[ RadSafe ] Cancer Risk at Prolonged Low-Level Exposures

[Joseph Preisig]

Brennan,

     In light of your parents' cancer(s) perhaps you should do a genetic
screening test.  Cost is $2K for saliva analysis, and about $15K
for the other variety.

     Joe Preisig





On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 7:04 PM, Brennan, Mike (DOH) <
Mike.Brennan at doh.wa.gov> wrote:

> I read most if this, and skimmed the rest, and have a couple of thoughts:
>
> 1) Professionally, it would be easiest for me if this study's findings are
> correct, so I am not trying to shoot holes in it for personal benefit.
>
> 2) I think their attempts to account for smoking by excluding cancers
> associated with smoking is sound.
>
> 3) If they explained why they excluded leukemia I did not find it.
>
> 4)  Even though this was a meta study to examine the cancer mortality rate
> due to ionizing radiation exposure, I believe they should have included a
> control group, demographically matched to the subjects in the study.  If
> the background cancer rate is higher than the cancer rate at the lower end
> of their exposure graph, that would present interesting questions.
>
> 5)  I am not confident "Death Registries" or "dose records" capture all
> the relevant information.  As an example, both of my parents were diagnosed
> with multiple forms of cancer over their lifetimes, but neither died of
> cancer.  Neither were ever in any dosimetry program, but both of them
> received many orders of magnitude more radiation (from medical sources)
> than I have, even though I've been in a dosimetry program much of my adult
> life.
>
> 6)  The study did not (and likely could not) take into account exposure to
> individuals who had been in the military.  I know that my personal exposure
> while on Active Duty in the US Navy was much, much higher than it has been
> while in my present program.  I suspect this is true for many (most?) of
> the radiation workers in the US who got their start in the Navy Nuclear
> Power Program.  (the other countries I cannot speak to)
>
> 7)  There is a time issue worth considering.  "Back in the Day" allowable
> exposures were higher, organizations were more willing to burn people out,
> so accumulated doses were probably higher.  Cancer detection and treatment
> were less successful.  I am not sure of all the nuances those facts
> introduce to the analysis, but they should be looked at.  It could lead to
> the higher accumulated exposure having a higher mortality rate due to
> technology changes, which would complicate the findings of this report.
>
> 8)  There is an age factor that should be considered.  Unless I misread
> the report, there was no attempt to account for age.  Thus someone in a
> dosimetry program who is in their 20s with a small accumulated dose and
> someone in their 60s with a much larger accumulated dose are both
> considered the same, but you would expect a higher cancer death rate among
> older people.  What happens to the conclusion if, once age is accounted
> for, the cancer rate is flat across the exposure range?
>
> An interesting study, but I don't think it is as conclusive as might be
> hoped.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:
> radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Conway Lowe Family
> Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 11:30 AM
> To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cancer Risk at Prolonged Low-Level Exposures
>
> For your reading interest, see
>
> https://srp-uk.org/news/article/102/study-provides-more-precise-estimates-of
> -cancer-risks-associated-with-prolonged-low-level-radiation-exposure
>
>
>
> This extensive study of workers (available for download from the British
> Medical Journal, BMJ) provides more precise estimates of cancer risks and
> radiation exposures at low levels.  According to the associated commentary
> in the BMJ, it does not provide any evidence for a threshold level (no risk
> below the threshold) or for a hormetic effect.
>
>
>
> Leo Lowe (mostly retired)
>
> (formerly with SENES Consultants and Arcadis Canada)
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>