PubMed · 8710585
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
D Carlisle. Bitter rain.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8710585/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
The rate of aging was studied in 306 persons working at Chernobyl Atomic Power Station after the accident by means of integral and partial biological age assessment. An accelerated rate of aging was found in 81% of men and in 77% of women in comparison with a control random population sample of Kiev. Persons younger than 45 years appeared to be more vulnerable to radiation. The biological age of persons who worked in the contaminated zone immediately after the disaster exceeded the biological age in those who arrived in Chernobyl 4 months later. The biological age in the investigated persons exceeded its average populational value for 5 years (the integral biological and partial cardiopulmonary age) and for 11 years for the partial psychological age. These data may underlie the concept of radiation progeroid syndrome as the form of accelerated aging.
Pregnant Swiss albino mice were exposed to 0.3, 0.5, 1.0, or 1.5 Gy of gamma radiation on day 17 of gestation. Sham-exposed controls were examined for comparison. Exposed mice as well as controls were left to complete gestation and parturition. Pups were observed up to age 6 weeks; appearance of physiological markers (pinna detachment, eye opening, fur development, vaginal opening, and testes descent), postnatal mortality, body weight, body length, head length, head width, and tail length were recorded. A significant delay in fur development was observed at 0.3 Gy and in other physiological markers at doses above 0.3 Gy, while a significant increase in mortality and growth retardation occurred only at 1.0 and 1.5 Gy. Although congenital anomalies such as syndactyly and bent tail were observed at doses of 0.5-1.5 Gy, only syndactyly showed a statistically significant increase in frequency. A statistically significant lower body weight was observed during the first week of postnatal life, but body weights increased to normal levels by the second week in animals exposed to doses less than 1.0 Gy. At higher doses, low body weight persisted throughout the postnatal period. Head length and tail length showed a significant decrease from controls at 0.5-1.5 Gy, and the effect was evident from birth to age 6 weeks. But a similar effect on body length and head width was noticed only at 1.0 and 1.5 Gy. These studies indicate that even in the absence of any major morphological changes, normal development of physiological landmarks and postnatal growth can be impaired by fetal irradiation at 17 days p.c. (post coitus). Morphological changes appear to have a threshold between 0.3-0.5 Gy, while physiological marker effects may occur with a lower threshold.
The subject of the reproductive toxicity of various forms of radiation can be anxiety provoking to the public on two accounts, since reproductive failure engenders an unusual level of guilt and anger in the affected families, and radiation effects are misunderstood and feared by the public. Reproductive problems include an array of genetic and acquired diseases affecting parents and their offspring. Many of these problems are associated with the risk of being induced by preconception and/or postconception exposures to environmental agents. For the various forms of radiation, namely, ionizing radiation, ultrasound, low-frequency electromagnetic fields (EMF), and microwaves, the potential for producing reproductive effects varies considerably with the form of "radiation" and, of course, the dose. Whether the exposure occurs preconceptionally or postconceptionally is another major consideration. In evaluating the actual reproductive risks, we rely on accurate dosimetry and information obtained in epidemiological studies and animal studies. Epidemiological studies must demonstrate consistency of the reproductive finding, and animal studies should be designed to add to the findings of the epidemiological studies. Most importantly, the conclusions must not contradict the basic principles of teratology, genetics, and reproductive biology, and they should be biologically plausible. But frequently important basic science principles are ignored in the evaluation process. Yet developmental basic science principles can be instrumental in refuting or supporting the concern about possible risks. Although there is some overlap with regard to the preconception and intrauterine effects of ionizing radiation, there are significant differences. Preconception effects are mainly stochastic effects, while intrauterine effects are mainly deterministic effects. The stochastic genetic risks are lower than the deterministic risks at equivalent exposures. Thus, it is frequently difficult to demonstrate the occurrence of stochastic effects in populations that have received low preconception exposures to ionizing radiation. The reproductive effects from preconception and intrauterine exposures to electromagnetic fields (low-frequency EMF, video display terminals, microwaves) and ultrasound represent much different problems, since the main effects of microwaves and ultrasound occur because of their hyperthermic effects at high exposures. Low-frequency EMF does not have the capacity to produce hyperthermia, and none of these forms of nonionizing radiation has the specificity to damage the DNA comparable to the specificity of ionizing radiation. Not only do they not have targeted mutagenic effects at the usual exposures that populations receive, they are not cytotoxic at these exposure levels as well. From the viewpoint of biological plausibility, these other forms of radiation are much less likely to have the potential for producing reproductive toxicity at the usual population exposures.