Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32616922›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2020

Radiobiological shot noise explains Three Mile Island biodosimetry indicating nearly 1,000 mSv exposures.

Aaron M Datesman

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 32% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Heliyon · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Aaron M DatesmanNASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, USA. datesman@gmail.com.
Goddard Space Flight Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear power station in Pennsylvania released about 22 million Curies of xenon-133 into the environment. Because physical dosimetry indicated exposures to the nearby population of less than about 2 mSv, discernible impacts to the health of the exposed population are not generally believed to have resulted. However, there is contrary evidence, including especially the results of biodosimetry via cytogenetic analysis using the FISH method. This report examines the discrepancy between the results of physical dosimetry and biodosimetry, which among the small number of persons examined indicated exposures between 600 and 900 mSv. The paradox reveals a fundamental error in the health physics body of knowledge: the definition of the energy imparted to tissue, ε, fails to properly account for the temporal distribution of ionization products resulting from dilute contamination with an internally incorporated beta-emitting radionuclide. Application of a century-old result describing "shot noise" in an electronic system repairs the deficiency. The Xe-133 concentration in the tissue of those individuals exposed to the most intense portion of the radioactive plume released from the TMI facility is shown to have been on the order of 0.1 μCi/l, persisting for multiple hours. Shot noise reference doses in the range from 820 to 1,700 mSv follow, a result which is consistent with biodosimetric analysis. The finding should motivate a comprehensive re-evaluation of the conventional understanding of the 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear power station, especially regarding its impact upon the population of the surrounding area.

Identifiers

PMID32616922
PMCPMC7331574
OpenAlexW3040337253

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.