Exaggeration of consequences of low-dose radiation exposures with special reference to cataracts

Abstract

Publications overestimating the medical and ecological sequels of a slight anthropogenic increase in the radiation background have been reviewed recently with examples of different organs and pathological conditions. The overestimation contributed to the strangulation of atomic energy. The use of nuclear energy for electricity production is on the agenda today due to the increasing energy needs of humankind. Apparently, certain scientific writers acted in the interests of fossil fuel producers. Health risks and environmental damage are maximal for coal and oil, lower for natural gas, and much lower for atomic energy. This letter is an addition to previously published materials, this time focused on studies of cataracts in radiation-exposed populations in Russia. Selection and self-selection bias are of particular significance. Apparently, the self-reporting rate correlates with dose estimates and/or with professional awareness about radiation-related risks among nuclear workers or radiologic technologists, the latter being associated with their work experience/duration and hence with the accumulated dose. Individuals informed of their higher doses would more often seek medical advice and receive more attention from medics. As a result, lens opacities are diagnosed in exposed people earlier than in the general population. This explains dose-effect correlations proven for the incidence of cataracts but not for the frequency of cataract surgeries. Along the same lines, various pathological conditions are more often detected in exposed people. Ideological bias and the trimming of statistics have not been unusual in the Russian medical sciences. It is known that ionizing radiation causes cataracts; however, threshold levels associated with risks are understudied. In particular, thresholds for chronic and fractionated exposures are uncertain and may be underestimated.