«  
  »

Significant rise in cancer risk within 5 years after exposure to ‘low-dose’ radiation — 12% increase after 40 millisieverts

Published: November 7th, 2011 at 1:33 pm ET
By
Email Article Email Article
21 comments


Nov. 7 — A Japanese-language report from Nov. 3 headlined: Important papers on low-dose radiation cancer risk: a significant increase in cancer at 10 mSv – Cancer risk significantly rises at dosage of 10 – 40 mSV: Research by McGill team (Google translation)

“Fukagawa, Hokkaido Hospital physician introduces the important papers by eloping Matsuzaki’s commentary translated. [...] Matsuzaki doctor:

“This article describes the paper is shown to significantly increase the risk of cancer at low dose exposure. As you know, the Japanese government let alone 20mSv, cancer in the exposure of 100mSv (mortality) evidence that increase significantly are claiming not nothing wrong with relieving the dose limit will also take the attitude that no directly below.

This Montreal team academic paper, the radiation exposure of x-ray examination received nearly 100,000 people were hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction, analyzed the incidence of new cancers in the next 5 years, Canada in March 2011. which was published in the journal Medical Association. Obvious from the graph as an attachment, was significantly increased 3% incidence of cancer in exposure 10mSv. Was significantly increased at 6,9,12%, respectively 20,30,40 mSv. Significantly increase the risk of cancer following low dose exposure 100mSv, which has been demonstrated in many epidemiological studies, even in this paper, I shall add new evidence.”

Here is the article that appeared in a prominent Canadian medical journal just three days before the March 11 quake:

Title: Cancer risk related to low-dose ionizing radiation from cardiac imaging in patients after acute myocardial infarction

Source: Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ. 2011 March 8; 183(4): 430–436.)

Authors: Mark J. Eisenberg, MD MPH, Jonathan Afilalo, MD MSc, Patrick R. Lawler, MD, Michal Abrahamowicz, PhD, Hugues Richard, MSc, and Louise Pilote, MD MPH PhD

Published: March 8, 2011

Excerpts (Emphasis Added):

Patients exposed to low-dose ionizing radiation from cardiac imaging and therapeutic procedures after acute myocardial infarction may be at increased risk of cancer. [...]

There was a dose-dependent relation between exposure to radiation from cardiac procedures and subsequent risk of cancer. For every 10 mSv of low-dose ionizing radiation, there was a 3% increase in the risk of age- and sex-adjusted cancer over a mean follow-up period of five years [...]

Exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation from cardiac imaging and therapeutic procedures after acute myocardial infarction is associated with an increased risk of cancer. [...]

Authors of several studies have estimated that the risk of cancer is not negligible among patients exposed to low-dose ionizing radiation.22–27 To our knowledge, none of these studies directly linked cumulative exposure and cancer risk. [...]

We found that a substantial proportion of patients were exposed to high levels of low-dose ionizing radiation from cardiac imaging and therapeutic procedures after acute myocardial infarction. We were able to show that exposure to radiation from cardiac imaging was associated with an increased risk of cancer in this patient population. Even moderate levels of exposure were associated with an increased risk of cancer.

These results call into question whether our current enthusiasm for imaging and therapeutic procedures after acute myocardial infarction should be tempered. We should at least consider putting into place a system of prospectively documenting the imaging tests and procedures that each patient undergoes and estimating his or her cumulative exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation.

h/t Enformable

Published: November 7th, 2011 at 1:33 pm ET
By
Email Article Email Article
21 comments

Related Posts

  1. Reuters: Thyroid cancer risk lasts entire life after radiation exposure — Leukemia risk peaks in a few years August 17, 2012
  2. Cancer risk increases with ANY level of radiation exposure says experts — “Self-interested parties” implying it’s OK March 31, 2011
  3. Nuclear Expert: Fukushima risk underestimated — 5% of young girls will get cancer living in 20 milliSv/y for 5 years — “Actually worse than that” — Hot particles NOT included & only counts cancers, not other effects (VIDEO) January 18, 2012
  4. Nuclear plant workers developed cancer despite radiation exposure below legal limit — As little as 5 millisieverts July 29, 2011
  5. Mainichi publishes report on thyroid cancer: 30% in Fukushima now with tumors of 2cm or less, thyroid gland only 5cm by 3cm total — Claims cancer increases after 10 sievert radiation dose, so Japan ok (10,000 millisieverts) April 27, 2012
November 7th, 2011 | Category: Health, Japan (Fukushima), Longterm
«  
  »

