Re: IMPORTANT NEWS ITEM

["D. Kosloff" <dkosloff@ncweb.com>]

1.  Kerala.

2.   Using the link to the BBC story will take you to a page with the quoted
story.  On the right side of that page are "Internet links" in red, the
second link is to the "New Solutions Journal",  the description of the
publication leaves no douubt as to what its published research will show, no
objective scientists need apply.  It bills itself as a "progressive"
publication.  The word "progressive", as used by lefties in the US is a code
word for hard-core socialist or communist.  It's a nice, fuzzy, warm,
feel-good word to the general population, so it doesn't scare them away, yet
the left wingers can immediately tell who is on their side.  Much more
effective then using "death to all capitalist pigs" or "eat the rich".

Don Kosloff mailto:dkosloff@ncweb.com
2910 Main St, Perry, OH 44081

----- Original Message -----
From: Aaron Oakley <aoakley@receptor.pharm.uwa.edu.au>
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2000 1:24 AM
Subject: IMPORTANT NEWS ITEM


> Your comments please:
>
> NEWS item found at BBS:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/health/newsid_630000/630950.stm
>
>
> The risk to workers at nuclear plants has been under-estimated because
> scientists have used the wrong measures, it is claimed.
> Researchers say a reliance on studies into survivors of the A-bombs
> dropped on Japan at the end of the Second World War do not give an
> accurate picture of the effect on nuclear power workers.
>
> Scientists from the University of North Carolina claim radiation safety
> levels are set too low and would be higher if other studies were taken
> into account.
>
> But the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) in the UK disputed
> the claims that only A-bomb studies were used when setting radiation
> safety standards.
>
> Dr Steven Wing, at the university's school of public health, said there
> was an "outdated emphasis" on A-bomb survivors.
>
> He called for lessons learnt from nuclear workers to be taken more
> seriously and claimed people were being exposed to greater cancer risks
> than was generally accepted.
>
> 'Undue influence'
>
> Military and industrial interests had an undue influence on research, he
> said, and it was difficult to obtain data and funding to carry out
> studies.
>
> He said in scientific journal New Solutions: "As researchers and
> policy-makers come to appreciate the unique advantages of studies of
> nuclear workers, these studies should make a greater impact on
> occupational and environmental exposure standards."
>
> But the NRPB said a range of studies, including those carried out on
> A-bomb survivors, nuclear workers and people affected by the Chernobyl
> nuclear accident, were all taken into account by international committees
> setting radiation exposure standards.
>
> And the board challenged the idea that standards would be set at different
> levels if studies of nuclear workers were given precedence.
>
> A spokeswoman said: "Estimates of radiation exposure are made on the basis
> of the totality of relevant knowledge and should not rely on individual
> studies.
>
> "However, large studies of UK nuclear workers give risks that are
> consistent with other data."
>
>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html