[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

LNT, NCRP, UNSCEAR

A N Tschaeche wrote:

"We spend too much to
avoid a hypothetical calculated cancer or genetic effect. The money
would be better spent elsewhere to prevent real injuries. [Charlie's
answer: "See UNSCEAR 93 & 94."] (Note that I didn't ask a question here,
only made a statement.)

Can the two organizations develop a more realistic basis for radiation
protection standards'? (Charlie didn't answer this question at all.)
Sincerely,
A N Tschaeche, CHP"

And a while back, Sandy wrote:

"There have been many studies of nuclear power workers to determine 
any correlation with dose and medical health. Those studies 
determined to be credible and non-biased have all concluded that 
there has been no statistical correlation to disease when compared to 
control groups who were not exposed to ionizing radiation."


There is some discussion in UNSCEAR 1994 about a study of nuclear workers in the UK which seems to contradict the
above statement.  Here's a short quote from the introduction (paragraph 17):

"The most comprehensive occupational study to date involves nuclear workers in the United Kingdom.  This study reports
a significant excess risk for leukemia and a positive, but non-significant excess for all cancers as a group."

Significant additional detail is provided in Annex A, paragraphs 221-232.  Paragraph 232 notes that formal combined
analyses of updated mortality data from Sellafield, the Atomic Energy Authority and the Atomic Weapons Establishment in the UK have recently been completed, but were not available for review prior to publication.

I would be interested in hearing what people have to say about the credibility of the UK studies and whether anyone knows if the updated analyses confirm the initial findings or not.


Regards,

John R. Laferriere, CHP
DuPont Pharmaceuticals Co.
Medical Imaging Division
john.r.laferriere@dupontpharma.com
(978) 671-8316   fax (978) 671-8149