Version 1
: Received: 17 June 2023 / Approved: 19 June 2023 / Online: 19 June 2023 (10:30:16 CEST)
How to cite:
Jargin, S. Overestimation of Cardiovascular Consequences of Low Dose Radiation Exposures. Preprints2023, 2023061344. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202306.1344.v1
Jargin, S. Overestimation of Cardiovascular Consequences of Low Dose Radiation Exposures. Preprints 2023, 2023061344. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202306.1344.v1
Jargin, S. Overestimation of Cardiovascular Consequences of Low Dose Radiation Exposures. Preprints2023, 2023061344. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202306.1344.v1
APA Style
Jargin, S. (2023). Overestimation of Cardiovascular Consequences of Low Dose Radiation Exposures. Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202306.1344.v1
Chicago/Turabian Style
Jargin, S. 2023 "Overestimation of Cardiovascular Consequences of Low Dose Radiation Exposures" Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202306.1344.v1
Abstract
This commentary is focused on radioactive contaminations in the Urals, where the consequences were more severe in the long term than those after the Chernobyl accident. The difference is that the latter was a technogenic catastrophe, but the former - a radioactive contamination tolerated since 70 years with several accidents in between. In earlier publications of Russian researchers no cancer frequency elevation was reported after exposures below 0.5 Sv or generally in the populations exposed to low doses. Later on, the same scientists started to claim similar relative risks for cancer and other diseases among exposed people in the Urals and in atomic bomb survivors from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Apparently, an unofficial directive has been behind this ideological shift noticed around the year 2005. Trimming of statistics has been not unusual in the former Soviet Union. Potential motives included fostering radiophobia, stirring anti-nuclear protests in other countries and strangulation of nuclear energy aimed at the boosting of fossil fuel prices. Recent publications claiming cardiovascular risks after low-dose low-rate exposures and recommending more stringent standards of radiological protection are discussed here in some detail. Such recommendations for dose rates compatible with the natural radiation background are obviously nonsensical.
Copyright:
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
