↓ Skip to main content

Commentary: childhood cancer near nuclear power stations

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Health, September 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
29 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Commentary: childhood cancer near nuclear power stations
Published in
Environmental Health, September 2009
DOI 10.1186/1476-069x-8-43
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ian Fairlie

Abstract

In 2008, the KiKK study in Germany reported a 1.6-fold increase in solid cancers and a 2.2-fold increase in leukemias among children living within 5 km of all German nuclear power stations. The study has triggered debates as to the cause(s) of these increased cancers. This article reports on the findings of the KiKK study; discusses past and more recent epidemiological studies of leukemias near nuclear installations around the world, and outlines a possible biological mechanism to explain the increased cancers. This suggests that the observed high rates of infant leukemias may be a teratogenic effect from incorporated radionuclides. Doses from environmental emissions from nuclear reactors to embryos and fetuses in pregnant women near nuclear power stations may be larger than suspected. Hematopoietic tissues appear to be considerably more radiosensitive in embryos/fetuses than in newborn babies. Recommendations for advice to local residents and for further research are made.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 6%
United Kingdom 1 3%
India 1 3%
Italy 1 3%
Argentina 1 3%
Japan 1 3%
Germany 1 3%
Unknown 27 77%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 23%
Other 7 20%
Student > Master 6 17%
Student > Bachelor 5 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 1 3%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 26%
Environmental Science 6 17%
Energy 4 11%
Engineering 3 9%
Physics and Astronomy 2 6%
Other 9 26%
Unknown 2 6%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 16 July 2019.
All research outputs
#635,703
of 14,587,834 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Health
#157
of 1,176 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#611,537
of 13,749,658 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Health
#157
of 1,176 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,587,834 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,176 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
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 13,749,658 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,176 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.