Search

The risk of lung cancer mortality up to 75 years of age due to radon exposure has been estimated for both male and female continuing, ex- and never-smokers, based on various radon risk models and exposure scenarios. We used risk models derived from (i) the BEIR VI analysis of cohorts of radon-exposed miners, (ii) cohort and nested case-control analyses of a European cohort of uranium miners and (iii) the joint analysis of European residential radon case-control studies. Estimates of the lifetime lung cancer risk due to radon varied between these models by just over a factor of 2 and risk estimates based on models from analyses of European uranium miners exposed at comparatively low rates and of people exposed to radon in homes were broadly compatible. For a given smoking category, there was not much difference in lifetime lung cancer risk between males and females. The estimated lifetime risk of radon-induced lung cancer for exposure to a concentration of 200 Bq m(-3) was in the range 2.98-6.55% for male continuing smokers and 0.19-0.42% for male never-smokers, depending on the model used and assuming a multiplicative relationship for the joint effect of radon and smoking. Stopping smoking at age 50 years decreases the lifetime risk due to radon by around a half relative to continuing smoking, but the risk for ex-smokers remains about a factor of 5-7 higher than that for never-smokers. Under a sub-multiplicative model for the joint effect of radon and smoking, the lifetime risk of radon-induced lung cancer was still estimated to be substantially higher for continuing smokers than for never smokers. Radon mitigation-used to reduce radon concentrations at homes-can also have a substantial impact on lung cancer risk, even for persons in their 50 s; for each of continuing smokers, ex-smokers and never-smokers, radon mitigation at age 50 would lower the lifetime risk of radon-induced lung cancer by about one-third. To maximise risk reductions, smokers in high-radon homes should both stop smoking and remediate their homes.

Safegrounds is a forum for developing and disseminating good practice guidance on the management of radioactively contaminated land on nuclear and defence sites in the UK. This review has been provided to Safegrounds as a summary of the basis for current radiation risk estimates and the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) protection system, in a form that will be accessible to a wide range of stakeholders. Safegrounds has also received viewpoint papers from other members who contend that the ICRP methodology results in substantial underestimates of risk, particularly for internal emitters. There is an extensive literature on the risks of radiation exposure, regularly reviewed by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) and other expert groups. These data provide a sound basis for the system of protection recommended by ICRP. The available epidemiological and experimental evidence supports the application of cancer risk estimates derived for acute, high dose, external exposures to low dose exposures to external and internal sources. In the context of radioactively contaminated land on nuclear and defence sites, the national standards for the cleaning up of land and for waste disposal correspond to very low doses, two orders of magnitude less than average annual doses in the UK from natural background radiation (10-20  µSv compared with 2-3 mSv). Risks at such very low doses can only be estimated on the basis of observations after exposure of population groups at much higher doses. The estimated risks at these very low doses, while uncertain, are as likely to be overestimates as underestimates.

Information on Japanese A-bomb survivors exposed to gamma radiation has been used to estimate cancer risks for the whole range of photon (x-rays) and electron energies which are commonly encountered by radiation workers in the work place or by patients and workers in diagnostic radiology. However, there is some uncertainty regarding the radiation effectiveness of various low-linear energy transfer (low-LET) radiations (x-rays, gamma radiation and electrons). In this paper we review information on the effectiveness of low-LET radiations on the basis of epidemiological and in vitro radiobiological studies. Data from various experimental studies for chromosome aberrations and cell transformation in human lymphocytes and from epidemiological studies of the Japanese A-bomb survivors, patients medically exposed to radiation for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, and occupational exposures of nuclear workers are considered. On the basis of in vitro cellular radiobiology, there is considerable evidence that the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of high-energy low-LET radiation (gamma radiation, electrons) is less than that of low-energy low-LET radiation (x-rays, betas). This is a factor of about 3 to 4 for 29 kVp x-rays (e.g. as in diagnostic radiation exposures of the female breast) and for tritium beta-rays (encountered in parts of the nuclear industry) relative to Co-60 gamma radiation and 2-5 MeV gamma-rays (as received by the Japanese A-bomb survivors). In epidemiological studies, although for thyroid and breast cancer there appears to be a small tendency for the excess relative risks to decrease as the radiation energy increases for low-LET radiations, it is not statistically feasible to draw any conclusion regarding an underlying dependence of cancer risk on LET for the nominally low-LET radiations.

