Inconsistencies and open questions regarding low-dose health effects of ionizing radiation.

摘要

The effects on human health of exposures to ionizing radiation at low doses have long been the subject of dispute. In this paper we focus on open questions regarding the health effects of low-dose exposures that require further investigations. Seemingly contradictory findings of radiation health effects have been reported for the same exposed populations, or inconsistent estimates of radiation risks were found when different populations and exposure conditions were compared. Such discrepancies may be indicative of differences in sensitivities among the applied methods of epidemiological analysis or indicative of significant discrepancies in health consequences after comparable total exposures of different populations under varying conditions. We focus first on inconsistencies and contradictions in presentations of the state of knowledge by different authoritative experts. We then review studies that found positive associations between exposure and risks in dose ranges where traditional notions (generalized primarily from high-dose studies of A-bomb survivors or exposed animals) would have predicted negligible effects. One persistent notion in many reviews of low-dose effects is the hypothesis of reduced biological effectiveness of fractionated low-dose exposures, compared to that of the same acute dose. This assumption is not supported by data on human populations. From studies of populations that live in contaminated areas, more and more evidence is accumulating on unusual rates of various diseases other than radiation-induced malignancies, health effects that are suspected to be associated with relatively low levels of internal exposures originating from radioactive fallout. Such effects include congenital defects, neonatal mortality, stillbirths, and possibly genetically transmitted disease. A range of open questions challenges scientists to test imaginative hypotheses about induction of disease by radiation with novel research strategies.