Advertisement

Radiation and Environmental Biophysics

, Volume 49, Issue 4, pp 747–748 | Cite as

Reply to letter by Jargin on “overestimation of Chernobyl consequences: poorly substantiated information published”

  • Alexey Yablokov
  • Alexey Nesterenko
Letter to the Editor

It was with great interest that we read Dr. Jargin’s comments (Jargin 2010) on our recent publication that appeared in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (New York Academy of Sciences 2009). Apparently, Dr. Jargin criticism is based on four sections (Chapters II-3,5,7 and IV-13) of our book that in total includes 18 separate sections. If he had read those sections describing the task which the author wanted to accomplish with their publication, and the methods of the meta-review applied in the study, his two general questions (about the character of information used and about a seeming contradiction with the IAEA position) would have probably been unnecessary.

Our book appeared as a reaction to reviews of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the World Health Organisation (WHO) devoted to the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl accident (IAEA 2006), which are based on a limited selection of «international literature on the medical consequences of the Chernobyl...

Keywords

Thyroid Cancer Pectin International Atomic Energy Agency York Academy Chernobyl Accident 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Alexievich S (2006) Voices from Chernobyl: the oral history of a nuclear disaster. Picador, USAGoogle Scholar
  2. IAEA (2006) Chernobyl’s legacy: health, environmental and socio-economic impacts and recommendations to the governments of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine. IAEA, Vienna, p 57Google Scholar
  3. Jargin SJ (2010) Overestimation of Chernobyl consequences: poorly substantiated information published. Radiat Environ Biopsy, this issue. doi: 10.1007/s00411-010-0313-1
  4. Kasandrova DN, Lebedev VV (1970) Obrabotka rezul’tatov nablyudenii. Nauka, MoskvaGoogle Scholar
  5. National Report of the Republic of Belarus (2006) 20 Years after the Chernobyl Accident Consequences in the Republic of Belarus and their overcoming, Comchernobyl, Minsk, pp 28–42. http://www.chernobyl.gov.by/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=344&Itemid=107
  6. New York Academy of Sciences (2009) Chernobyl: consequences of the catastrophe for people and the environment. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, New York, p 1181Google Scholar
  7. The Law of the Republic of Belarus (2001) On social protection of citizens, injured from catastrophe on Chernobyl NPP. No. 31–3, Article 3. http://www.chernobyl.gov.by/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=405&Itemid=153
  8. UNSCEAR (2000) Sources and effects of ionizing radiation. Report to the General Assembly. Annex. J Expo Effects Chernobyl Accident (United Nations, New York)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Russian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia
  2. 2.Institute of Radioprotection “Belrad”MinskBelarus

Personalised recommendations