Search

Analyses of the Life Span Study (LSS) of Japanese atomic bombing survivors have routinely incorporated corrections for additive classical measurement errors using regression calibration. Recently, several studies reported that the efficiency of the simulation-extrapolation method (SIMEX) is slightly more accurate than the simple regression calibration method (RCAL). In the present paper, the SIMEX and RCAL methods have been used to address errors in atomic bomb survivor dosimetry on solid cancer and leukaemia mortality risk estimates. For instance, it is shown that using the SIMEX method, the ERR/Gy is increased by an amount of about 29 % for all solid cancer deaths using a linear model compared to the RCAL method, and the corrected EAR 10(-4) person-years at 1 Gy (the linear terms) is decreased by about 8 %, while the corrected quadratic term (EAR 10(-4) person-years/Gy(2)) is increased by about 65 % for leukaemia deaths based on a linear-quadratic model. The results with SIMEX method are slightly higher than published values. The observed differences were probably due to the fact that with the RCAL method the dosimetric data were partially corrected, while all doses were considered with the SIMEX method. Therefore, one should be careful when comparing the estimated risks and it may be useful to use several correction techniques in order to obtain a range of corrected estimates, rather than to rely on a single technique. This work will enable to improve the risk estimates derived from LSS data, and help to make more reliable the development of radiation protection standards.

An earlier analysis examined the possibility of bias in the Life Span Study (LSS) cohort by studying Japanese A-bomb survivors with bomb-related acute injuries and those without such injuries. The authors reported significantly higher radiation risks, both for cancers and non-cancers, among those survivors with acute injuries compared with those without. The risks were reported to be particularly large among survivors aged <10 or > or =55 years of age at the time of bombings. The aim of this paper is to examine these findings more closely using the LSS acute effects data. All the analyses were carried out using Poisson regression. Relative risk models were fitted with adjustment for sex and other factors. Significant differences in relative risk between survivors with epilation and burns and those without epilation and burns are found for leukaemia. There is also some evidence for heterogeneity in the leukaemia risk between survivors with two or more acute injuries and those with no injuries, but the evidence is disappeared when survivors with one or more injuries are compared with those without injuries. For solid cancers, cardiovascular disease and all deaths combined, the risks do not differ to a statistically significant extent between survivors with and without injuries. There is no statistically significant heterogeneity in risk across age-at-exposure categories for survivors with injuries. For all deaths combined, relative risk estimates and their uncertainties are significantly higher for survivors exposed at ages <10 years when compared with other exposure ages, but risks are not significantly raised for survivors exposed at > or =55 years of age. With the exception of leukaemia, the findings from the present work are inconsistent with those of Stewart and Kneale.

The long-lived radioisotope (36)Cl (half-life: 301,000 years) was measured in granite samples exposed to A-bomb neutrons at distances from 94 to 1,591 m from the hypocenter in Hiroshima, by means of accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS). Measured (36)Cl/Cl ratios decrease from 1.6 x 10(-10) close to the hypocenter to about 1-2 x 10(-13), at a distance of 1,300 m from the hypocenter. At this distance and beyond the measured (36)Cl/Cl ratios do not change significantly and scatter around values of 1-2 x 10(-13). These findings suggest that the (36)Cl had been predominantly produced by thermalized neutrons from the A-bomb via neutron capture on stable (35)Cl, at distances from the hypocenter smaller than about 1,200 m. At larger distances, however, confounding processes induced by cosmic rays or neutrons from the decay of uranium and thorium become important. This hypothesis is theoretically and experimentally supported in a consecutive paper. The results are compared to calculations that are based on the most recent dosimetry system DS02. Close to the hypocenter, measured (36)Cl/Cl ratios are lower than those calculated, while they are significantly higher at large distances from the hypocenter. If the contribution of the cosmic rays and of the neutrons from the decay of uranium and thorium in the sample was subtracted, however, no significant deviation from the DS02 calculations was observed, at those distances. Thus, the Hiroshima neutron discrepancy reported in the literature for (36)Cl for samples from large distances from the hypocenter, i.e., higher measured (36)Cl/Cl ratios than predicted by the previous dosimetry system DS86, was not confirmed.

In this paper the radiation-associated relative risks of second primary cancer incidence in groups treated for first primary cancer by radiotherapy are compared with radiation-associated relative risk estimates in the Japanese atomic bomb survivor cancer incidence data. For four cancer sites, namely lung cancer, bone cancer, ovarian cancer and leukaemia, the relative risks in the comparable (age at exposure, time since exposure, sex matched) subsets of the Japanese data are significantly greater than those in the majority of second cancer studies. Even when the differences between the relative risks in the Japanese atomic bomb survivors and the medical series do not approach conventional levels of statistical significance, relative risks tend to be higher in the Japanese data than in the second cancer studies. At least for leukaemia, the discrepancy between the Japanese and second cancer risks can be largely explained by cell-sterilisation effects. There are few indications of modification of radiation-associated second cancer relative risk among those treated with adjuvant chemotherapy, nor are there strong indications of modification of radiation-associated relative risk by heritable genetic factors. If anything, there is evidence that second cancer relative excess risks are lower among those patients with cancer-prone disorders than among non-susceptible patients. However, the higher underlying cancer risk in some of these medically exposed populations should also be considered, in particular for those with cancer-prone conditions, so that the absolute excess risk is sometimes higher than in the Japanese data.