[ RadSafe ] " German doctor takes anti-nuclear message to western Canada "

[Robert J. Gunter]

The voice of reason?  It does seem unlikely the problem was caused by
radiation dose (since it was carefully monitored), however, if a similar
study around other industrial sites was done, would we get the same result??
I can think of any number of possible variables including security zones
(Doesn't each plant have one), or cooling towers, or electrical turbines,
etc, etc.

" I think this is an open case which simply requires more investigations.

Pb"

Robert J. Gunter, CHP
CHP Consultants
rjgunter at chpconsultants.com
www.chpconsultants.com
www.chpdosimetry.com
Tel:  +(865) 387-0028
Fax:  +(865) 483-7189



-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf
Of Peter Bossew
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 4:27 AM
To: radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] " German doctor takes anti-nuclear message to
western Canada "

The state of the discussion, in the perspective of the BfS, can be found 
here (most documents in German)(BfS=Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz = 
German Federal Radioprotection Agency):

http://www.bfs.de/en/kerntechnik/kinderkrebs/Stellungnahme_SSK  (German)
statement of the external panel (short): 
http://www.bfs.de/en/kerntechnik/kinderkrebs/Expertengremium.html
background information about the KiKK study: 
http://www.bfs.de/en/kerntechnik/kinderkrebs/kikk.html

Put shortly, external review of the study (not yet available in detail) 
has confirmed that the study design is correct (This has been a main 
point of criticism: e.g., some comments have suggested that the observed 
effect results from the design. An interesting contribution can be found 
in the last or 2nd last issue of Strahlenschutzpraxis (maybe somebody 
can find the exact quotation), which suggests that the result may be 
statistical artefact, without detailling the argument, unfortunately. 
Another critical comment is by Brauns & Hippler, Strahlenschutzpraxis 
3/2008, p. 40.), that the input data are correct and that they have been 
analysed properly, and that the result is robust.

The authors of the original study as well as the reviewers agree that to 
the state of knowledge the effect is unlikely caused by radiation, but 
it can also not be excluded. 
Also an article in Atomwirtschaft (Grosche et al., atw 53 (3): 174-178 
(2008)) - a journal which is certainly not known for anti-nuclear bias - 
confirms the seriosity of the KiKK study and its results.

I think this is an open case which simply requires more investigations.

pb




-- 


-----------------------------------------------------
Peter Bossew 

European Commission (EC) 
Joint Research Centre (JRC) 
Institute for Environment and Sustainability (IES) 

TP 441, Via Fermi 1 
21020 Ispra (VA) 
ITALY 
  
Tel. +39 0332 78 9109 
Fax. +39 0332 78 5466 
Email: peter.bossew at jrc.it 

http://rem.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
  
"The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may not in any
circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European
Commission."


_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/