- No unusual congenital abnormalities, stillbirths, or changes in live births could be found in a Brazilian study of 44,000 pregnancies, even though the background radiation was five to ten times "normal."
- (From the same investigation) "The high terrestrial radiation, 9 mGy/year [900 mrem/yr], in Espirito Santo, Brazil did not affect the fertility of 8,000 couples in this study. [Freire-Maya, A. and Kreiger, H. Human genetic studies in areas of high natural radiation. Health Physics, 34, 61, 1978.]
- The beaches of Guarapari have 25%-35% monazite sand giving a dose to vacationers (who bury themselves in it) of 0.03 mGy/hr (at least 30 mrem per ten-hour day - 420 mrem for a two-week vacation). Though it's illegal, the tourists steal the rocks and sand for their bedrooms at home. [Cullen, T.H., et al. Two decades of research in the Brazilian areas of high natural radioactivity. Radiation Protection: A Systematic Approach to Safety, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1980.]
Showing posts with label Health Physics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Health Physics. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 9, 2016
Brazil
Friday, February 26, 2016
All Cancer Mortality in A-Bomb Survivors
The "all cancer mortality" curve of Figure 16, taken from the work of H. Kato, et al. [Kato, H., et al. Dose-response analysis among bomb survivors exposed to low-level radiation. Health Physics, 52, 645, 1987], is noticeably similar to the preceding curve, which depicts leukemia deaths. While the "all cancer" graph (Figure 16) is more indicative of hormesis, both figures are in absolute conflict with the Linear No-Threshold (LNT) theory.
Source for Figure 16: All Cancer Mortality in Japanese Bomb Survivors: Kato, H., Schull, W.J., Awa, A., Akiyama, M., and Otake, M. Dose-response analyses among atomic bomb survivors exposed to low-level radiation. Health Physics, 53, 645, 1987.
So what has been happening in this continuing saga? By now most Japanese scientists and a sizable portion of the public are aware of the increase in longevity of the bomb survivors. But has this caused any change in the way radiation is viewed by the Japanese regulators? Have we seen any statement from the Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF) suggesting a change in the rules that "have been used by numerous international bodies as a basis for establishing radiation protection standards"? [From "Greetings from the Chairman and Vice-Chairman," RERF web site, www.rerf.or.jp/]
Perhaps I missed the announcements.
It is interesting, however, to observe some of the LNT politics in Japan, as we will see a marked similarity to what is happening in the United States and other countries. As I understand it, the Japanese government is even more bureaucracy-bound than ours. So when we ask the question: "Who has an interest in maintaining the present protection standards?" we get the same answer: the government and its minions who are busy, busy, busy at protecting everyone. They couldn't care less about changing the rules to make their "protection" quite unnecessary.
We shouldn't leave Japan without touching on the RERF. Established in 1972 as a continuation of the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission, the organization has a history of being quite anti-nuclear in its outlook and pronouncements. (Maybe with pictures of total devastation of the two cities on every wall, that is somewhat understandable.) One burr under the saddle of researchers is the secrecy in which exposure data is held even after six decades. Then, too, there are charges that some data have been "adjusted" to give results more like what the 300 or so people with the foundation prefer to see. Funding for the RERF is shared by the Japanese and U.S. governments, the latter being divided between the Department of Energy and the National Academy of Sciences. (One scientist who should know declares that funding has been cut since it became evident that bomb survivors were outliving their unexposed peers, but I have not been able to confirm this.)
While the Japanese government may be reluctant to challenge the LNT, that is not the case for the privately owned utilities and for independent researchers at about a dozen Japanese universities. You will no doubt be amazed and astounded by the current studies from Japan brought to you in chapter 18.
***
Have you ever wondered about the dangers posed from being a radiation worker in a nuclear power or weapons plant? Maybe you should be so lucky! See the next chapter for details.
So what has been happening in this continuing saga? By now most Japanese scientists and a sizable portion of the public are aware of the increase in longevity of the bomb survivors. But has this caused any change in the way radiation is viewed by the Japanese regulators? Have we seen any statement from the Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF) suggesting a change in the rules that "have been used by numerous international bodies as a basis for establishing radiation protection standards"? [From "Greetings from the Chairman and Vice-Chairman," RERF web site, www.rerf.or.jp/]
Perhaps I missed the announcements.
It is interesting, however, to observe some of the LNT politics in Japan, as we will see a marked similarity to what is happening in the United States and other countries. As I understand it, the Japanese government is even more bureaucracy-bound than ours. So when we ask the question: "Who has an interest in maintaining the present protection standards?" we get the same answer: the government and its minions who are busy, busy, busy at protecting everyone. They couldn't care less about changing the rules to make their "protection" quite unnecessary.
