Better yet : http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/rapidpdf/bmj.38499.599861.E0v1.pdf
The paper uses - in part - the same Canadian
ARW data set that was cited in this report : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15161357&query_hl=1
Analysis of mortality among Canadian nuclear power
industry workers after chronic low-dose exposure to ionizing radiation,
in Radiat Res. 2004 Jun;161(6):633-41.
by Zablotska LB, Ashmore JP, Howe
GR.
.....whose findings have been summarised
by others in the graph (image) I posted at http://www.cns-snc.ca/branches/quebec/reactions/CFCF_vanderHeyden_2005_May_16.html
....it comes from a Hydro-Quebec presentation
(in French) to the public hearings of Quebec's BAPE ("Bureau d'audiences
publiques sur l'environnement"), posted at http://www.bape.gouv.qc.ca/sections/mandats/gentilly-2/documents/DA17.pdf
.....obviously, the cancer risk for Canadian
ARWs is low, below the 1.0 reference for the entire population, but
presumably it will catch up, as the group ages.
Having done the age-adjustments, etc., the new
international study came up with their results, illustrated in the graph below -
in which the Canadian cohort appears to skew the overall results in a noticeable
way :
Comments welcome ! (I notice that BH is
one of the co-authors)
Jaro
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
-----Original Message-----
From:
cdn-nucl-l-admin@mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA
[mailto:cdn-nucl-l-admin@mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA]On
Behalf Of
Muckerheide, James
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 4:49 PM
To: Dukelow, James S Jr;
cdn-nucl-l@mailman1.cis.mcmaster.ca
Subject: RE: [cdn-nucl-l] Low level radiation and cancer:
BAD NEWS
"Online First" - in the left column.
Does anyone know if your responsible organization (or
others) will undertake
a credible review of this?
Regards, Jim Muckerheide
________________________________
From: cdn-nucl-l-admin@mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA on behalf
of Dukelow, James S
Jr
Sent: Wed 6/29/2005 4:44 PM
To: Andrew Daley; Cdn-Nucl-LISTSERV (E-mail)
Subject: RE: [cdn-nucl-l] Low level radiation and cancer:
BAD NEWS
For the "international" study, go to www.bmj.org and click on Online
Publication (or words to that effect).
Best regards.
Jim Dukelow
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Richland, WA
jim.dukelow@pnl.gov
-----Original Message-----
From:
cdn-nucl-l-admin@mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA
[mailto:cdn-nucl-l-admin@mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA] On
Behalf Of Andrew Daley
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 1:29 PM
To: Cdn-Nucl-LISTSERV (E-mail)
Subject: [cdn-nucl-l] Low level radiation and cancer: BAD
NEWS
Anybody have a link to the French study? Jerry can you
comment on the
validity of this study??
Low-dose radiation poses small cancer risk:
report
Last Updated Wed, 29 Jun 2005 15:39:56 EDT
There is likely no such thing as a safe level of exposure
to radiation,
although cancer is rarely induced by low doses, a panel of
U.S. scientists
said Wednesday.
"The scientific research base shows that there is no
threshold of exposure
below which low levels of ionized radiation can be
demonstrated to be
harmless or beneficial," said Richard Monson, the panel's
chair and a
professor of epidemiology at Harvard's School of Public
Health.
"The health risks - particularly the development of solid
cancers in organs -
rise proportionally with exposure."
The panel's report addresses amounts of radiation from
medical treatments
such as full-body CT scans. The findings are expected to
affect government
safety recommendations in the U.S.
A low dose of 100 millisieverts of radiation - the
equivalent of 10 chest
X-rays - is expected to cause solid cancer or leukemia in
one out of 100
people over a lifetime, the report said. About half of
those cases could be
fatal.
The panel's report updates research based largely on
survivors of the 1945
atomic bomb attacks in Japan.
While medical radiation is often appropriate, "exposure to
any unnecessary
radiation should be avoided," Monson told a news
conference. "And what is
unnecessary is up to an individual."
Natural sources of radiation such as gamma rays from space
and radon in the
environment account for about 82 per cent of our exposure,
the report said.
More research is needed on those who receive frequent
doses such as full-body
CT scans, and on children who get X-rays or radiation
treatment for cancer,
the panel said.
Research on more than 400,000 nuclear industry workers
found they had a 10
per cent higher risk of death from cancer, according to a
related report
released Wednesday by the International Agency for
Research on Cancer in
France.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection
around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
cdn-nucl-l mailing list
cdn-nucl-l@mailman.McMaster.CA