ArticleDose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society
Reconsidering Health Consequences of the Chernobyl Accident.
Article in Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Article
- Article
- Review
- Health Impacts of Low-Dose Ionizing Radiation: Current Scientific Debates and Regulatory Issues.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis SocietyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Chernobyl accident led to major human suffering caused by the evacuation and other counter-measures. However, the direct health consequences of the accident-related radiation exposures, besides the acute effects and small number of thyroid cancers, have not been observed. This absence is challenged by some influential groups affecting public policies who claim that the true extent of radiogenic health consequences is covered up. We consider such claims. The most conservative (in this case - overestimating) linear no-threshold hypothesis was used to calculate excess cancer expectations for cleanup workers, the population of the contaminated areas and the global population. Statistical estimations were performed to verify whether such expected excess was detectable. The calculated cancer excess for each group is much less than uncertainties in number of cancer cases in epidemiological studies. Therefore the absence of detected radiation carcinogenesis is in full correspondence with the most conservative a priori expectations. Regarding the cover-up claims, rational choice analysis was performed. Such analysis shows that these claims are ill-founded. The present overcautious attitude to radiological hazards should be corrected in order to mitigate the present suffering and to avoid such suffering in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.