The effects of ionizing radiation, microwaves, and ultrasound on the developing embryo: clinical interpretations and applications of the data.

Current problems in pediatrics · 1984 · Mixed · Low evidence

← Research stream

MixedLow evidencePaper 5914

Study snapshot

PublicationCurrent problems in pediatrics · 1984

Study typereview

Reported directionMixed

Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

The term "radiation" evokes emotional responses both from lay individuals and from professionals. Many spokespersons are unfamiliar with radiation biology or the quantitative nature of the risks. Frequently, microwave, ultrasound, and ionizing radiation risks are confused. Although it is impossible to prove no risk for any environmental hazard, it appears that exposure to microwave radiation below the maximal permissible levels present no measurable risk to the embryo. Ultrasound exposure from diagnostic ultrasonographic imaging equipment also is quite innocuous. It is true that continued surveillance and research into potential risks of these low-level exposures should continue, but at present ultrasound not only improves obstetric care but also reduces the necessity of diagnostic x-ray procedure. In the field of ionizing radiation, we have as good a comprehension of the biologic effects and the quantitative maximum risks as of any other environmental hazard. Although the animal and human data support the conclusion that no increases in the incidence of gross congenital malformations, intrauterine growth retardation, or abortion will occur with exposures below 5 rad, that does not mean that there are definitely no risks to the embryo exposed to lower doses of radiation. Whether there exists a linear or exponential dose-response relationship or a threshold exposure for genetic, carcinogenic, cell-depleting, and life-shortening effects has not been determined. In establishing maximum permissible levels for the embryo at low exposures, we use the information in Tables 2, 3, 4, 7, 10, and 14. It is obvious that the risks of 1-rad or 5-rad acute exposure are far below the spontaneous risks of the developing embryo, since 15% of human embryos abort, 2.7%-3.0% of human embryos have major malformations, 4% have intrauterine growth retardation, and 8%-10% have early- or late-onset genetic disease. The maximum risk attributed to a 1-rad exposure, approximately 0.003%, is thousands of times smaller than the spontaneous risks of malformations, abortion, or genetic disease (see Table 10). Thus, the present maximum permissible occupational exposures of 0.5 rem for pregnant women and 5 rem for medical exposure are extremely conservative. Medically indicated diagnostic roentgenograms are appropriate for pregnant women, and there is no medical justification for terminating a pregnancy in women exposed to 5 rad or less because of a radiation exposure.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typereview

Effect directionmixed

PopulationDeveloping embryo / pregnant women (clinical context)

Sample sizeNot supplied

Exposuremicrowave

Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

The review states that microwave radiation exposures below maximal permissible levels present no measurable risk to the embryo, and that diagnostic ultrasound exposure is described as quite innocuous. For ionizing radiation, animal and human data are described as supporting no increase in gross congenital malformations, intrauterine growth retardation, or abortion with exposures below 5 rad, while noting uncertainty about risks at lower doses and about the dose-response relationship for other endpoints.

Outcomes measured

Gross congenital malformations
Intrauterine growth retardation
Abortion
Genetic effects
Carcinogenic effects
Cell-depleting effects
Life-shortening effects

Limitations

Narrative review; methods for study identification/appraisal not described in the abstract
Quantitative exposure metrics for microwaves/ultrasound (e.g., frequency, SAR, duration) not provided in the abstract
Acknowledges uncertainty about low-dose ionizing radiation risks and dose-response form for several outcomes

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "review",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "microwave",
    "source": null,
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "Developing embryo / pregnant women (clinical context)",
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Gross congenital malformations",
    "Intrauterine growth retardation",
    "Abortion",
    "Genetic effects",
    "Carcinogenic effects",
    "Cell-depleting effects",
    "Life-shortening effects"
  ],
  "main_findings": "The review states that microwave radiation exposures below maximal permissible levels present no measurable risk to the embryo, and that diagnostic ultrasound exposure is described as quite innocuous. For ionizing radiation, animal and human data are described as supporting no increase in gross congenital malformations, intrauterine growth retardation, or abortion with exposures below 5 rad, while noting uncertainty about risks at lower doses and about the dose-response relationship for other endpoints.",
  "effect_direction": "mixed",
  "limitations": [
    "Narrative review; methods for study identification/appraisal not described in the abstract",
    "Quantitative exposure metrics for microwaves/ultrasound (e.g., frequency, SAR, duration) not provided in the abstract",
    "Acknowledges uncertainty about low-dose ionizing radiation risks and dose-response form for several outcomes"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "microwave radiation",
    "ultrasound",
    "ionizing radiation",
    "pregnancy",
    "embryo",
    "congenital malformations",
    "intrauterine growth retardation",
    "abortion",
    "occupational exposure limits",
    "diagnostic x-ray"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": []
}

AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: 10.1016/0045-9380(84)90030-6
PubMed: 6389017

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library