Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33788123›Full record

ArticleJournal of the history of biology2021

Disproportionate Impacts of Radiation Exposure on Women, Children, and Pregnancy: Taking Back our Narrative.

Cynthia Folkers

Abstract readHistorical Article
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the history of biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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.

Cynthia FolkersBeyond Nuclear, 7304 Carroll Ave #182, Takoma Park, MD, 20912, USA. cindy@beyondnuclear.org.ORCID 0000-0002-8678-7443

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Narratives surrounding ionizing radiation have often minimized radioactivity's impact on the health of human and non-human animals and the natural environment. Many Cold War research policies, practices, and interpretations drove nuclear technology forward by institutionally obscuring empirical evidence of radiation's disproportionate and low-dose harm-a legacy we still confront. Women, children, and pregnancy development are particularly sensitive to exposure from radioactivity, suffering more damage per dose than adult males, even down to small doses, making low doses a cornerstone of concern. Evidence of compounding generational damage could indicate increased sensitivity through heritable impact. This essay examines the existing empirical evidence demonstrating these sensitivities, and how research institutions and regulatory authorities have devalued them, willingly sacrificing health in the service of maintaining and expanding nuclear technology (Nadesan 2019). Radiation's disproportionate impacts should now be the research and policy focus, as society is poised to make crucial and long-lasting decisions regarding climate change mitigation and future energy sources (Brown 2019b).

Indexed as

AdolescentChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHistory, 20th CenturyHistory, 21st CenturyHumansInfantInfant, NewbornPregnancyRadiation Exposure

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.