Statistically significant increases in non-cancer disease mortality with radiation dose have been observed among survivors of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The increasing trends arise particularly for diseases of the circulatory, digestive, and respiratory systems. Rates for survivors exposed to a dose of 1 Sv are elevated by about 10%, a smaller relative increase than that for cancer. The aetiology of this increased risk is not yet understood. Neither animal nor human studies have found clear evidence for excess non-cancer mortality at the lower range of doses received by A-bomb survivors. In this paper, we examine the age and time patterns of excess risks in the A-bomb survivors. The results suggest that the excess relative risk of non-cancer disease mortality might be highest for exposure at ages 30-49 years, and that those exposed at ages 0-29 years might have a very low excess relative risk compared with those exposed at older ages. The differences in excess relative risk for different age-at-exposure groups imply that the dose response relationships for non-cancer disease mortality need to be modelled with adjustment for age-at-exposure.

An epidemiological study was set up in the 1980s of UK participants in the UK atmospheric nuclear weapons testing programme. A large cohort of test participants was established along with a closely matched comparison or control group. Three analyses of mortality and cancer incidence have been carried out. This review describes the development of the evidence on possible effects on test participants with especial emphasis on the most recent analysis. Other sources of evidence, particularly from studies of other groups of test participants, are also considered. It was concluded that overall levels of mortality and cancer incidence in UK nuclear weapons test participants were similar to those in a matched control group, and overall mortality was lower than expected from national rates. There was no evidence of an increased raised risk of multiple myeloma among test participants in recent years, and the suggestion in the first analysis of this cohort of a raised myeloma risk relative to controls is likely to have been a chance finding. There was some evidence of a raised risk of leukaemia other than chronic lymphatic leukaemia among test participants relative to controls, particularly in the early years after the tests. Whilst this could be a chance finding, the possibility that test participation caused a small absolute risk of leukaemia other than chronic lymphatic leukaemia cannot be ruled out.

This review gives a general account of how and why epidemiological studies of UK participants in the nuclear weapons test programme were set up. There is a short description of the circumstances in which the tests were planned and executed and a discussion of the general considerations involved in designing studies to show whether the health of test participants suffered as a result of the tests. The companion review article summarises the results of the epidemiological studies.

The National Registry for Radiation Workers (NRRW) is the largest epidemiological study of UK radiation workers. Following the first analysis published in 1992, a second analysis has been conducted using an enlarged cohort of 124,743 workers, updated dosimetry and personal data for some workers, and a longer follow-up. Overall levels of mortality were found to be less than those expected from national rates; the standardised mortality ratio for all causes was 82, increasing to 89 after adjusting for social class. This 'healthy worker effect' was particularly strong for lung cancer and for some smoking-related non-malignant diseases. Analysis of potential radiation effects involved testing for any trend in mortality risk with external dose, after adjusting for likely confounding factors. For leukaemia, excluding chronic lymphatic leukaemia (CLL), the central estimate of excess relative risk (ERR) per Sv was similar to that estimated for the Japanese atomic bomb survivors at low doses (without the incorporation of a dose-rate correction factor); the corresponding 90% confidence limits for this trend were tighter than in the first analysis, ranging from just under four times the risk estimated at low doses from the Japanese atomic bomb survivors to about zero. For the grouping of all malignancies other than leukaemia, the central estimate of the trend in risk with dose was closer to zero than in the first analysis; also, the 90% confidence limits were tighter than before and included zero. Since results for lung cancer and non-malignant smoking-related diseases suggested the possibility of confounding by smoking, an examination was made, as in the first analysis, of all malignancies other than leukaemia and lung cancer. In this instance the central estimate of the ERR per Sv was similar to that from the A-bomb data (without the incorporation of a dose-rate correction factor), with a 90% confidence interval ranging from about four times the A-bomb value to less than zero. For multiple myeloma there was an indication of an increasing trend in risk with external dose (p = 0.06), although the evidence for this trend disappeared after omitting workers monitored for exposure to internal emitters. The second NRRW analysis provides stronger inferences than the first on occupational radiation exposure and cancer mortality; the 90% confidence intervals for the risk per unit dose are tighter than before, and now exclude values which are greater than four times those seen among the Japanese A-bomb survivors, although they are also generally consistent with an observation of no raised risk. Furthermore, there is evidence, of borderline statistical significance, of an increasing risk for leukaemia excluding CLL, and, as with solid cancers, the data are consistent with the A-bomb findings.