[ RadSafe ] Fwd: [New post] Even low-level radioactivity is damaging, scientists conclude

[Roger Helbig]

 2012 paper - do not recall its being discussed on RADSAFE

Roger Helbig
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: nuclear-news <comment-reply at wordpress.com>
Date: Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 11:06 PM
Subject: [New post] Even low-level radioactivity is damaging,
scientists conclude
To: rwhelbig at gmail.com


arclight2011part2 posted: "Date: November 13, 2012 Source: University
of South Carolina The public policy video "Radioactive Berkeley: No
Safe Dose" premiered at the Berkeley City Council in December of 1996.
Featured speaker Dr. John Gofman M.D, Ph.D. addresses the medical im"
Respond to this post by replying above this line

New post on nuclear-news

Even low-level radioactivity is damaging, scientists conclude

by arclight2011part2

Date: November 13, 2012 Source: University of South Carolina

The public policy video "Radioactive Berkeley: No Safe Dose" premiered
at the Berkeley City Council in December of 1996. Featured speaker Dr.
John Gofman M.D, Ph.D. addresses the medical impacts of low-level
radiation exposure.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121113134224.htm

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.

he 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."

Mousseau and co-author Anders Møller of the University of Paris-Sud
combed the scientific literature, examining more than 5,000 papers
involving natural background radiation that were narrowed to 46 for
quantitative comparison. The selected studies all examined both a
control group and a more highly irradiated population and quantified
the size of the radiation levels for each. Each paper also reported
test statistics that allowed direct comparison between the studies.

The organisms studied included plants and animals, but had a large
preponderance of human subjects. Each study examined one or more
possible effects of radiation, such as DNA damage measured in the lab,
prevalence of a disease such as Down's Syndrome, or the sex ratio
produced in offspring. For each effect, a statistical algorithm was
used to generate a single value, the effect size, which could be
compared across all the studies.

The scientists reported significant negative effects in a range of
categories, including immunology, physiology, mutation and disease
occurrence. The frequency of negative effects was beyond that of
random chance.

"There's been a sentiment in the community that because we don't see
obvious effects in some of these places, or that what we see tends to
be small and localized, that maybe there aren't any negative effects
from low levels of radiation," said Mousseau. "But when you do the
meta-analysis, you do see significant negative effects."

"It also provides evidence that there is no threshold below which
there are no effects of radiation," he added. "A theory that has been
batted around a lot over the last couple of decades is the idea that
is there a threshold of exposure below which there are no negative
consequences. These data provide fairly strong evidence that there is
no threshold -- radiation effects are measurable as far down as you
can go, given the statistical power you have at hand."

Mousseau hopes their results, which are consistent with the
"linear-no-threshold" model for radiation effects, will better inform
the debate about exposure risks. "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," he
said. "But they're assuming the natural background levels are fine."

"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."

________________________________

Story Source:

The above story is based on materials provided by University of South
Carolina. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.

________________________________

Journal Reference:

Anders P. Møller, Timothy A. Mousseau. The effects of natural
variation in background radioactivity on humans, animals and other
organisms. Biological Reviews, 2012; DOI:
10.1111/j.1469-185X.2012.00249.x

arclight2011part2 | December 1, 2014 at 7:06 am | URL: http://wp.me/phgse-ipP

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from nuclear-news.
Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://nuclear-news.net/2014/12/01/even-low-level-radioactivity-is-damaging-scientists-conclude-2/

Thanks for flying with WordPress.com