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

Mon Dec 1 08:10:33 CST 2014

Not sure if it was up on the list, but the whole idea of having a 
meta-study where effects on plants, animals and humans are bunched 
together like that calls for applying a big bucket of scepticism. 
Considering the names of the authors one should not be surprised though.

/Mattias Lantz

-- 
Mattias Lantz - Researcher
ランツ マティアス
Department of Physics and Astronomy
Division of Applied Nuclear Physics
Uppsala University, Box 516
SE - 751 20, Uppsala, Sweden
phone:  +46-(0)18-471-3754
cell:   +46-(0)730-454-384
fax:    +46-(0)18-471-5999
email:  mattias.lantz at physics.uu.se

On 12/01/2014 02:11 PM, Roger Helbig wrote:
>   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
> _______________________________________________
> 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