Citaat:
Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door patrickve
(Bericht 5410817)
|
Dat ziet er inderdaad al een stuk beter uit dan de quatsch die hier al dagenlang aan de lopende band geserveerd wordt, en het gaat al in de richting van een review die naam waardig (al vind ik de naam
Bandazjevsky niet terug. Hoe zou dat toch komen?)
Het zou interessant zijn als de wetenschappelijke wereld deze gegevens naast die van Yablokov zou willen leggen.
En dan bedoel ik door academici die noch met UNSCEAR noch met Yablokov & co. banden hebben.
Heel even bekeken met mijn lekenogen.
Ik zie nochtans vrij veel door u verguisde Slavische namen opduiken.
(Kunnen die nu plotseling wel betrouwbare studies maken? ;-))
Toch blijf ik met heel veel vragen zitten.
Ik citeer uit de laatste bladzijde van deze "review":
"412. The papers available for review by the Committee to date regarding the evaluation of health effects of the Chernobyl accident have in many instances suffered from methodological weaknesses that make them difficult to interpret..."
"416.
Increases of a number of non-specific detrimental health effects other than cancer in accident recovery workers have been reported, e.g. increased suicide rates and deaths due to violent causes. It is difficult to interpret these findings without reference to a known baseline or background incidence. The exposed populations undergomuch more intensive and active health follow-up than the general population. As a result, using the general population as a comparison group, as has been done so far in most studies, is inadequate."
"418.
Present knowledge of the late effects of protracted exposure to ionizing radiation is limited, since the doseresponse assessments rely heavily on high-dose exposure studies and animal experiments. The Chernobyl accident could, however, shed light on the late effects of protracted exposure, but given the low doses received by the majority of exposed individuals, albeitwith uncertainties in the dose estimates, any increase in cancer incidence or mortality will most certainly be difficult to detect in epidemiological studies. The main goal is to differentiate the effects of the
ionizing radiation and effects that arise from many other causes in exposed populations."
Het werk is maw nog lang niet afgerond, hoewel "men" dat voortdurend laat uitschijnen.
"420. The
future challenge is to provide reliable individual dose estimates 8O for the subjects enrolled in epidemiological studies and to evaluate the effects of doses accumulated over protracted time (days to weeks for thyroid exposures of children, minutes to months for bone-marrow exposures of emergency and recovery operation workers, and months to years for whole-body exposures of those living in contaminated areas). In doing this, many difficulties must be taken into consideration, such as (a) the role played by different radionuclides, especiallytheshort-livedradioiodines; (b) the accuracy of direct thyroid measurements; (c) the relationship between ground contamination and thyroiddoses; and (d) the reliability of the recorded or reconstructed doses for the emergency and recovery operation workers."
"421. Finally, it should be emphasized that although those exposed as children and the emergency and recovery operation workers are at increased risk of radiationinduced effects, the vast majority of the population need not live in fear of serious health consequences from the Chernobyl accident. For the most part, they were exposed to radiation levels comparable to or a few times higher than the natural background levels, and future exposures are diminishing as the deposited radionuclides decay. Lives have been disrupted by the Chernobyl accident, but from the radiological point of viewand based on the assessments of this Annex, generally positive prospects for the future health of most individuals should prevail."
Dat vind ik "een beetje te gemakkelijk".
Ik ben natuurlijk wel kritischer dan sommige andere mensen.
