Disproportionate Impacts of Radiation Exposure on Women, Children, and Pregnancy: Taking Back our Narrative

Folkers, Cynthia

doi:10.1007/s10739-021-09630-z

Cited by 4 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 126 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Radiation increases the lifetime risk of carcinomas and hematopoiesis abnormal (11,12). Children are more vulnerable to this risk because they are more sensitive to radiation than adults, and there is a latent period between radiation exposure and cancer presentation (13). At present, a 3D-electroanatomical mapping system is widely used in the field of radiofrequency ablation to reduce fluoroscopy exposure and is shown to be safe and effective among patients with pediatrics (8).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transseptal Approach Versus Transaortic Approach for Catheter Ablation of Left-Sided Accessory Pathways in Children

Dong

Gao

et al. 2022

Front. Pediatr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundCatheter ablation is recommended to eradicate supraventricular tachycardia caused by left-sided accessory pathways (APs) in children. This study aims to compare the safety and efficacy of the transseptal approach (TS) and aortic approach (TA) for catheter ablation of left-sided APs in a pediatric cohort.MethodsPatients < 18 years of age with left-sided APs who had undergone ablation at Beijing Children’s Hospital between 13 January 2018 and 7 January 2020 were included and randomly categorized into either TS or TA group (follow-up for 22 months). In all, 60 patients in TS group and 41 patients in TA group were included in this study. Principal endpoints were success rate, recurrence rate, complications, procedure time, and radiation dose.ResultsFor TS group versus TA group, success rate was observed in 100 versus 97.56% (p = 0.402). The procedure time was 27.0 (32.0–23.0) versus 29.0 (38.0–24.5) min (p = 0.092). The rate of success or the procedure time was similar, but for the patients with Aps located in left posterior septum (LPS) or left posterior lateral (LPL), the TS group had a shorter procedure time compared with TA group (p < 0.01). The radiation dose was 28.0 (20.0–41.75) versus 0 mGy (p < 0.001). After successful ablation, no recurrence and complication were observed in either group.ConclusionBoth TS and TA for catheter ablation of left-sided Aps were shown to be safe and effective in children. Zero radiation and ease of mastery make TA the preferred choice. TS is recommended to be used by properly trained medical professionals, especially for patient with AP localized in the LPL or LPS. However, TS is a good alternative where patients have aortic lesions or when TA fails.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transseptal Approach Versus Transaortic Approach for Catheter Ablation of Left-Sided Accessory Pathways in Children

Dong

Gao

et al. 2022

Front. Pediatr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The secret methodology to acquire bodies, fetuses and body parts was not disclosed publicly (nor declassified until 1995, but in a 1996 interview, geochemist J. Laurence Kulp said only cadavers donated to medical schools were used). The USAEC released some of the Project Sunshine findings in 1956 to reassure the public that the amount of radioactive strontium, which displaces calcium to cause bone cancers and other harms and disorders, was trivial (Folkers 2021 ; Hamblin 2013 :101–109; RAND 1953 : 51). 11…”

Section: Cultivating Radiation Expertisementioning

confidence: 99%

“…But safe enough for whom? A 5′7″, 154 pound, 20–30 year old Caucasian male with a western diet stands in as the reference for all ages and bodies (this basis leads to disproportionate harm to subsistence cultures, women and children, see Markstrom & Charley 2006 ; Olson 2019 ; Folkers 2021 ). The lack of equally funded independent research combined with tactics of control that were implemented in UN meetings and studies insulated the main logics and premise of the threshold against serious criticism.…”

Section: Making and Breaking Bondsmentioning

confidence: 99%

1945–1964 WHO’s Right to Health?

Richards

2022

N.T.M.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

United States Atomic Energy Commission (USAEC) and UN agencies utilized techniques of power and negotiation to implement radiation exposure regulations. USAEC affiliated scientists’ expertise was cultivated while establishing a radiation protection regime based on classified experiments. World Health Organization (WHO) leadership sought to manifest a human right to health, including a right to protection from radiation contamination. The careers of a few technical experts and interagency UN correspondence shows how American risk models of radiation regulation traveled and ultimately inhibited WHO attempts to frame radiation as a public health threat. The USAEC and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) navigated WHO’s way of perceiving radiation with technical experts and bureaucratic and legislative means. This paper shows the underpinning at the UN of competing models of radiation regulation, one state centric and the other, an individual right to health. This narrative provides insights into the nature of the UN’s current conceptualization of radiation regulation and argues for further research into UN, radiation, and human rights history.

show abstract

“…Early in the nuclear weapons era, a ‘permissible dose’ was more aptly recognised as an ‘acceptable injury limit,’ but that language has since been sanitised. 1 Permissible does not mean safe. Reference Man is defined as ‘…a nuclear industry worker 20–30 years of age, [who] weighs 70 kg (154 pounds), is 170 cm (67 inches) tall…is a Caucasian and is a Western European or North American in habitat and custom’.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Pregnant dogs injected with radiostrontium had defects in their offspring and yet, complete results of these studies were not made public until 1969. 3 By 1960 however, U.S. experts were clearly aware that research indicated higher susceptibility of children, when the Federal Radiation Council (FRC) (established in 1959 by President Eisenhower) briefly considered a definition for 'Standard Child'-which they subsequently abandoned in favour of maintaining a Standard Man definition, 1 later renamed Reference Man. The 1960 report also recognised hormones as a radiation 'co-carcinogen', which evokes later research indicating that radiation impacts the oestrogenic pathway, although the mechanism is not understood and has been poorly investigated.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Radioactive releases from the nuclear power sector and implications for child health

Folkers¹,

Gunter²

2022

bmjpo

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although radioactivity is released routinely at every stage of nuclear power generation, the regulation of these releases has never taken into account those potentially most sensitive—women, especially when pregnant, and children. From uranium mining and milling, to fuel manufacture, electricity generation and radioactive waste management, children in frontline and Indigenous communities can be disproportionately harmed due to often increased sensitivity of developing systems to toxic exposures, the lack of resources and racial and class discrimination. The reasons for the greater susceptibility of women and children to harm from radiation exposure is not fully understood. Regulatory practices, particularly in the establishment of protective exposure standards, have failed to take this difference into account. Anecdotal evidence within communities around nuclear facilities suggests an association between radiation exposure and increases in birth defects, miscarriages and childhood cancers. A significant number of academic studies tend to ascribe causality to other factors related to diet and lifestyle and dismiss these health indicators as statistically insignificant. In the case of a major release of radiation due to a serious nuclear accident, children are again on the frontlines, with a noted susceptibility to thyroid cancer, which has been found in significant numbers among children exposed both by the 1986 Chornobyl nuclear accident in Ukraine and the 2011 Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear disaster in Japan. The response among authorities in Japan is to blame increased testing or to reduce testing. More independent studies are needed focused on children, especially those in vulnerable frontline and Indigenous communities. In conducting such studies, greater consideration must be applied to culturally significant traditions and habits in these communities.

show abstract

Disproportionate Impacts of Radiation Exposure on Women, Children, and Pregnancy: Taking Back our Narrative

Cited by 4 publications

References 126 publications

Transseptal Approach Versus Transaortic Approach for Catheter Ablation of Left-Sided Accessory Pathways in Children

Transseptal Approach Versus Transaortic Approach for Catheter Ablation of Left-Sided Accessory Pathways in Children

1945–1964 WHO’s Right to Health?

Radioactive releases from the nuclear power sector and implications for child health

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About