Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Low dose radiation IS harmful
8 views
Skip to first unread message
Taka
Apr 15, 2012, 12:15:05 PM4/15/12
to
2004 Study: Two of Brazil's High Background Radiation Areas Have
Higher Cancer Mortality
I have been told numerous times that "People in naturally high
background radiation areas in the world suffer no ill effect from the
high radiation." I just stumbled upon one study in 2004 on such areas
in Brazil.
Conclusion of this particular study: Cancer mortality in "Poços de
Caldas, and Guarapari is higher than would be expected for their
respective reference population", whereas "cancer mortality for the
Araxá population is lower than would be expected".
International Congress Series
Volume 1276, Pages 3-468 (February 2005)
High Levels of Natural Radiation and Radon Areas: Radiation Dose and
Health Effects, Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on
High Levels of Natural Radiation and Radon Areas, Osaka, Japan
6–10 September 2004
Edited by T. Sugahara, H. Morishima, M. Sohrabi, Y. Sasaki, I. Hayata
and S. Akiba
Pattern of cancer mortality in some Brazilian HBRAs
Pages 110-113
Lene H.S. Veiga, Sérgio Koifman
Abstract
Among residents of Brazilian High Background radiation Areas, there is
great concern about radiation-related health effects and there is also
a common certitude that cancer incidence is higher in those areas than
in other Brazilian areas with normal background radiation. This paper
aims to present an overview of Brazilian High Background Radiation
Areas and evaluate whether cancer mortality among residents from Poços
de Caldas, Araxá, and Guarapari is higher than would be expected when
applying mortality rate of their respective States. Results show that
cancer mortality from the Brazilian HBRAs, Poços de Caldas, and
Guarapari is higher than would be expected for their respective
reference population. On the other hand, cancer mortality for the
Araxá population is lower than would be expected.
SOURCE: http://ex-skf.blogspot.jp/2012/04/2004-study-two-of-brazils-high.html
Higher Cancer Mortality
I have been told numerous times that "People in naturally high
background radiation areas in the world suffer no ill effect from the
high radiation." I just stumbled upon one study in 2004 on such areas
in Brazil.
Conclusion of this particular study: Cancer mortality in "Poços de
Caldas, and Guarapari is higher than would be expected for their
respective reference population", whereas "cancer mortality for the
Araxá population is lower than would be expected".
International Congress Series
Volume 1276, Pages 3-468 (February 2005)
High Levels of Natural Radiation and Radon Areas: Radiation Dose and
Health Effects, Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on
High Levels of Natural Radiation and Radon Areas, Osaka, Japan
6–10 September 2004
Edited by T. Sugahara, H. Morishima, M. Sohrabi, Y. Sasaki, I. Hayata
and S. Akiba
Pattern of cancer mortality in some Brazilian HBRAs
Pages 110-113
Lene H.S. Veiga, Sérgio Koifman
Abstract
Among residents of Brazilian High Background radiation Areas, there is
great concern about radiation-related health effects and there is also
a common certitude that cancer incidence is higher in those areas than
in other Brazilian areas with normal background radiation. This paper
aims to present an overview of Brazilian High Background Radiation
Areas and evaluate whether cancer mortality among residents from Poços
de Caldas, Araxá, and Guarapari is higher than would be expected when
applying mortality rate of their respective States. Results show that
cancer mortality from the Brazilian HBRAs, Poços de Caldas, and
Guarapari is higher than would be expected for their respective
reference population. On the other hand, cancer mortality for the
Araxá population is lower than would be expected.
SOURCE: http://ex-skf.blogspot.jp/2012/04/2004-study-two-of-brazils-high.html
Taka
Apr 15, 2012, 12:16:40 PM4/15/12
to
Dental X-rays linked to brain tumors
People who get regular dental X-rays are more likely to suffer a
common type of brain tumor, U.S. researchers say, suggesting that
yearly exams may not be best for most patients.
The study in the U.S. journal Cancer showed people diagnosed with
meningioma who reported having a yearly bitewing exam were 1.4 times
to 1.9 times as likely as a healthy control group to have developed
such tumors.
A bitewing exam involves an X-ray film being held in place by a tab
between the teeth.
Also, people who reported getting a yearly panorex exam—in which an X-
ray is taken outside the mouth and shows all the teeth on one film—
were 2.7 to three times more likely to develop cancer, said the study.
A meningioma is a tumor that forms in the membrane around the brain or
spinal cord. Most of the time these tumors are benign and slow
growing, but they can lead to disability or life-threatening
conditions.
