Comment on “Dose-responses from multi-model inference for the non-cancer disease mortality of atomic bomb survivors” (Radiat. Environ. Biophys (2012) 51:165–178) by Schöllnberger et al

• Published in: Radiation and environmental biophysics Vol. 52; no. 1; pp. 157 - 159
• Main Authors: Little, Mark P., Azizova, Tamara V., Bazyka, Dimitry, Bouffler, Simon D., Cardis, Elisabeth, Chekin, Sergey, Chumak, Vadim V., Cucinotta, Francis A., de Vathaire, Florent, Hall, Per, Harrison, John D., Hildebrandt, Guido, Ivanov, Victor, Kashcheev, Valeriy V., Klymenko, Sergiy V., Laurent, Olivier, Ozasa, Kotaro, Tapio, Soile, Taylor, Andrew M., Tzoulaki, Ioanna, Vandoolaeghe, Wendy L., Wakeford, Richard, Zablotska, Lydia, Zhang, Wei, Lipshultz, Steven E.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Berlin/Heidelberg Springer-Verlag 01-03-2013; Springer Nature B.V; Springer Verlag
• Subjects: Atomic bombs; Basal Ganglia Cerebrovascular Disease - mortality; Biological and Medical Physics; Biophysics; Cancer; Cardiovascular Diseases - mortality; Ecosystems; Effects of Radiation/Radiation Protection; Environmental Physics; Female; Health risks; Humans; Ionizing radiation; Letter to the Editor; Life Sciences; Male; Medicin och hälsovetenskap; Monitoring/Environmental Analysis; Mortality; Nuclear Weapons; Physics; Physics and Astronomy; Radiation Injuries - mortality; Risk factors; Atomic Bomb Survivor; Circulatory Disease; Bayesian Model Average; Ionise Radiation; Bayesian Technique; cardiovascular disease; note; Basal Ganglia Cerebrovascular Disease; Cardiovascular Diseases; Humans; Radiation Injuries; mortality; Nuclear Weapons; female; radiation injury; atomic bomb; human; male; basal ganglion hemorrhage
• ISSN: 0301-634X; 1432-2099; 1432-2099
• DOI: 10.1007/s00411-012-0453-6

Little et al offer commentary on Schollnberger et al's study which assessed the nature of the dose response for blood circulatory system diseases following exposure to ionizing radiation during the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They claim that Schollnberger et al effectively ignore the evidence that can be gleaned by comparison of radiation-induced circulatory disease risks in a number of different populations with moderate and low cumulative doses, exposed at a low-dose rate, as carried out elsewhere.