La Hague1

[xat@inel.gov (Alden Tschaeche)]

My appologies if you get this twice.  My computer did something nuts and
I am not sure the first one got transmitted.

I just read the paper by Pobel and Viel: "Case-control study of
leukaemia among young people near La Hague nuclear reprocessing plant:
the environmantal hypothesis revisited."  From what I read, I sure can't
agree with their conclusions that "There is some convincing evidence in
childhood leukaemia of a causal role for environmental radiation
exposure from recreational activities on beaches."  It is not clear that
all confounding variables have been considered; particularly, no data
are given for medical doses to the parents although the statement is
made: "Specific data about antenatal exposures(x rays, viral infections,
drug treatments during pregnancy with the index child) were collected. 
The paper contains no information about what the authors did with that
data.  

But the really disturbing thing is another statement they make:
"Finally, for radiation exposures from external sources in the
environment, the absorbed dose to body organs increases with decreasing
body size, as with children.(18)"  The reference is to: Committee on an
Assessment of CDC Radiation Studies, Board on Radiation Effects
Research, Commission on Life Sciences, National Research Council. 
Radiation dose reconstruction for epidemiologic used.  Washington DC:
National Academy Press, 1995.

I always thought that dose is energy per unit mass and that a rem from
external dose to a baby is the same as a rem external dose to an adult. 
Is that not so?  Maybe something got lost in translation.  I cannot
believe that the National Research Council would not have the correct
concept.  Comments?  Al Tschaeche xat@inel.gov (for four more days)