Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T10:28:34.480Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Chornobyl accident and cognitive functioning: a follow-up study of infant evacuees at age 19 years

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2008

D. P. Taormina ,
S. Rozenblatt ,
L. T. Guey ,
S. F. Gluzman ,
G. A. Carlson ,
J. M. Havenaar ,
V. Zakhozha ,
R. Kotov  and
E. J. Bromet
D. P. Taormina
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY, USA
S. Rozenblatt
Affiliation:
Advanced Psychological Assessment, P.C., Smithtown, NY, USA
L. T. Guey
Affiliation:
Spanish National Cancer Research Center, Madrid, Spain
S. F. Gluzman
Affiliation:
Ukrainian Psychiatric Association, Kiev, Ukraine
G. A. Carlson
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY, USA
J. M. Havenaar
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Vrije Universiteit Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
V. Zakhozha
Affiliation:
Kiev International Institute of Sociology, Kiev, Ukraine
R. Kotov
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY, USA
E. J. Bromet*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY, USA
*
*Address for correspondence: E. J. Bromet, Ph.D., Department of Psychiatry, Putnam Hall – South Campus, Stony Brook, NY 11794-8790, USA. (Email: evelyn.bromet@stonybrook.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

The cognitive and academic outcomes of infants exposed to radiation after the meltdown at Chornobyl have been intensely debated. Western-based investigations indicate that no adverse effects occurred, but local studies reported increased cognitive impairments in exposed compared with non-exposed children. Our initial study found that at age 11 years, school grades and neuropsychological performance were similar in 300 children evacuated to Kiev as infants or in utero compared with 300 classmate controls, yet more evacuee mothers believed that their children had memory problems. This study re-examined the children's performance and academic achievement at age 19 years.

Method

In 2005–2006, we conducted an 8-year follow-up of the evacuees (n=265) and classmate controls (n=261) assessed in Kiev in 1997. Outcomes included university attendance, tests of intelligence, attention, and memory, and subjective appraisals of memory problems. Scores were standardized using a local population-based control group (n=327). Analyses were stratified by parental education.

Results

Evacuees and classmates performed similarly and in the normal range on all tests, and no differential temporal changes were found. The results were comparable for the in utero subsample. The rates of university attendance and self-reported memory problems were also similar. Nevertheless, the evacuee mothers were almost three times as likely to report that their children had memory problems compared with controls.

Conclusions

Chornobyl did not influence the cognitive functioning of exposed infants although more evacuee mothers still believed that their offspring had memory problems. These lingering worries reflect a wider picture of persistent health concerns as a consequence of the accident.

Keywords

ChornobyldisasterneuropsychologyradiationUkraineyoung adults
Type
Original Articles
Information
Psychological Medicine , Volume 38 , Issue 4 , April 2008 , pp. 489 - 497
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bar Joseph, N, Reisfeld, D, Tirosh, E, Silman, Z, Rennert, G (2004). Neurobehavioral and cognitive performances of children exposed to low-dose radiation in the Chernobyl accident: The Israeli Chernobyl Health Effects Study. American Journal of Epidemiology 160, 453–459.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bard, D, Verger, P, Hubert, P (1997). Chernobyl, 10 years after: health consequences. Epidemiologic Reviews 19, 187–204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Benton, AL (1974). The Revised Visual Retention Test, 4th edn. Psychological Corporation: New York.Google Scholar
Brandt, J (1991). The Hopkins Verbal Learning Test: development of a memory test with six equivalent forms. Clinical Neuropsychology 5, 125–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bromet, EJ, Goldgaber, D, Carlson, G, Panina, N, Golovakha, E, Gluzman, SF, Gilbert, T, Gluzman, D, Lyubsky, S, Schwartz, JE (2000). Children's well-being 11 years after the Chornobyl catastrophe. Archives of General Psychiatry 57, 563–571.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chernobyl, Forum (2006). Chernobyl Forum 2003–2005. International Atomic Energy Agency: Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
De Leo, M (2004). Chernobyl Heart (www.chernobylheart.com). Accessed 2 July 2007.Google Scholar
Filimonenko, Y, Timofeev, V (1995). Manual for the Russian Version of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, adapted in 1995. Imaton: Saint Petersburg.Google Scholar
Igumnov, S, Drozdovitch, V (2000). The intellectual development, mental and behavioral disorders in children from Belarus exposed in utero following the Chernobyl accident. European Psychiatry 15, 244–253.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Imamura, Y, Nakane, Y, Ohta, Y, Kondo, H (1999). Lifetime prevalence of schizophrenia among individuals prenatally exposed to atomic bomb radiation in Nagasaki City. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 100, 344–349.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kessler, RC, Üstün, TB (2004). The World Mental Health (WMH) Survey Initiative version of the World Health Organization (WHO) Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI). International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research 13, 93–121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kolominsky, Y, Igumnov, S, Drozdovitch, V (1999). The psychological development of children from Belarus exposed in the prenatal period to radiation from the Chernobyl atomic power plant. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 40, 299–305.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lezak, MD (1995). Neuropsychological Assessment, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press: New York.Google Scholar
Litcher, L, Bromet, EJ, Carlson, G, Squires, N, Goldgaber, D, Panina, N, Golovakha, E, Gluzman, S (2000). School and neuropsychological performance of evacuated children in Kiev eleven years after the Chernobyl disaster. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 41, 291–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Little, RC, Milliken, GA, Stroup, WW, Wolfinger, RD (1996). SAS System for Mixed Models. SAS Institute: Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Miller, GA, Chapman, JP (2001). Misunderstanding analysis of covariance. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 110, 40–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nyagu, AI, Loganovsky, KN, Loganovskaja, TK (1998). Psychophysiologic aftereffects of prenatal irradiation. International Journal of Psychophysiology 30, 303–311.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Otake, M, Schull, WJ (1984). In utero exposure to A-bomb radiation and mental retardation: a reassessment. British Journal of Radiology 57, 409–414.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reitan, R (1958). Validity of the Trail-Making Test as an indicator of organic brain disease. Perceptual Motor Skills 8, 271–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowe, DC, Jacobson, KC, Van den Oord, EJCG (1999). Genetic and environmental influences on vocabulary IQ: parental education level as moderator. Child Development 70, 1151–1162.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Russia Longitudinal Monitoring Survey (2005). UNC Carolina Population Center (http://www.cpc.unc.edu/rlms/). Accessed January 2005.Google Scholar
SAS Publishing (2004). SAS 9.1 User's Guide. SAS Institute: Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Schull, WJ, Otake, M (1999). Cognitive function and prenatal exposure to ionizing radiation. Teratology 59, 222–226.3.0.CO;2-M>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Slovic, P (1991). Perception of risk from radiation. In The Medical Basis for Radiation Preparedness III: The Psychological Perspective (ed. Ricks, R., Berger, M. E. and O'Hara, R. M.), pp. 211–227. Elsevier: New York.Google Scholar
Trenerry, MR, Crosson, B, DeBoe, J, Leber, WR (1990). Visual Search and Attention Test. Psychological Assessment Resources: Odessa, FL.Google Scholar
Tversky, A, Kahneman, D (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185, 1124–1130.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wechsler, D (1981). Manual for the WAIS-R. Psychological Corporation: New York.Google Scholar
WHO (1995). Health Consequences of the Chernobyl Accident. Results of the IPHECA Pilot Projects and Related National Programmes. World Health Organization: Geneva.Google Scholar