Uploaded March 2015 | Updated September 2026, 1 week ago
Spycher et al (2015). Background ionizing radiation and the risk of childhood cancer: a census-based nationwide cohort study, Environ Health Perspect, DOI:10.1289/ehp.1408548. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4455589
University of Bern news report: http://www.ispm.unibe.ch/about_us/news/background_ionising_radiation_affects_cancer_risk_in_children/index_eng.html
Kendall et al (2013). A record-based case-control study of natural background radiation and the incidence of childhood leukaemia and other cancers in Great Britain during 1980–2006. Leukemia. 27(1): 3–9. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/artic... And as a 130-page report, free online: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads...
Two slide presentations by a co-author of Kendall (2013) that give a good sense of the context of research in which Kendall (2013) occurs and its unique features: (1) http://www.melodi-online.eu/doc/04_wa... (2) http://www.melodi-online.eu/doc/melod...
@ 6:24 Table E11 in Kendall (2013): https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads...
@ 6:28 Table S3 in Spycher (2015): http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/u...
@ 7:29 Chernobyl exclusion zones, dose-rate criteria for: http://sti.srs.gov/fulltext/SRNL-STI-...
@ 7:29 The dose range in Spycher et al is given on page 11: http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/u... as 55-383 nSv/h, converting nano- to micro-sieverts is 0.055 - 0.383 µSv/h (as @ https://www.unitjuggler.com/convert-e... ), and rounding is 0.06 - 0.4 µSv/h as @ 7:29.
Previously I critiqued two examples of advocacy against exclusion-zone policy, first by the nuclear-energy advocate Jim Al Khalili : youtu.be/P-4YJfwF1MQ And also by a team of professors from MIT who designed a lab experiment that, based on what prior research had shown, guaranteed the results they wanted, which they then used to try to persuade the public that evacuation zones are unnecessary : youtu.be/e8YFe6Q08M8 Be sure to also the see the video description for links. It's a not-uncommon sentiment that the Fukushima evacuations have caused more suffering than they will prevent, hence evacuations ought not take place. This is noted since some unfamiliar with post-Fukushima nuclear advocacy are astonished as they should be to hear anyone suggesting people should just be left to live in the next nuclear-disaster zone.
Review of previous background-radiation research: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads... And in greater depth from page 88: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads...
.
Spycher et al (2015). Background ionizing radiation and the risk of childhood cancer: a census-based nationwide cohort study, Environ Health Perspect, DOI:10.1289/ehp.1408548. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4455589
University of Bern news report: http://www.ispm.unibe.ch/about_us/news/background_ionising_radiation_affects_cancer_risk_in_children/index_eng.html
Kendall et al (2013). A record-based case-control study of natural background radiation and the incidence of childhood leukaemia and other cancers in Great Britain during 1980–2006. Leukemia. 27(1): 3–9. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/artic... And as a 130-page report, free online: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads...
Two slide presentations by a co-author of Kendall (2013) that give a good sense of the context of research in which Kendall (2013) occurs and its unique features: (1) http://www.melodi-online.eu/doc/04_wa... (2) http://www.melodi-online.eu/doc/melod...
@ 6:24 Table E11 in Kendall (2013): https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads...
@ 6:28 Table S3 in Spycher (2015): http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/u...
@ 7:29 Chernobyl exclusion zones, dose-rate criteria for: http://sti.srs.gov/fulltext/SRNL-STI-...
@ 7:29 The dose range in Spycher et al is given on page 11: http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/u... as 55-383 nSv/h, converting nano- to micro-sieverts is 0.055 - 0.383 µSv/h (as @ https://www.unitjuggler.com/convert-e... ), and rounding is 0.06 - 0.4 µSv/h as @ 7:29.
Previously I critiqued two examples of advocacy against exclusion-zone policy, first by the nuclear-energy advocate Jim Al Khalili : youtu.be/P-4YJfwF1MQ And also by a team of professors from MIT who designed a lab experiment that, based on what prior research had shown, guaranteed the results they wanted, which they then used to try to persuade the public that evacuation zones are unnecessary : youtu.be/e8YFe6Q08M8 Be sure to also the see the video description for links. It's a not-uncommon sentiment that the Fukushima evacuations have caused more suffering than they will prevent, hence evacuations ought not take place. This is noted since some unfamiliar with post-Fukushima nuclear advocacy are astonished as they should be to hear anyone suggesting people should just be left to live in the next nuclear-disaster zone.
Review of previous background-radiation research: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads... And in greater depth from page 88: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads...
.
