Cancer mortality in six lowest versus six highest elevation jurisdictions in the u.s

Background radiation impacts human longevity and cancer mortality: reconsidering the linear no-threshold paradigm

The current linear no-threshold paradigm assumes that any exposure to ionizing radiation carries some risk, thus every effort should be made to maintain the exposures as low as possible. We examined whether background radiation impacts human longevity and cancer mortality. Our data covered the entire US population of the 3139 US counties, encompassing over 320 million people. This is the first large-scale study which takes into account the two major sources of background radiation (terrestrial radiation and cosmic radiation), covering the entire US population. Here, we show that life expectancy, the most integrative index of population health, was approximately 2.5 years longer in people living in areas with a relatively high vs. low background radiation. (≥ 180 mrem/year and ≤ 100 mrem/year, respectively; p < 0.005; 95% confidence interval [CI]). This radiation-induced lifespan extension could to a great extent be associated with the decrease in cancer mortality rate observed for several common cancers (lung, pancreas and colon cancers for both genders, and brain and bladder cancers for males only; p < 0.05; 95% CI). Exposure to a high background radiation displays clear beneficial health effects in humans. These hormetic effects provide clear indications for re-considering the linear no-threshold paradigm, at least within the natural range of low-dose radiation.

X-Ray Hesitancy: Patients' Radiophobic Concerns Over Medical X-rays

All too often the family physician, orthopedic surgeon, dentist or chiropractor is met with radiophobic concerns about X-ray imaging in the clinical setting. These concerns, however, are unwarranted fears based on common but ill-informed and perpetuated ideology versus current understanding of the effects of low-dose radiation exposures. Themes of X-ray hesitancy come in 3 forms: 1. All radiation exposures are harmful (i.e. carcinogenic); 2. Radiation exposures are cumulative; 3. Children are more susceptible to radiation. Herein we address these concerns and find that low-dose radiation activates the body's adaptive responses and leads to reduced cancers. Low-dose radiation is not cumulative as long as enough time (e.g. 24 hrs) passes prior to a repeated exposure, and any damage is repaired, removed, or eliminated. Children have more active immune systems; the literature shows children are no more affected than adults by radiation exposures. Medical X-rays present a small, insignificant addition to background radiation exposure that is not likely to cause harm. Doctors and patients alike should be better informed of the lack of risks from diagnostic radiation and the decision to image should rely on the best evidence, unique needs of the patient, and the expertise of the physician-not radiophobia.

Are Restrictive Medical Radiation Imaging Campaigns Misguided? It Seems So: A Case Example of the American Chiropractic Association's Adoption of "Choosing Wisely"

Since the 1980s, increased utilization of medical radiology, primarily computed tomography, has doubled medically sourced radiation exposures. Ensuing fear-mongering media headlines of iatrogenic cancers from these essential medical diagnostic tools has led the public and medical professionals alike to display escalating radiophobia. Problematically, several campaigns including Image Gently, Image Wisely, and facets of Choosing Wisely propagate fears of all medical radiation, which is necessary for the delivery of effective and efficient health care. Since there are no sound data supporting the alleged risks from low-dose radiation and since there is abundant evidence of health benefits from low-doses, these imaging campaigns seem misguided. Further, thresholds for cancer are 100 to 1000-fold greater than X-rays, which are within the realm of natural background radiation where no harm has ever been validated. Here, we focus on radiographic imaging for use in spinal rehabilitation by manual therapists, chiropractors, and physiotherapists as spinal X-rays represent the lowest levels of radiation imaging and are critical in the diagnosis and management of spine-related disorders. Using a case example of a chiropractic association adopting "Choosing Wisely," we argue that these campaigns only fuel the pervasive radiophobia and continue to constrain medical professionals, attempting to deliver quality care to patients.

