[ RadSafe ] LNT, ALARA, etc.
Pat.McCloskey at orau.org
Thu Feb 27 07:13:43 CST 2014
In 1991, researchers from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, completed a
more comprehensive epidemiological study of the health of workers at the six naval
shipyards (including Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, discussed above) and two private
shipyards that serviced U.S. naval nuclear-powered ships (reference 35). This
independent study evaluated a population of 70,730 civilian workers over a period from
1957 (beginning with the first overhaul of the first nuclear-powered submarine, USS
NAUTILUS) through 1981, to determine whether there was an excess risk of leukemia
or other cancers associated with exposure to low levels of gamma radiation.
This study did not show any cancer risks linked to radiation exposure. Furthermore, the
overall death rate among radiation-exposed shipyard workers was actually less than the
death rate for the general U.S. population. It is well recognized that many worker
populations have lower mortality rates than the general population: the workers have to be
healthy to do their jobs. This study shows that the radiation-exposed shipyard population
falls into this category.
The death rate for cancer and leukemia among the radiation-exposed workers was slightly
lower than that for non-radiation-exposed workers and that for the general U.S. population.
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of David Hunter - Hunter Geophysics
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 6:18 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] LNT, ALARA, etc.
Hello again, everybody,
I have been overwhelmed by the responses I received off-list to my earlier email. Thank you! I have a lot to read over the next few weeks.
I do recall reading an article a few weeks ago about a study of 70,000 US Navy sailors that found that those working near the reactors aboard submarines experienced health benefits due to the low-level radiation killing off (naturally) dying cells, thereby jump-starting the body's self-repair mechanism (i.e. forcing the body to create new cells to replace the cells that were already dying anyway).
Does anyone know anything about this particular study? I can't seem to find it anywhere, annoyingly. (Perhaps I imagined it? ;) )
Thank you again to everyone who responded.
All the best,
david.hunter at huntergeophysics.com
Specialists in shallow geophysics, laser scanning and site surveying/mapping.
Remote sensing for: Archaeology - Agriculture - Unmarked Grave Detection - Geosciences - Cable & Pipe Locating
Telstra-accredited plant locators (APLs)
Office: 03 9913 2259
Mob.: 0488 501 261
PO Box 1445, Central Park, Victoria, Australia, 3145.
You can also find us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn.
Treasurer & Webmaster
La Trobe University Archaeological Society LTU #15807033 las at latrobearchsoc.org www.latrobearchsoc.org
Blogging space science and astronomy: http://astro.huntergeophysics.com
On 25 Feb 2014, at 9:02 am, David Hunter - Hunter Geophysics <david.hunter at huntergeophysics.com> wrote:
> Hi list,
> I am relatively new to this area of science, coming from a background in archaeology and geophysics, and haven't had any formal education in radiation physics. Hence, I am looking to learn whatever I can about radiation as I have come to the conclusion that nuclear energy is vital for a low-carbon future. (Here in Australia, nuclear power is completely banned and equated with the devil, so I really need to know what I'm talking about before I can start trying to convince others).
> I have heard of the current discussions about LNT being complete nonsense before, but haven't been able to find any studies published in peer-reviewed journals.
> In a similar vein, I recently saw the film Pandora's Promise (a pro-nuclear power documentary). In the documentary, they showed how radiation levels near Fukushima were less than on e.g. a beach somewhere, on an aircraft, etc. That was great to see it visually, but it would be useful if there has been a similar study (comparing radiation near nuclear reactors and other areas nowhere near reactors) that is actually a peer-reviewed paper.
> Could someone please point me in the direction of any particular papers about these two matters?
> Thank you in advance for your help.
> Best regards,
> David Hunter
> Hunter Geophysics
> david.hunter at huntergeophysics.com
> Specialists in shallow geophysics, laser scanning and site surveying/mapping.
> Remote sensing for: Archaeology - Agriculture - Unmarked Grave Detection - Geosciences - Cable & Pipe Locating
> Telstra-accredited plant locators (APLs)
> Office: 03 9913 2259
> Mob.: 0488 501 261
> Skype: huntergeophysics
> PO Box 1445, Central Park, Victoria, Australia, 3145.
> You can also find us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn.
> Treasurer & Webmaster
> La Trobe University Archaeological Society LTU #15807033
> las at latrobearchsoc.org www.latrobearchsoc.org
> Blogging space science and astronomy:
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