. Concerns have been expressed that extrapolated risk estimates from internal emitters are greatly underestimated, by factors of ten or more, thus implying a severe underestimation of the true risks. Therefore, data on cancer mortality and incidence in a number of groups who received exposure predominantly from internal emitters are examined and excess relative risks per Sv are compared with comparable (age at exposure, time since exposure, gender) matched subsets of the Japanese atomic bomb survivor cohort. Risks are examined separately for low LET and high LET internal emitters. There are eight studies informative for the effects of internal low LET radiation exposure and 12 studies informative for the effects of internal high LET radiation. For 11 of the 20 cancer endpoints (subgroups of particular study cohorts) examined in the low LET internal emitter studies, the best estimate of the excess relative risk is greater than the corresponding estimate in the Japanese atomic bomb survivors and for the other nine it is less. For four of these 20 studies, the relative risk is significantly (2-sided P < 0.05) different from that in the Japanese atomic bomb survivors, in three cases greater than the atomic bomb survivor relative risk and in one case less. Considering only those six low LET studies/endpoints with 100 or more deaths or cases, for four out of six studies/endpoints the internal emitter risk is greater than that in the Japanese atomic bomb survivors. For seven of the 24 cancer endpoints examined in the high LET internal emitter studies the best estimate of the ERR in the internal emitter study is greater than the corresponding estimate in the Japanese atomic bomb survivors and for the other 17 it is less. For six studies, the relative risk is significantly (2-sided P < 0.05) different from that in the Japanese atomic bomb survivors, in one case greater than the atomic bomb survivor relative risk and in five cases less. Considering only those eight high LET studies/endpoints with 100 or more deaths or cases, for five out of eight studies/endpoints the internal emitter risk is greater than that in the Japanese atomic bomb survivors. These results suggest that excess relative risks in the internal emitter studies do not appreciably differ from those in the Japanese atomic bomb survivors. However, there are substantial uncertainties in estimates of risks in the internal emitter studies, particularly in relation to lung cancer associated with radon daughter (alpha particle) exposure, so a measure of caution should be exercised in these conclusions.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 6%
Germany 1 3%
Unknown 29 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 22%
Student > Master 4 13%
Other 3 9%
Professor 3 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 7 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 16%
Physics and Astronomy 4 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Environmental Science 2 6%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 7 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 September 2012.
All research outputs
#18,008,719
of 26,451,184 outputs
Outputs from Radiation and Environmental Biophysics
#341
of 454 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,437
of 69,259 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation and Environmental Biophysics
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,451,184 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 454 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 69,259 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.