[ RadSafe ] Even low-level radioactivity is damaging, scientists conclude
Brennan, Mike (DOH)
Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV
Thu Apr 10 11:07:42 CDT 2014
Is it my imagination, but does '... wide-ranging analysis of 46 peer-reviewed studies published over the past 40 years" sound a lot like "cherry-picked"?
But be that as it may, EVEN IF there are "... negative effects on DNA as well as several measures of health" caused by small increases in background radiation that does not mean that the risks associated with those negative effects are as high as the risks associated with trying to avoid them. If, for example, it was decided to evacuate people from all the high background radiation regions, I am confident the loss of life and negative health effects would VASTLY exceed those associated with leaving people be (the forced evacuation of Denver, for example, would be met with armed resistance and require probably the largest military action ever seen on North America). Similar objections apply to man-made sources of radiation. I submit the environment in the Evacuated Zone connected with Fukushima will be far less harmed by that extremely unusual event than are the environment and communities downstream of the now fairly routine spills from coal ash impoundments.
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Roger Helbig
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 2:00 AM
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Even low-level radioactivity is damaging, scientists conclude
Think that "scientists" is really only one "scientist" who may have failed to take the fact that other factors have influenced the evolution of populations in the area around Chernobyl.
Even low-level radioactivity is damaging, scientists conclude
"And the truth is, if we see effects at these low levels, then we have to be thinking differently about how we develop regulations for exposures, and especially intentional exposures to populations, like the emissions from nuclear power plants, medical procedures, and even some x-ray machines at airports."
"With the levels of contamination that we have seen as a result of nuclear power plants, especially in the past, and even as a result of Chernobyl and Fukushima and related accidents, there's an attempt in the industry to downplay the doses that the populations are getting, because maybe it's only one or two times beyond what is thought to be the natural background level,"
Date November 13, 2012
Source:University of South Carolina
Summary:Even the very lowest levels of radiation are harmful to life, scientists have concluded, reporting the results of a wide-ranging analysis of 46 peer-reviewed studies published over the past 40 years.
Variation in low-level, natural background radiation was found to have small, but highly statistically significant, negative effects on DNA as well as several measures of health.
Even the very lowest levels of radiation are harmful to life, scientists have concluded in the Cambridge Philosophical Society's journal Biological Reviews. Reporting the results of a wide-ranging analysis of 46 peer-reviewed studies published over the past 40 years, researchers from the University of South Carolina and the University of Paris-Sud found that variation in low-level, natural background radiation was found to have small, but highly statistically significant, negative effects on DNA as well as several measures of health.
The review is a meta-analysis of studies of locations around the globe that have very high natural background radiation as a result of the minerals in the ground there, including Ramsar, Iran, Mombasa, Kenya, Lodeve, France, and Yangjiang, China. These, and a few other geographic locations with natural background radiation that greatly exceeds normal amounts, have long drawn scientists intent on understanding the effects of radiation on life. Individual studies by themselves, however, have often only shown small effects on small populations from which conclusive statistical conclusions were difficult to draw.
"When you're looking at such small effect sizes, the size of the population you need to study is huge," said co-author Timothy Mousseau, a biologist in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of South Carolina. "Pooling across multiple studies, in multiple areas, and in a rigorous statistical manner provides a tool to really get at these questions about low-level radiation."
Read more of this post
arclight2011part2 | April 10, 2014 at 3:04 am | URL: http://wp.me/phgse-h0V
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
More information about the RadSafe