[ RadSafe ] FW: New Scientist report on Uranium risks compromises ICRP (UNCLASSIFIED)
HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net
HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net
Wed Sep 10 11:09:32 CDT 2008
The hypothesis here that the biologic effect of radiation is multiplied to the fourth power of the atomic number (making vast overdose of radiation with a tiny amount of uranium) is refuted by the numerous natural experiments always(?) showing less cancer where there is more radiation (up to ~30rem).
Pollycove and Feinendigan's hypothesis IS supported by observations. The biologic defense mechanisms overwhelmingly repair (10 to ~10th power) mice and cell culture chromosomes exposed to such hormetic dose (~10 to 100 x usual coast background radiation or ~3 to 30 rem/yr).
Epidemiologic data like NSWS and less Denver cancer likewise.
One theory is that biologic defenses are stimulated by such hormetic dose of radiation as with allergy shots.
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Falo, Gerald A Dr USACHPPM" <Jerry.Falo at us.army.mil>
> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
> Caveats: NONE
> FYI from the "Low Level Radiation Campaign." I thought that this might
> be of interst to the group.
> From: bramhall at llrc.org
> To: list at llrc.org
> Sent: 9/9/2008 3:00:06 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
> Subj: New Scientist report on Uranium risks compromises ICRP
> ICRP model in trouble
> A New
> Scientist report on Uranium toxicity reveals a massive gap in the
> scientific modelling of the International Commission on Radiological
> Protection (ICRP). There are massive implications for all aspects of
> nuclear policy and Uranium weaponry.
> "Secondary Photoelectron effect"
> The dangers of Uranium may have little to do with its inherent
> radioactivity. The Low Level Radiation Campaign's Dr. Chris Busby has
> proposed that genetic damage is caused by the interaction of natural
> gamma and other radiation fields with Uranium or any element of high
> atomic number. The impact of the gamma causes localised showers of
> ionisations close to particles and even single atoms of elements of high
> atomic number. Research by Busby in conjunction with Pr. Ewald Schnug, a
> colleague at Germany's Federal Agricultural Research Centre, is about to
> be published [see footnote].
> All elements absorb gamma radiation and re-emit its energy in the form
> of secondary photo-electrons. Their ability to do this varies with the
> fourth power of the atomic number of the element; Uranium absorbs gamma
> rays 585365 times more effectively than water does. The shower of
> localised ionisations caused by the secondary photo-electrons creates a
> mechanism for genetic damage which is ignored by the conventional model
> of radiation risk. (The arithmetic is in LLRC's journal Radioactive
> Times April 2008 page 8. www.llrc.org/rat/subrat/rat72.pdf)
> In 2003 Busby reported this "Secondary Photoelectron effect" to the
> British Government's Committee Examining Radiation Risk of Internal
> Emitters (CERRIE). It was one of the many important topics omitted by
> the CERRIE Majority Report. Subsequently Busby published two papers [see
> footnote] and described the effect to the UK Ministry of Defence
> Depleted Uranium Oversight Board and CoRWM (Committee on Radioactive
> Waste Management).
> Heavy metal poisoning
> The New Scientist has discussed the Secondary Photoelectron effect only
> in relation to Depleted Uranium, although it has far wider relevance. It
> has potential to explain why heavy metals are toxic. Heavy metal
> toxicity exists despite wide differences in chemistry; until now no-one
> has understood the reason.
> Uranium DNA affinity
> Uranium itself has a high affinity for the phosphates in the DNA
> molecule and it is known that, at small total body burdens of Uranium, a
> very high proportion of it will be on the DNA. Meditated by the
> Secondary Photoelectron effect, Uranium focuses the energy of natural
> gamma radiation onto DNA. This has the potential to explain observed
> high risks of genetic diseases associated with nuclear facilities and
> events like Chernobyl which are ignored by the ICRP and sneered at by
> the pro-nuclear International Atomic Energy Agency and the World Health
> Organisation (which has to defer to IAEA in matters of radiation and
> Policy implications
> The mining, processing, use and disposal of Uranium must now be seen as
> creating health hazards far greater than predicted by the ICRP's out of
> date modelling. There are extremely important policy implications for
> nuclear power, disposal of radioactive waste, and nuclear weapons
> (including depleted Uranium and new generations of weapons containing
> other types of Uranium).
> As LLRC has said since 1992, the effects of other types of radioactive
> pollution have probably been underestimated too, but it now seems that
> Uranium is the dominant problem.
> New light on Busby's "Second Event theory"
> In the last 20 years Chris Busby has proposed his "Second Event theory"
> as a possible explanation of how radioactive elements that decay more
> than once (Strontium 90 is an example) may have a greater effect on
> genetic mutation. A first radioactive disintegration that hits a cell
> without killing it forces the cell to repair itself. If a second
> disintegration hits the same cell during the repair process, which takes
> a few hours, it may cause a mutation that the cell cannot repair. This
> is all in Wings of Death
> Supporters of nuclear power have attacked the theory, not least because
> they said radiation could not initiate the repair process in cells, but
> in the New Scientist article the ICRP's Hans-Georg Menzel accepts that
> "double hits of energy are known to be the most damaging to cells." The
> Majority Report of CERRIE denied this in 2004 after long arguments. See
> the Minority
> Report (http://www.llrc.org/wobblyscience/subtopic/cerrie.htm) for the
> true state of the debate on the Second Event theory.
> The Secondary Photoelectron effect is now seen to be another case of the
> general Second Event theory, describing how sequences of radiation
> events can be concentrated into very localised cellular targets. These
> considerations make nonsense of the conventional model of radiation
> biology, which views radiation in terms of average energy transfer
> across large volumes of tissue. The old concept of "dose" is now useful
> only for those exposure regimes where the radiation truly is
> well-averaged. The regulation of radioactivity in the environment is
> about to enter a new phase in which "ionisation density" will be the
> vital parameter.
> Compton scattering
> In the New Scientist article Mark Hill of Oxford University is reported
> as saying that Compton scattering would reduce the importance of the
> secondary photo-electron effect. However, Hill only discusses high
> energy gamma; the low energy part of the natural gamma spectrum will
> create relatively high ionisation densities with a correspondingly
> enhanced probability of causing double hits to DNA.
> > s-could-cause-cancer.html%20> New Scientist article in full is only
> accessible to subscribers
> but it is free on http://www.nuwinfo.se/tickell20080903newscientist.html
> The Low Level Radiation Campaign plays a key role in all this. LLRC
> funds much of Dr. Busby's research. It was LLRC's publicity material
> that alerted Professor Schnug to Dr. Busby's existence, and our office
> put them in touch with each other. It was our journal Radioactive Times
> that alerted New Scientist to the imminent publication of Busby and
> Schnug's new paper.
> LLRC does all this and much more on a microscopic budget, but we need
> money. Please consider a donation. http://www.llrc.org/donation.htm
> tells you how you can give money - cheques, Standing Orders, transfers,
> and Paypal (you don't need to have a Paypal account of your own)
More information about the RadSafe