Search

The onset of nuclear warfare in Hiroshima and Nagasaki had far-reaching implications for the world of medicine. The study of the A-bomb and its implications led to the launching of new fields and avenues of research, most notably in genetics and radiation studies. Far less understood and under-studied was the impact of nuclear research on psychiatric medicine. Psychological research, however, was a major focus of post-war military and civilian research into the bomb. This research and the perceived revolutionary impact of atomic energy and warfare on society, this paper argues, played an important role in the global development of post-war psychiatry. Focusing on psychiatrists in North America, Japan and the United Nations, this paper examines the reaction of the profession to the nuclear age from the early post-war period to the mid 1960s. The way psychiatric medicine related to atomic issues, I argue, shifted significantly between the immediate post-war period and the 1960s. While the early post-war psychiatrists sought to help society deal with and adjust to the new nuclear reality, later psychiatrists moved towards a more radical position that sought to resist the establishment's efforts to normalise the bomb and nuclear energy. This shift had important consequences for research into the psychological trauma suffered by victims of nuclear warfare, which, ultimately, together with other research into the impact of war and systematic violence, led to our current understanding of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

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.