More info on Radiation and People - Southern Urals

Messages about other areas of TRIUS expertise (Energy, Radiation Safety, Risk,..) and Technology, in general...
Post Reply
User avatar
EdMack
New User
New User
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2011 2:14 pm

More info on Radiation and People - Southern Urals

Post by EdMack » Thu Feb 21, 2013 4:31 am

Very interesting reading!
Attachments
The_Southern_Urals_Study.pdf
The Southern Urals radiation studies - A reappraisal of the current status
(202.49 KiB) Downloaded 191 times

User avatar
EdMack
New User
New User
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2011 2:14 pm

Re: More info on Radiation and People - Southern Urals

Post by EdMack » Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:19 am

I see that a bunch of people have downloaded this file, which is great. But, doesn't anyone have enough interest to discuss the information in it? I have been visiting this forum for a while and I see that users post a lot of interesting documents, but I see very little discussion on these documents. This is a rare thing, on most of the other forums I frequent, users spend a lot of time discussing the documents that are being posted.

Was just wondering why this is so different!

User avatar
NALarsen
Casual User
Casual User
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2011 3:29 pm

Re: More info on Radiation and People - Southern Urals

Post by NALarsen » Mon Feb 25, 2013 5:34 pm

Well, I think what happens is that there are so many different forums where interested parties can get together and discuss whatever subject interests them, that it's hard to start doing it on yet one more. Having said that, I wouldn't mind discussing some of the nuclear issues with the users here, because it appears that we have a very interesting batch of people.

In particular to this document that you posted, regarding the radiation exposure at the Urals, it is indeed a very interesting read, as you say, but some of the conclusions simply say that the Techra results may need to be re-evaluated to account for early g-ray exposures that may not have been correctly accounted for. The results appear to be based on older meetings and data (10+ years ago). Given the importance such findings may have in influencing current health effects models, I wonder if there have been any newer results, reports, analyses that may have shed light on those early uncertainties.

Are you (or anyone else here) aware of any such newer studies?

User avatar
EdMack
New User
New User
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2011 2:14 pm

Re: More info on Radiation and People - Southern Urals

Post by EdMack » Mon Feb 25, 2013 6:01 pm

NALarsen wrote:Are you (or anyone else here) aware of any such newer studies?
There are probably many more studies available, but will this do? It's the final European report on the subject (2012).
Attachments
SOUL-Southern-Urals-Radiation-Rrisk-Research-Final-2012.pdf
(612.9 KiB) Downloaded 185 times

User avatar
NALarsen
Casual User
Casual User
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2011 3:29 pm

Re: More info on Radiation and People - Southern Urals

Post by NALarsen » Wed Feb 27, 2013 1:19 pm

Thanks, EdMack. I just downloaded a copy and will take a look. BTW, I also found another document on the subject (see below), in case thee is still interest in the subject.
Attachments
Effect-of-Techa-River-Radiation.pdf
Effects of Techa River Radiation Contamination on the Reproductive Function of Residents, 2006
(938.22 KiB) Downloaded 163 times

User avatar
Phil_Jion
New User
New User
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2013 3:55 pm

Re: More info on Radiation and People - Southern Urals

Post by Phil_Jion » Wed Apr 10, 2013 3:59 pm

NALarsen wrote:...it is indeed a very interesting read, as you say, but some of the conclusions simply say that the Techra results may need to be re-evaluated to account for early g-ray exposures that may not have been correctly accounted for.
At time I wonder if this is a "stock" response by researchers, in order to make sure they have job security.

"...Well, these are our conclusions, but we need to re-evaluate all the analysis, just in case. It will take another 10 man-years, but it is really worth it. And then, we may have to re-evaluate them again..."

Just saying :-)

Post Reply