21 comments to Significant rise in cancer risk within 5 years after exposure to ‘low-dose’ radiation — 12% increase after 40 millisieverts

  • radegan
    November 7, 2011 at 2:12 pm

    “We should at least consider putting into place a system of prospectively documenting the imaging tests and procedures..”

    No, no, no – lawyers could establish fault and product liability. How could we sell lots of machines that way?


    Report Comment

  • Whoopie Whoopie
    November 7, 2011 at 2:13 pm

    3 Days before…incredible.
    TY Enenews.


    Report Comment

  • arclight arclight
    November 7, 2011 at 2:18 pm

    “These results call into question whether our current enthusiasm for imaging and therapeutic procedures after acute myocardial infarction should be tempered. We should at least consider putting into place a system of prospectively documenting the imaging tests and procedures that each patient undergoes and estimating his or her cumulative exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation.”

    interesting article admin!!

    and what about oncology (cancer treatment) ?

    imagine a world with no nukes, no x-ray no chemotherapy no nuclear industry ?? but we will still be left with the legacy that will require nuclear science!!! so we need some nuclear reactors for research concerning decontamination !! possibly for thousands of years…
    no nukes?
    dont think so!!
    whadya all think/schill
    peace :)


    Report Comment

  • Grampybone Grampybone
    November 7, 2011 at 2:20 pm

    This graph shows just how quickly we will start seeing damage to the population of Japan. The readings of radiation in Tokyo alone will expose the public to a heinous amount of hot particles. Cancer will start within 2 years considering levels of radiation are so concentrated. The higher the dose the quicker the result of damage to tissue. When people are exposed to radioactivity they don’t even know is around is when hell itself will break loose. Iodine, Cesium and Xenon will show people what areas to avoid, however when the other particles land it will simply decimate people because there is no easy way to know how much exposure you have had. In fission events its not the things you can see easily that you should fear. The level of cancers will be a lot worse than they want the public to know.


    Report Comment

  • majia
    November 7, 2011 at 2:32 pm

    This is an excellent find. Lucas at Enformable should be applauded and Enenews thanked for publicizing.

    Readers unfamiliar with Deadly Deceit: Low-level Radiation, High-level Cover-up by Dr. Jay M. Gould (Author), Benjamin A. Goldman should look also at this study because it found after Chernobyl that for human infants the dose-response is “supralinear” rather than linear, “which means that infant mortality rises more rapidly at low doses.”

    In June of 2011, the online journal Counterpunch published an article by Dr. Janet Sherman and epidemiologist Joseph Mangano reporting a 35 percent spike in infant mortality rates for the 10 weeks following Fukushima’s March releases in 8 US cities (Boise ID, Seattle WA, Portland OR, plus the northern California cities of Santa Cruz, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose, and Berkeley).

    The report, using CDC data, was challenged for allegedly cherry picking data to support conclusions. Counterpunch subsequently had their statistical consultant, Pierre Sprey, evaluate and confirm the analysis. Sprey found the analysis to be robust.

    Excess mortality statistics continue to be posted by Bobby1. I don’t have the most recent link.

    Janette D. Sherman and Joseph Mangano “Is the Increase in Baby Deaths in the US a Result of Fukushima Fallout?” Counterpunch (2011, June 11-12): http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/06/10/is-the-increase-in-baby-deaths-in-the-us-a-result-of-fukushima-fallout/.

    Cited in Alexander Cockburn “Post-Fukushima Infant Deaths in the Pacific Northwest,” Counterpunch (2011, June 17): http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn06172011.html.

    finally, I’ve posted some research I’ve assembled into a powerpoint at academia edu. I think you can access it by friending me at facebook


    Report Comment

«  
  »