The research, led by Elizabeth Claus of the Yale University School of
Medicine, was based on data from 1,433 patients who were diagnosed
with the tumors between the ages of ages 20-79.
For comparison, researchers consulted data from a control group of
1,350 individuals who had similar characteristics but had not been
diagnosed with a meningioma.
Dental patients today are exposed to lower radiation levels than they
were in the past, but the research should prompt dentists and patients
to re-examine when and why dental X-rays are given, said Claus.
“The study presents an ideal opportunity in public health to increase
awareness regarding the optimal use of dental X-rays, which unlike
many risk factors is modifiable,” she said.
The American Dental Association’s guidelines call for children to get
one X-ray every one to two years; teens to have one every 1.5 to three
years, and adults every two to three years.
The ADA said in 2006 there was little evidence to back up the routine
use of full-mouth dental X-rays in patients without any symptoms.
Michael Schulder, vice chairman of the department of neurosurgery at
Cushing Neuroscience Institute, part of the North Shore Long Island
Jewish Health System in New York, said he was not shocked by the
findings.
“This should come as no great surprise given the connection between
radiation and meningioma development that has been established in
various other contexts,” said Schulder, who was not involved in the
research.
“The chance of these tumors arising in patients who were X-rayed
yearly still was low. Nonetheless, dentists and their patients should
strongly consider obtaining X-rays less often than yearly unless
symptoms suggest the need for imaging.”
SOURCE: http://www.japantoday.com/category/health/view/dental-x-rays-linked-to-brain-tumors
People who get regular dental X-rays are more likely to suffer a
common type of brain tumor, U.S. researchers say, suggesting that
yearly exams may not be best for most patients.
The study in the U.S. journal Cancer showed people diagnosed with
meningioma who reported having a yearly bitewing exam were 1.4 times
to 1.9 times as likely as a healthy control group to have developed
such tumors.
A bitewing exam involves an X-ray film being held in place by a tab
between the teeth.
Also, people who reported getting a yearly panorex exam—in which an X-
ray is taken outside the mouth and shows all the teeth on one film—
were 2.7 to three times more likely to develop cancer, said the study.
A meningioma is a tumor that forms in the membrane around the brain or
spinal cord. Most of the time these tumors are benign and slow
growing, but they can lead to disability or life-threatening
conditions.
The research, led by Elizabeth Claus of the Yale University School of
Medicine, was based on data from 1,433 patients who were diagnosed
with the tumors between the ages of ages 20-79.
For comparison, researchers consulted data from a control group of
1,350 individuals who had similar characteristics but had not been
diagnosed with a meningioma.
Dental patients today are exposed to lower radiation levels than they
were in the past, but the research should prompt dentists and patients
to re-examine when and why dental X-rays are given, said Claus.
“The study presents an ideal opportunity in public health to increase
awareness regarding the optimal use of dental X-rays, which unlike
many risk factors is modifiable,” she said.
The American Dental Association’s guidelines call for children to get
one X-ray every one to two years; teens to have one every 1.5 to three
years, and adults every two to three years.
The ADA said in 2006 there was little evidence to back up the routine
use of full-mouth dental X-rays in patients without any symptoms.
Michael Schulder, vice chairman of the department of neurosurgery at
Cushing Neuroscience Institute, part of the North Shore Long Island
Jewish Health System in New York, said he was not shocked by the
findings.
“This should come as no great surprise given the connection between
radiation and meningioma development that has been established in
various other contexts,” said Schulder, who was not involved in the
research.
“The chance of these tumors arising in patients who were X-rayed
yearly still was low. Nonetheless, dentists and their patients should
strongly consider obtaining X-rays less often than yearly unless
symptoms suggest the need for imaging.”
SOURCE: http://www.japantoday.com/category/health/view/dental-x-rays-linked-to-brain-tumors
Robert W. McAdams
May 23, 2012, 2:33:08 AM5/23/12
to
information given in the abstract. How much background radiation are we
talking about? Are there any other confounding factors that could be
affecting the results?
In Colorado and Wyoming, in the U.S., there is twice as much background
radiation as in the U.S. as a whole, yet the cancer rate in these states
is lower than the national average.
Bob
Robert W. McAdams
May 23, 2012, 2:53:04 AM5/23/12
to
radiation exposure occurs over a relatively short period of time. An
exposure of 0.1 millisieverts from a dental X-ray may not seem like all
that much radiation compared with the 1.25 millisieverts of natural
background radiation to which the average U.S. citizen is exposed in a
year, but exposure from the dental X-ray occurs in less than a minute,
whereas the exposure from natural background radiation amounts to only
2.37 nanosieverts per minute.
Bob
0 new messages