The nuclear issue in Swedish schools

Abstract

Sweden is almost unique in that its government through its foreign office gave financial support to a carefully thought out proposal from Svenska Läkare Mot Karnvapen (Swedish Physicians against Nuclear Weapons) for a youth education project on the nuclear issue. The Swedish Board of Education has agreed to provide:

1. In‐service training for teachers on current affairs;

2. Up‐to‐date teaching resources and materials, such as the booklet, Facts and Reflections on Nuclear Weapons.

3. A curriculum stating that education on nuclear and other environment issues should not be a special subject but should be involved in many school activities — for example the learning of foreign languages, biology, physics, science and even physical education.

The Board's recommendations have been sent to every Swedish school, together with the booklet, but each school decides for itself whether or not to implement them. However, some teachers do some education on the nuclear issue in most Swedish schools.

The Most Recent Statistics on Cancer in Survivors from Hiroshima and Nagasaki: An Independent Analysis, by R H Nussbaum, W. Köhnlein, and R E Belsey.

Med. Klin. 1991; 86; 99–108 (in German).

Studies of the cancer risk from radiation in workers at the Hanford Nuclear Weapons plant in USA, and of deaths of British children from cancer after ante‐natal irradiation, have suggested that the estimate of risk based on studies of survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs, completed in 1965, have underestimated the risk from low doses (<50 cGy). The original 1965 Life Span Study, referred to as T65DR, has been revised by the Radiation Effects Research Foundation study, designated as DS86, incorporating more recent data on survivors. However, the Hanford and British children data still contradict the risk values calculated in the low dose range. In the present study, therefore, data limited to low doses: 0,1–5, 6–9, 10–19 and 20–49 cGy have been investigated: for survivors from 1950 to 1985 (using DS86 data); for workers in nuclear plants; and for children exposed to fractional cGy doses in utero. This is an attempt to resolve the question as to the compatibility or incompatibility of the three sets of data. The data were subdivided into three groups, using: shielded kerma (Kinetic Energy Released per Mass Unit) for all malignant neoplasms; lower colon exposure for all cancers except leukaemias; and marrow exposure for leukaemias. A linear regression line for the low doses was chosen as a first approximation, giving a risk value for increase of all cancer deaths other than leukaemias in the dose range of 0–49 cSv of 18.1 +/‐ 4.9 per 10⁴ Person‐cSv. For leukaemias, the estimate of risk per 10⁴ P‐cSv depended heavily upon whether the data for the age groups 0 and 1–6 were included (2.1 +/‐ 0.5) or excluded (7.1 +/‐ 2.3). A factor, based on an equation modified from RERF studies, for deriving a projected life‐time additional risk of cancer from the recorded additional risk for 1950–1985, was calculated at 3.0 for all types of cancer except leukaemias, varying between 2.9 and 6.4 for leukaemias. Complicating factors, in the interpretation of the data from atom bomb survivors, including the effects of remote fall‐out, ground activation, or subsequent low doses from radiotherapy, have to be taken into consideration. In general it was concluded that the currently accepted guidelines for radiation protection underestimate the risks for the whole life‐time of radiation in the low dose range by a factor of ten. It was concluded that a supralinear, rather than a linear, regression line would be required to fit the data from the low dose range adequately. It was further concluded that the ‘hormesis’ theory, of a beneficial effect of very low doses of radiation, could not be confirmed by these results.

Key Words:

• Nuclear weapon effects
• Education