We shouldn't leave Japan without touching on the RERF. Established in 1972 as a continuation of the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission, the organization has a history of being quite anti-nuclear in its outlook and pronouncements. (Maybe with pictures of total devastation of the two cities on every wall, that is somewhat understandable.) One burr under the saddle of researchers is the secrecy in which exposure data is held even after six decades. Then, too, there are charges that some data have been "adjusted" to give results more like what the 300 or so people with the foundation prefer to see. Funding for the RERF is shared by the Japanese and U.S. governments, the latter being divided between the Department of Energy and the National Academy of Sciences. (One scientist who should know declares that funding has been cut since it became evident that bomb survivors were outliving their unexposed peers, but I have not been able to confirm this.)
While the Japanese government may be reluctant to challenge the LNT, that is not the case for the privately owned utilities and for independent researchers at about a dozen Japanese universities. You will no doubt be amazed and astounded by the current studies from Japan brought to you in chapter 18.
***
Have you ever wondered about the dangers posed from being a radiation worker in a nuclear power or weapons plant? Maybe you should be so lucky! See the next chapter for details.
Thursday, February 11, 2016
Rummaging Through the Stacks
Where the radiation level is greater, cancer risk is invariably less. [Nambi and Soman. Further observations on environmental radiation and cancer in India, Health Physics, submitted in 1990, unpublished.]
Presenting the evidence of radiation hormesis has been the most daunting problem faced in writing this book; there is just too much of it. Luckey had more than 2,000 citations in his two books, and he estimates that this was about half of the data available in 1990. [Hormesis with Ionizing Radiation, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1980; and Radiation Hormesis, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1991.]
In the fifteen years since then, other researchers have become involved, and their research compounds the problem of "too much" evidence. Until of late there had been only a very few experiments designed to address the radiation hormesis hypothesis, and most of these involved non-vertebrates. [Even more rare are subambient (i.e., less than normal background) radiation experiments, which should show a degradation of biologic function when the target microbes are shielded from cosmic and other background sources. Two such experiments are described in Radiation Hormesis, pp. 211-23.]
The data available - which are the backbone of the argument I'm putting forth [While I have absolutely no reason to distrust the recent test reports that attest to the hormesis phenomenon, there is something very satisfying about examining data taken without any conceivable bias toward "the reverse effect." If there were any bias it was to ignore that which didn't fit the curve.] - are generally one of the following types:
It would be wonderful if there were carefully controlled experimental data on humans for all diseases over the complete radiation dosage range. To optimize the hormesis effect, it would be marvelous to have double-blind studies over long periods of time, with carefully controlled exposures and rates. But we don't have these things.
Presenting the evidence of radiation hormesis has been the most daunting problem faced in writing this book; there is just too much of it. Luckey had more than 2,000 citations in his two books, and he estimates that this was about half of the data available in 1990. [Hormesis with Ionizing Radiation, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1980; and Radiation Hormesis, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1991.]
In the fifteen years since then, other researchers have become involved, and their research compounds the problem of "too much" evidence. Until of late there had been only a very few experiments designed to address the radiation hormesis hypothesis, and most of these involved non-vertebrates. [Even more rare are subambient (i.e., less than normal background) radiation experiments, which should show a degradation of biologic function when the target microbes are shielded from cosmic and other background sources. Two such experiments are described in Radiation Hormesis, pp. 211-23.]
The data available - which are the backbone of the argument I'm putting forth [While I have absolutely no reason to distrust the recent test reports that attest to the hormesis phenomenon, there is something very satisfying about examining data taken without any conceivable bias toward "the reverse effect." If there were any bias it was to ignore that which didn't fit the curve.] - are generally one of the following types:
- Animal tests designed to find adverse effects of high levels of ionizing radiation but which happened to take measurements in the low-dose area in the course of the experiment; [According to Luckey, much of the low-dose data - which showed negative correlation of the dose-response relationship - was either ignored, omitted or simply deemed too unimportant to report.]
- Japanese bombing survivors who were within a known distance of A-bomb detonations and whose exposures could be calculated; [There is considerable controversy about exposures, particularly in Hiroshima, with many researchers believing the data analysis understates the radiation dosage. One problem is related to some data still not being available to investigators - even after more than fifty years!]
- Statistical evidence on workers in nuclear power plants and weapons manufacturing facilities; and
- Populations that live in various areas with background radiation up to eighty times the U.S. average.
It would be wonderful if there were carefully controlled experimental data on humans for all diseases over the complete radiation dosage range. To optimize the hormesis effect, it would be marvelous to have double-blind studies over long periods of time, with carefully controlled exposures and rates. But we don't have these things.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)