No abstract available

No abstract available

[en] The exaggeration and rejection of radiological protection has become a problem during the last decade. This has given rise to controversies which have occupied the scientific world and the public (eg. nuclear energy, low-dose debates, disputes over mammography). The observed deviations from interrationally accepted standard values overstep the domain of constructive and critical furtherance of the state of scientific knowledge. Extreme views are commonly represented by a biased choice of references, one-sided interpretation of available data or clearly false argumentation. Rejection and exaggeration are frequently practised by groups of people whose aims are non-scientific. The giudelines of leading international organisations (eg. UNSCEAR and ICRP) represent a consensus of opinion of numerous nations with extensive radiation research programmes but with entirely different social systems. For this reason it is likely that this consensus reflects most plausibly the assumptions of the present time. (orig.)

[en] The book describes the effects of ionizing radiation on man in a simple, popular, detailed and generally valid manner and gives a comprehensive picture of the concepts, elements, principles of function, and perspectives of medical radiobiology. Radiobiology in general is explained, and its application in research on the causes of radiolesions and radiation diseases as well as a radiotherapy and radiation protection is discussed in popular form. (orig./MG)

No abstract available

[en] Radiobiology in the last years was able to find detailed explanations for the effects of ionizing radiation on living organisms. But it is still impossible to make exact statements concerning the damages by radiation. Even now, science has to content itself with probability data. Moreover no typical damages of ionizing radiation can be identified. Therefore, the risks of ionizing radiation can only be determined by comparison with the spontaneous rate of cancerous or genetic defects. The article describes the interaction of high-energy radiation with the molecules of the organism and their consequences for radiation protection. (orig.)

No abstract available

[en] The risk seems to be acceptable if the age-dependency of the frequency of breast cancer is disregarded, i.e. if calculation is done with average values, as is being done frequently (15, 25, 32, 48). This procedure however veils the real circumstances in the examination of young women thus also veiling a risk which could otherwise be made precise and avoidable. The risk of radiation-induced cancerogenesis in the female breast was verified by similar statements made by several empiric investigations on man. The course of the dose-effect-relation in the region of few rad is still unexplained however, although the results do not contradict to the assumption of a linear dose-effect-relation. Thus it seems not advisable to ignore the induction of carcinomas by x-radiation for the sphere of mammography with the doses usually applied today. A reduction of radiation exposition by dose-saving measures to one tenth of the present value (or less) however would make the risk highly unimportant. Advantage/risk/cost-analyses should encourage the responsible persons to make reasonable proposals for the application of methods, in this case mammography. The discouraging of patients whom mammography is indicated for would be a side-effect which is not desired. Just as wrong would be the stimulation of an unjustified feeling of being sure and the demand for costly medical measures by uncritical reports of success. The indication of the considerably high costs of mammography should, together with the advantage expected, be a quantitative criterion for the optimal distribution of limited means the necessity of which cannot be denied. (orig.)

[en] With a view to developing suitable tools for the safety evaluation of reactors A and B at Biblis, the publication compiles all aspects relevant to safety, creates an evaluation frame, and evaluates the aspects relevant to safety by means of this frame of evaluation. According to the composition of the work, the overall subject is split up into the complexes information, acquisition, evaluation of operational experience, probabilistic analyses, comparison with newer PWR type reactors, fulfilling of injunctions, modifications due to disposal problems, and the disposal situation. (DG)

[en] As there is a certain relation between the dose limits for limited groups and those for the total population with the maximum admissible person doses for those professionally exposed to radiation (1 : 30 or 1 : 90), the grounds for general dose limits and for limits for those professionally exposed to radiation are discussed together. It is shown why empirical data must be completed by risk estimates where minimum and small radiation doses (0 to 1 rem; 1 to 10 rem) are concerned. In this connection a maximum calculable risk is as certained as a result of cautious assumptions of ICRP, which as a rule overestimates the actual risk to a large extent. Furthermore, the established values in most cases are used partly only. Therefore, the dose limits and maximum person doses include additional safety reserves. These statements are documented by tables and graphs. A comparison of maximum person doses and dose limits with professional and general life risks is provided, so as to see the quantitative dimension. Finally, a catalogue of direct or indirect objections against maximum general doses and maximum doses for persons occupationally exposed to radiation is provided. These statements are discussed and correlated with a typology of errors in medical science. It shows that most objections e.g. are based on overconsideration of hypotheses or are of a dogmatic nature or constititute inadmissible simplifications. (orig./HP)