Click for next page ( 41


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 40
l Introduction The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) sought an independent evaluation of its Hanford Thyroid Disease Study (HTDS) by the National Academy of Sciences National Research Council. in January 1999, at the time ofthe release ofthe Draft Final Report of that study, it addressed three questions to the Research Council's Committee on CDC Radiation Studies: Has the analysis been carried out appropriately and completely? Are the presentation and the discussion of results complete? Are the conclusions reasonable? In April 1999, CDC, prompted by its own concerns and those of interested members of the public, asked the committee to review and comment on material that had been prepared by CDC and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center (FHCRC) and provident to the public at the time of release of the HTDS Draft Final Report or thereafter. The material included a congressional briefing, overhead slides, a CDC press release, HTDS fact sheets, a series of CDC fact sheets, and a mailed update on the HTDS Draft 40

OCR for page 40
Introduction 41 Final Report. The committee was asked to consider three additional questions: Was the material accurate and appropriate in providing guidance to the public in understanding the study findings? If these messages about findings need to be amended, how should the revised messages best be communicated to the public? With regard to release of future study reports, how can CDC improve the public communication process?