ReviewEnvironmental health and toxicology2016
Genetic radiation risks: a neglected topic in the low dose debate.
Review in Environmental health and toxicology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 58 citations in OpenAlex.
- Occupational radiation exposure and cause-specific mortality in a cohort of Canadian medical workers.International archives of occupational and environmental health · 2026Article
- Low-dose X-Ray induced genetic damage in human peripheral blood lymphocytes.Frontiers in genetics · 2026Article
- Exposure to protracted low-dose ionizing radiation and incident dementia in a cohort of Ontario nuclear power plant workers.Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health · 2025Article
- Population monitoring of trisomy 21: problems and approaches.Molecular cytogenetics · 2023Review
- William Jackson Schull and mutation studies on human cohorts.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Review
- Development of a novel program for conversion from tetrahedral-mesh-based phantoms to DICOM dataset for radiation treatment planning: TET2DICOM.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2022Article
- Ionizing Radiation Protein Biomarkers in Normal Tissue and Their Correlation to Radiosensitivity: A Systematic Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Review
- Radiotherapy for COVID-19: Primum non nocere.Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology · 2020Article
- Article
- Spatiotemporal association of low birth weight with Cs-137 deposition at the prefecture level in Japan after the Fukushima nuclear power plant accidents: an analytical-ecologic epidemiological study.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2020Article
- Sex Difference of Radiation Response in Occupational and Accidental Exposure.Frontiers in genetics · 2019Review
- Comparison of bilateral versus unilateral decompression incision of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in two-level degenerative lumbar diseases.International orthopaedics · 2018Article
- Article
- γH2AX, 53BP1 and Rad51 protein foci changes in mesenchymal stem cells during prolonged X-ray irradiation.Oncotarget · 2017Article
- Observational
- Article
- Low-dose radiation therapy for coronavirus disease-2019 pneumonia: Is it time to look beyond apprehensions?Annals of thoracic medicineArticle
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate the accuracy and scientific validity of the current very low risk factor for hereditary diseases in humans following exposures to ionizing radiation adopted by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation and the International Commission on Radiological Protection. The value is based on experiments on mice due to reportedly absent effects in the Japanese atomic bomb (Abomb) survivors.
methodsTo review the published evidence for heritable effects after ionising radiation exposures particularly, but not restricted to, populations exposed to contamination from the Chernobyl accident and from atmospheric nuclear test fallout. To make a compilation of findings about early deaths, congenital malformations, Down's syndrome, cancer and other genetic effects observed in humans after the exposure of the parents. To also examine more closely the evidence from the Japanese A-bomb epidemiology and discuss its scientific validity.
resultsNearly all types of hereditary defects were found at doses as low as one to 10 mSv. We discuss the clash between the current risk model and these observations on the basis of biological mechanism and assumptions about linear relationships between dose and effect in neonatal and foetal epidemiology. The evidence supports a dose response relationship which is non-linear and is either biphasic or supralinear (hogs-back) and largely either saturates or falls above 10 mSv.
conclusionsWe conclude that the current risk model for heritable effects of radiation is unsafe. The dose response relationship is non-linear with the greatest effects at the lowest doses. Using Chernobyl data we derive an excess relative risk for all malformations of 1.0 per 10 mSv cumulative dose. The safety of the Japanese A-bomb epidemiology is argued to be both scientifically and philosophically questionable owing to errors in the choice of control groups, omission of internal exposure effects and assumptions about linear dose response.
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.