[ 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.

Howard Long 

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: "Falo, Gerald A Dr USACHPPM" <Jerry.Falo at us.army.mil> 

> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED 
> Caveats: NONE 
> All, 
> FYI from the "Low Level Radiation Campaign." I thought that this might 
> be of interst to the group. 
> Enjoy, 
> Jerry 
> _____ 
> 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 
> health). 
> 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 
> (http://www.llrc.org/wings/wingspage.htm) 
> 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. 
> The 
> > 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 
> and 
> http://www.pharmacychoice.com/News/article.cfm?Article_ID=93531 
> 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) 
> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ 

More information about the RadSafe mailing list