Table 1.

Selected studies of irradiated populations, numbers of biodosimetry measurements conducted (translocation analysis using fluorescent in-situ hybridization (FISH) or electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) with tooth enamel) and related information.

Study	No. of subjects	Exposure conditions	Type of biodosimetric measurement and number of measurements	Fraction of population (%) with biodosimetry measurements	Comments
Sellafield Nuclear Workers (UK)
Tucker et al. (1997)	10,000 workers employed prior to 1976	Chronic, low-dose. Badge dosimetry available; average effective dose=130mSv	N=81 (23 with doses <50mSv and 55 w/doses >500mSv; 3 w/doses >5 and <500 mSv	~1	FISH was associated with radiation dose.
Chernobyl Cleanup workers (Russia)
Jones et al. (2002)	>100,000	Chronic, low-dose with registered & self-reported doses	FISH=451	~0.5	Translocation frequencies were elevated by 30% in workers, and associated with radiation exposure.
A-bomb survivors (Japan)
Kodama et al (2001)	Adult Health Study=20,000	Acute	FISH=3042 EPR=100 teeth	~16	EPR signal well correlated with chromosome aberration frequency. A highly significant and non-linear dose-response was observed for translocations with both the DS86 doses. N.B. The shape of the dose-response for cancer risk was unchanged with the DS02 doses.
X-ray Technologists (U.S.)
Bhatti et al. (2007)	3,441 workers prior to 1950	Chronic, low-dose	FISH=152	~4.4	Translocations per 100 cell equivalents (CE): mean=1.4, S.D. ± 0.8. Red bone marrow dose: mean=1.9, S.D. ± 1.4, 0.09 excess translocations per 100 CE per Gy
Semipalatinsk Nuclear Test Site (Kazakhstan)
Salomaa et al. (2002)	611residents(contaminated and control regions)	Protracted, internal	FISH=99	~16	Translocation frequencies did not differ between exposed and controls. Previously reported doses on the order of 1–4.5 Gy were not confirmed.
Sholom et al. (2007)	8 villages + 1 city	Non-uniform dose distribution	EPR=102	Few %	High variability in dose estimated from teeth in same village, whereas there was less than a 2-fold difference in dose between villages basedon EPR. Model-based dose reconstruction of external doses were several times greater than village average EPR doses.
Mayak Nuclear workers (Russia)
Wieser et al. (2006)	19,000 workers employed <1973	Protracted, internal and external	EPR=44	~0.2	EPR doses were less than available film badge doses. used prior to 1954; doses were agreement with film badges after 1960. Discrepancies in dose estimated from EPR and film badges was attributed to bias in film badge evaluations.
Bauchinger et al. (2001)	10,000 workers employed <1959	Protracted, internal and external	FISH=69	~0.7	Doses estimated from translocations were lower than doses predicted from calibration curves. Inter-individual variation of translocations was high.The usefulness of Fish as a biodosimeter was limited to <10 years after high-level protracted exposure.
Techa River Residents (Russia)
Romanyukha et al. (2001)	29,800 residents born <1950	Protracted, internal & external	EPR=32	~0.1	High, absorbed doses in subjects born 1945-49, attributed to high local stronium-90 concentration in enamel.