ArticleJournal of the history of biology2021
Disproportionate Impacts of Radiation Exposure on Women, Children, and Pregnancy: Taking Back our Narrative.
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.
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.
- Efficacy and safety of radiofrequency catheter ablation in younger children with ventricular arrhythmias.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Article
- Analysis and Monitoring of Indoor Radon Concentrations of 37 Kindergartens - Beijing Municipality, China, 2023.China CDC weekly · 2024Article
- Radioactive releases from the nuclear power sector and implications for child health.BMJ paediatrics open · 2022Review
- 1945-1964 WHO's Right to Health?NTM · 2022Article
- Transseptal Approach Versus Transaortic Approach for Catheter Ablation of Left-Sided Accessory Pathways in Children.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2022Article
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
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
Identifiers
33788123What 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.