“On the basis of the current evidence it would seem sensible to subdivide the childhood risk into two groups, categorising young children as high risk, older children as medium risk, young adults as low risk, and older adults as undetectable or no risk. This would have the advantage of ensuring that in any future accident measures to protect preschool children would be given priority” pp 29.
“A study should be commissioned to review all the Chernobyl related studies, to reanalyse using differing age groups to justify subdividing children into two groups. Risk/Gy is not the appropriate basis for determining this.
A study of the risk to adults is also urgently needed, because of conflicting data.
The evidence in relation to dietary iodine strengthens the need to eliminate I deficiency, and to consider long term iodine supplementation after exposure.” pp 29
“Exposure to fall out from Chernobyl has led to a very large increase in the incidence of thyroid carcinoma due to I radioisotopes.
The risk is heavily dependent on age at exposure, and on stable iodine intake.
exposure, Tumour morphology and molecular findings correlate and CHANGE WITH LATENCY Those exposed at a young age continue to carry the increased risk with them into adulthood.” pp 30
“The risk continues in those who were young at exposure.
Consideration should be given for regulatory purposes to define the risk for preschool children separately from older children Although morbidity from thyroid cancer is high in the heavily exposed young children, mortality from thyroid cancer in those exposed toChernobyl is currently extremely low.” pp 31
Future studies. Effects across Europe of low dose exposure Continuing study of the thyroid carcinomas to determine possible changes in tumour type and mutations, and length of outbreak Non thyroid studies, including inherited effects
Follow up of children treated with high dose RAI Comprehensive and coordinated long term studies of the consequences of Chernobyl are needed: the EC should take the lead in setting up a Chernobyl Health Effects Research Foundation as a virtual equivalent to the RERF.” pp 32.