Background: Although high doses of ionizing radiation have long been linked to circulatory disease, evidence for an association at lower exposures remains controversial. However, recent analyses suggest excess relative risks at occupational exposure levels.Objectives: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize information on circulatory disease risks associated with moderate- and low-level whole-body ionizing radiation exposures.Methods: We conducted PubMed/ISI Thomson searches of peer-reviewed papers published since 1990 using the terms “radiation” AND “heart” AND “disease,” OR “radiation” AND “stroke,” OR “radiation” AND “circulatory” AND “disease.” Radiation exposures had to be whole-body, with a cumulative mean dose of < 0.5 Sv, or at a low dose rate (< 10 mSv/day). We estimated population risks of circulatory disease from low-level radiation exposure using excess relative risk estimates from this meta-analysis and current mortality rates for nine major developed countries.Results: Estimated excess population risks for all circulatory diseases combined ranged from 2.5%/Sv [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.8, 4.2] for France to 8.5%/Sv (95% CI: 4.0, 13.0) for Russia.Conclusions: Our review supports an association between circulatory disease mortality and low and moderate doses of ionizing radiation. Our analysis was limited by heterogeneity among studies (particularly for noncardiac end points), the possibility of uncontrolled confounding in some occupational groups by lifestyle factors, and higher dose groups (> 0.5 Sv) generally driving the observed trends. If confirmed, our findings suggest that overall radiation-related mortality is about twice that currently estimated based on estimates for cancer end points alone (which range from 4.2% to 5.6%/Sv for these populations).

The association between the low dose of ionizing radiation received by the fetus in utero from diagnostic radiography, particularly in the last trimester of pregnancy, and the subsequent risk of cancer in childhood provides direct evidence against the existence of a threshold dose below which no excess risk arises, and has led to changes in medical practice. Initially reported in 1956, a consistent association has been found in many case-control studies in different countries. The excess relative risk obtained from combining the results of these studies has high statistical significance and suggests that, in the past, a radiographic examination of the abdomen of a pregnant woman produced a proportional increase in risk of about 40%. A corresponding causal relationship is not universally accepted and this interpretation has been challenged on four grounds. On review, the evidence against bias and confounding as alternative explanations for the association is strong. Scrutiny of the objections to causality suggests that they are not, or may not be, valid. A causal explanation is supported by evidence indicating an appropriate dose-response relationship and by animal experiments. It is concluded that radiation doses of the order of 10 mGy received by the fetus in utero produce a consequent increase in the risk of childhood cancer. The excess absolute risk coefficient at this level of exposure is approximately 6% per gray, although the exact value of this risk coefficient remains uncertain.

No abstract

We conducted a large record-based case-control study testing associations between childhood cancer and natural background radiation. Cases (27 447) born and diagnosed in Great Britain during 1980–2006 and matched cancer-free controls (36 793) were from the National Registry of Childhood Tumours. Radiation exposures were estimated for mother’s residence at the child’s birth from national databases, using the County District mean for gamma-rays, and a predictive map based on domestic measurements grouped by geological boundaries for radon. There was 12% excess relative risk (95% CI 3, 22; 2-sided p=0.01) of childhood leukaemia per millisievert of cumulative red-bone-marrow dose from gamma-radiation; the analogous association for radon was not significant, excess relative risk 3% (95% CI −4, 11; p=0.35). Associations for other childhood cancers were not significant for either exposure. Excess risk was insensitive to adjustment for measures of socio-economic status. The statistically significant leukaemia risk reported in this reasonably-powered study (power ~50%) is consistent with high dose-rate predictions. Substantial bias is unlikely, and we cannot identify mechanisms by which confounding might plausibly account for the association, which we regard as likely to be causal. The study supports the extrapolation of high dose-rate risk models to protracted exposures at natural background exposure levels.

No abstract