Low dose ionising radiation and cancer: [findings and methods. Report of a meeting and consequences for Switzerland]

Abstract

Today's society is concerned about the dangers of ionising radiation, especially in the aftermath of Chernobyl. On the other hand, there exists a widespread lack of understanding radiation biology and radioepidemiology--the very sciences which provide the data from which today's risk estimates have been derived. The papers in this issue of the Journal were presented at a workshop on "Low level radiation and cancer: data and methods" held on 10th-11th December in Feuisberg, near Zurich. The meeting was organised by the Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine of the University of Zurich under the auspices of the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health. Its aims were threefold. First, to give an introduction to some basic facts and methodological issues in radiation physics, biology and epidemiology. Secondly, to give an overview of the availability of data for radioepidemiological research in Switzerland and, thirdly, to evaluate possible research strategies in this country. A list of some notions and units commonly used in the radiation sciences serves an an introduction to the field (G. Schüler et al.). In using units and notions it is important to distinguish the description of biological experiments and epidemiological observations from definitions and risk projections proposed by international reports and consensus bodies for radioprotection purposes. The next papers deal more specifically with selected aspects of the basic sciences. Dosimetry means quantifying the physical effects of ionizing radiation in human tissue; this is not a straight-forward procedure (I. Cordt). The foundations of general radiation biology are succinctly summarised by C. Michel. An account of our present knowledge and theories of radiation carcinogenesis is provided by W. Burkart. W Lutz compares dose-response models of chemical carcinogenesis with those used in radiation carcinogenesis. During the last decade the epidemiological foundations of radioprotection have changed considerably. Longer follow-up studies have become available from the atomic bomb survivors and fro other cohorts. A new dosimetry system (DS 86) has been introduced for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Exposure to domestic radon has become a major focus of interest. Not only the data, but also the methods of analysis and modeling of risks have evolved, as shown by the recent reports of national and international scientific committees.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)