2019
DOI: 10.1007/s00411-019-00810-4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Childhood leukemia in Ukraine after the Chornobyl accident

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0
1

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
0
6
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…After duplicates were removed, the titles and abstracts of 1,628 reports were reviewed by one of the authors (JFL), and 131 met the eligibility criteria (Figure 1). The current review was primarily based on 107 full papers, 2‐108 but, due to the scarcity of data, we also chose to cite five relevant abstracts 109‐113 for a more complete picture of child health in Ukraine. Our literature search was limited to papers published in English.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…After duplicates were removed, the titles and abstracts of 1,628 reports were reviewed by one of the authors (JFL), and 131 met the eligibility criteria (Figure 1). The current review was primarily based on 107 full papers, 2‐108 but, due to the scarcity of data, we also chose to cite five relevant abstracts 109‐113 for a more complete picture of child health in Ukraine. Our literature search was limited to papers published in English.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The other was the Fukushima Daiichi disaster in 2011. Many of the 1,628 papers we identified focused on the health consequences of the Chernobyl disaster, but few 10,27,71 were relevant to the health needs of children in Ukraine today, apart from the stress experienced by parents and grandparents who survived the accident.…”
Section: The Chernobyl Disastermentioning
confidence: 99%
“…High NTD and MIC reported to EUROCAT are also noted in Northern England and Wales regions of the UK which are among the most impacted by Chornobyl IR 6,18,19 . Recent observations in Ukraine note an association of Chornobyl IR exposures with childhood leukemia 20 ; in Germany, childhood leukemia rates were higher among those living in proximities to nuclear power 21,22 ; in Sweden, students exposed to Chornobyl IR had lowered school performance and in Norway adolescents likewise exposed had reduced cognitive functions, 23,24 in the UK, stillbirths and NTD were more frequent in families employed by Sellafield nuclear power plants, 25 and in proximities to the Hanford nuclear power plants complex in the United States clusters of NTD were observed in 1982 and 2010 26‐28 . Current interpretation of these reports require an awareness of at least three notions: (a) that extrapolations from investigations of Hiroshima‐Nagasaki atomic explosions are of limited value because those exposures to IR were mostly direct, intense, and brief in contrast to radiation which reflect the gradual incorporation of nuclides by inhalation and ingestion; (b) that most reports are based on measurements of Cs137 without consideration of concurrent incorporation of other nuclides such as strontium90 (Sr90) and tritium (H3); and (c) that the embryo is significantly more sensitive to radiation than adults.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…Unfortunately, cohort studies of cleanup workers from different countries cannot be accurately compared because of differences in reporting, registration, follow-up and analyses; mortality vs incidence outcomes; special health screenings or not; available information on cofactors (eg, education, ethnicity, smoking); methods of radiation dose determination; and effect measures such as SIR, SMR, excess relative risk per dose unit. [22][23][24] For example, the Russian cohort of 67 568 Chernobyl cleanup workers reported a statistically significant dose response for all incident solid cancers based on official recorded doses (arithmetic mean of 13 cGy) and over the follow-up period 1992 to 2009. 25 However, no attempt was possible, as the authors recognized, to estimate the impact of behavioral factors on cancer risk: "As a weakness of the present study, the analyses did not take into account recognized risk factors such as smoking, alcohol consumption, genetic predisposition, marital status, education, occupational status."…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%