[en] This is a report about a meeting of the international Radiation Education Forum in Budapest on August 20-25, 2002. The Forum, with an international membership, has been active since 1999 in dealing, among other things, with problems connected with the way in which the topic of radioactivity is handled by the media and the public. (orig.)

[en] Short communication

No abstract available

[en] Published in summary form only

[en] The evaluation of potential health risks resulting from radiation exposures in the range of less than approx. 100 mSv is of major importance also for a broader acceptance of nuclear power. As a consequence of new draft reports and recommendations by renowned institutions, a fundamental debate has arisen about a necessary paradigm shift away from the linear dose-response hypothesis without any threshold level, and the so-called collective dose derived from it, in favor of a more meaningful radiobiological concept. Important insights can be gained from basic differences in the biological effects of low and high doses, but also from a conclusive assessment of the radiological consequences of the Chernobyl accident. Radiation protection in nuclear facilities is a routine service affair in the interest of strict observance of official limits and attempts to underrun, as far as possible, even restrictive boundary levels. If scientific developments in the field of the effects of low and very low radiation doses are to be taken into account, it is necessary instead to review critically the basic facts. In the light of this situation, it may be indicated to look at some recent developments in view of a clearly apparent paradigm shift in the evaluation of the risks of radiation exposure, and as a supplement to earlier reports. (orig.)

No abstract available

[en] As there is no difference in biological response between natural and artificial radiation, regulations should cover both, but this seems to be a 'shaking of the coconut tree'. It would amount to the evacuation of large populated areas, the end of important non-nuclear industries - or the politically not correct upward adjustment of the current 1 mSv/y limit towards the substantial fluctuations in the natural exposure by a factor of 10 and more. During a large international conference in Munich in September, and a smaller follow-up symposium in Dresden, scientists from about forty countries discussed the science and the politics in establishing the present double standards. There were, for example, reports about basic differences in the biological effects of low and high doses; results showing that it is the dose-rate, not the dose, which matters; consistent reports about the lack of detrimental health effects in high natural radiation areas (>10 mSv/y) in China, India, etc.; and the usual controversies about the value and limits of radon epidemiology - all contributing to serious questions about various basic contradictions and uncertainties in the self-inflicted ghetto situation of current radiation protection. (orig.)

[en] This was the topic of an Expert Meeting arranged by the VDI-Gesellschaft fuer Energietechnik at the Berlin Palace Hotel on September 28-29, 1999 and attended by roughly one hundred experts, almost exclusively from Germany. The meeting was organized to examine the economic impact of Germany's sole opting out of a high technology in the face of a growing worldwide energy requirement, and whether this approach will allow the objectives of carbon dioxide reduction to be achieved in the interest of climate protection. The detailed points discussed at the meeting included the economic consequences for Germany arising from the country's opting out of the use of nuclear power; the preservation of competence in nuclear technology; the future role of nuclear power in the EU; the energy options existing for climate protection. In addition, political discussions were held with representatives of the political parties. (orig.)

[en] An editorial discusses recent arguments on modifying the age and time related limit on the accumulated exposure to radiation. This leads on to whether the linearity hypothesis and absence of a threshold dose assumed by the ICRP is overconservative and whether more attention should be paid to the precision with which high doses are measured. (U.K.)

[en] Radiation protection in developing countries has to be seen as a small fraction of the larger socio-economic aspects of the North-South problem. There are excessive radiation protection efforts in a few countries, adequate efforts in about 10%, and almost 90% of all countries (with about three quarters of the world population) in which radiation protection is totally insufficient or non-existent, despite a large number of radiation sources and radiation workers, in particular in medicine. Despite all differences, these countries have some problems in common: Determination of priorities and organisational structures, lack of funds, qualified experts, and infratructure, brain drain, climatic factors, etc. Some possibilities are pointed out, how external help (bilateral or through IAEA) can be useful, provided certain minimal conditions can be met by a country. Examples would be assistance in establishing and implementing of meaningful regulations and control structures, adequate training and consulting, selection of simple and rugged instrumentation, exchange of experiences, and international quality assurance tests. (orig.)