Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · World J Nucl Med 2025; 24(01): 031-035
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1791695
Original Article

Effect of Natural Ionizing Radiation on Health Indicators in Region with Monazite Sand in Brazil

José Ulisses Manzzini Calegaro 
1   Research and Innovation Department, Hospital de Base, Brasília, DF, Brazil
,
Luiz Augusto Casulari 
2   Health Sciences Post-Graduation, Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, DF, Brazil
,
Marcos Tadeu D'Azeredo Orlando 
3   Physics Department, Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo, Vitória, ES, Brazil
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective This article compares the occurrence of cancer and germinal damage in the city of Guarapari-Espírito Santo (ES), an area with high natural ionizing radiation, with other coastal cities.

Material and Methods The evaluated cities were: Guarapari (ES), Campos (Rio de Janeiro), Rio Grande (Rio Grande do Sul), and Ilhéus (Bahia); the following factors were considered: mortality rate % from tumors (2007–2017), mortality rate % from tumors up to 15 years of age (2007–2017), hospital morbidity rate % from tumors up to 15 years of age (2008–2018), and hospital morbidity rate % from congenital malformation and chromosomal anomalies (2008–2018). Radiometric surveys were conducted by the Applied Physics Group at Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo.

Results The natural radiation levels recorded in Guarapari resulted in accumulated dose between 3.65 and 10.95 mSv/year, and 1 mSv in the other cities. The highest average cancer mortality rates were: Rio Grande = 22.4%; Guarapari = 17.6%; Campos = 16.7%; and Ilhéus = 11.8%. The proportional hospital mortality and morbidity rates for cancer up to 15 years of age are as follows: Ilhéus = 3.36 and 5.87%; Rio Grande = 0.79 and 7.38%; Guarapari = 0.64 and 7.25%; and Campos = 0.39 and 9.13%. The hospital morbidity rate due to congenital malformations and chromosomal anomalies was 0.72% for Campos, 0.63% for Rio Grande, 0.62% for Guarapari, and 0.43% for Ilhéus.

Conclusion There was no increase in cases of cancer or germ damage in Guarapari. These results indicated a dose threshold in the induction of these damages, contradicting the current linear no-threshold theory.

Keywords

cancer - germinal damage - health indicators - monazite sand - natural ionizing radiation


Publication History

Article published online:
25 October 2024

© 2024. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Cox R, Muirhead CR, Statcher JW. et al. Risk of radiation induced cancer at low doses and low dose rates for radiation protection purposes. National Radiation Protection Board. Didcot 1995;6 N°1
  • 2 Muller HJ. Artificial transmutation of the gene. Science 1927; 66 (1699): 84-87
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Siegel JA, Pennington CW, Sacks B, Welsh JS. The birth of the illegitimate linear no-threshold model: an invalid paradigm for estimating risk following low-dose radiation exposure. Am J Clin Oncol 2018; 41 (02) 173-177
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Friedland DJ. Guia para avaliação da validade de um estudo. In: Friedand DJ. ed. Evidence Based Medicine: A Framework for Clinical Practice. Translation from original edition copyright 1998 by Azevedo MF. Rio de Janeiro: Guanabara Koogan; 229-267
  • 5 Roser FX, Cullen TL. Radiation levels in selected regions of Brazil. An Acad Bras Cienc 1962; 34: 23-35
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 6 Soares J, Orlando MTD, Gouvea SA. . Project Monazite sands Meaipe, Guarapari, ES. Blucher Material Science Proceedings. 2019. ISSN 2358-9337. doi: 10.5151/wcacem-05
  • 7 Comissão Nacional de Energia Nuclear - Diretrizes Básicas de Proteção Radiológica, CNEN-NN-3.01. Rio de Janeiro; 2005
  • 8 Penna-Franca E, Fiszman M, Lobão N, Trindade H, Costa-Ribeiro C, Santos PL. Radioactivity in the diet in high background areas of Brazil. Health Phys 1970; 19 (05) 657-662
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Orlando MTD, Cavichini AS, Passos CAC, Orlando CGP, Passamani JL, Santos MA. Correlation between breast cancer and radiation level of Guarapari City-ES-Brazil. Blucher Proc Mat Sci 2019; 1 (03) 1-2
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 10 Calegaro JUM. Efeitos biológicos de baixos níveis da radiação ionizante. Blucher Proc Mat Sci 2019; 1 (03) 12-21
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 11 Matanoski GM, Tonascia JA, Correa-Villaseñor A. et al. Cancer risks and low-level radiation in U.S. shipyard workers. J Radiat Res 2008; 49 (01) 83-91
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Nair MK, Nambi KSV, Amma NS. et al. Population study in the high natural background radiation area in Kerala, India. Radiat Res 1999; 152 (6, Suppl): S145-S148
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Nair RR, Rajan B, Akiba S. et al. Background radiation and cancer incidence in Kerala, India-Karanagappally cohort study. Health Phys 2009; 96 (01) 55-66
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Tao Z, Cha Y, Sun Q. Cancer mortality in high background radiation area of Yangjiang, China, 1979–1995 [in Chinese]. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi 1999; 79 (07) 487-492
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Tao Z, Akiba S, Zha Y. et al. Cancer and non-cancer mortality among Inhabitants in the high background radiation area of Yangjiang, China (1979–1998). Health Phys 2012; 102 (02) 173-181
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Calabrese EJ. Muller's Nobel lecture on dose-response for ionizing radiation: ideology or science?. Arch Toxicol 2011; 85 (12) 1495-1498
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Calabrese EJ. Muller's Nobel prize research and peer review. Philos Ethics Humanit Med 2018; 13 (01) 15
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 UNSCEAR. Biological mechanism of radiation actions at low doses. United Nations publication, V.12–57831, Austria; 2012
  • 19 Calegaro JUM. Baixos níveis de radiação ionizante causam câncer?. Radiol Bras 2007; 40: IX-X
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Marcus CS. Time to reject the linear no-threshold hypothesis and accept threshold and hormesis. A petition to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Clin Nucl Med 2015; 40 (07) 617-619
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Feinendegen LE, Cuttler JM. Biological effects form low doses and dose rates of ionizing radiation> science in the service of protecting humans, a synopsis. Health Phys 2018; 114 (06) 623-626
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Doss M. Are we approaching the end of the linear no-threshold era?. J Nucl Med 2018; 59 (12) 1786-1793
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Britton KE. The J-shaped response to radiation. World J Nucl Med 2004; 3: 115-118
    Search in Google Scholar