Health Impacts of Low-Dose Ionizing Radiation: Current Scientific Debates and Regulatory Issues

Health impacts of low-dose ionizing radiation are significant in important fields such as X-ray imaging, radiation therapy, nuclear power, and others. However, all existing and potential applications are currently challenged by public concerns and regulatory restrictions. We aimed to assess the validity of the linear no-threshold (LNT) model of radiation damage, which is the basis of current regulation, and to assess the justification for this regulation. We have conducted an extensive search in PubMed. Special attention has been given to papers cited in comprehensive reviews of the United States (2006) and French (2005) Academies of Sciences and in the United Nations Scientific Committee on Atomic Radiation 2016 report. Epidemiological data provide essentially no evidence for detrimental health effects below 100 mSv, and several studies suggest beneficial (hormetic) effects. Equally significant, many studies with in vitro and in animal models demonstrate that several mechanisms initiated by low-dose radiation have beneficial effects. Overall, although probably not yet proven to be untrue, LNT has certainly not been proven to be true. At this point, taking into account the high price tag (in both economic and human terms) borne by the LNT-inspired regulation, there is little doubt that the present regulatory burden should be reduced.

Cancer risk associated with living at high altitude in Ecuadorian population from 2005 to 2014

Background and aims

Cancer is a leading cause of death in Ecuador with high social and economic impact. This study aims to determinate the influence of living at a high altitude on the risk of developing or dying from cancer among the Ecuadorian population.

Methods

This is an ecological and epidemiological analysis of cancer mortality and prevalence rates, based on national data from the Ecuadorian National Statistics and Census Institute, corresponding to the period between 2005 and 2014. This study includes the analysis of various types of cancer: gastric, colorectal, hepatic/bile duct, breast, uterine/cervix, and lymphatic/hematopoietic, using rates of mortality and prevalence. Additionally, the association between the risk of getting or dying from cancer and living at high altitude was investigated. This comparison was made between the population living in Highlands, over 2000 meters above sea level, and low-lying regions.

Results

Living at high altitude was associated with a higher prevalence of cancer and also with a high mortality rate due to cancer. Risk of getting cancer was related to living at a higher altitude, as well as an increased risk of death by cancer: gastric (OR:1.204; p<0.001), colorectal (OR:1.421; p<0.001), hepatic/bile duct (OR:1.184; p<0.001), breast (OR:1.067; p=0.030), or lymphatic/hematopoietic neoplasms (OR:1.135; p<0.001).

Conclusions

Through an epidemiologic analysis, the association between developing or dying from cancer and living at high altitude was obtained. However, further researche is needed to clarify these findings, something that could have a substantial impact on cancer prevention.

Reduced Lung Cancer Mortality With Lower Atmospheric Pressure

BACKGROUND

Research has shown that higher altitude is associated with lower risk of lung cancer and improved survival among patients. The current study assessed the influence of county-level atmospheric pressure (a measure reflecting both altitude and temperature) on age-adjusted lung cancer mortality rates in the contiguous United States, with 2 forms of spatial regression.

METHODS

Ordinary least squares regression and geographically weighted regression models were used to evaluate the impact of climate and other selected variables on lung cancer mortality, based on 2974 counties.

RESULTS

Atmospheric pressure was significantly positively associated with lung cancer mortality, after controlling for sunlight, precipitation, PM2.5 (µg/m3), current smoker, and other selected variables. Positive county-level β coefficient estimates (P < .05) for atmospheric pressure were observed throughout the United States, higher in the eastern half of the country.

CONCLUSION

The spatial regression models showed that atmospheric pressure is positively associated with age-adjusted lung cancer mortality rates, after controlling for other selected variables.

Association Between Air Temperature and Cancer Death Rates in Florida: An Ecological Study

Proponents of global warming predict adverse events due to a slight warming of the planet in the last 100 years. This ecological study tests one of the possible arguments that might support the global warming theory - that it may increase cancer death rates. Thus, average daily air temperature is compared to cancer death rates at the county level in a U.S. state, while controlling for variables of smoking, race, and land elevation. The study revealed that lower cancer death rates were associated with warmer temperatures. Further study is indicated to verify these findings.

Cancer mortality for a single race in low versus high elevation counties in the u.s

A previous study compared cancer mortality in the six lowest versus six highest elevations in the U.S. for all races. This study looks at a single race since death rates tend to vary by race. In this ecological study, cancer mortality rates were compared between low and high states for a race that had sufficient number of counties reporting mortality data, that is, the white race. The average cancer mortality rate for low elevation counties was 73.47 + 18.35 compared to 53.90 + 13.76 for high elevation counties, a difference that was statistically significant (p < 0.0001), with a very large effect size (of 1.2). Higher elevation counties showed less cancer mortality rates for a single race compared to lower elevation counties, suggesting the presence of radiation hormesis. Further rigorous research is indicated to verify or refute these findings.