Re: Anti-radiation article -Thoughts please!

[Al Tschaeche <antatnsu@pacbell.net>]

Aaron Oakley wrote:

> Comments please!
>
> Your thoughts on the following (anti-radiation) article would be
> appreciated!

My comments.  Al Tschaeche antatnsu@pacbell.net

> What is a SAFE DOSE of radiation?
> The International Committee on Radiological Protection (ICRP) recommended
> standard of 1
> millisievert (1 mSv) annual maximum exposure for the public.
> This translates, using ICRP's dose - response assumptions, to a risk
> of 3.5 fatal cancers in 1000 people exposed annually over a lifetime of 70
> years. This is a lifetime fatal cancer risk of 1 in 286.

The operative word is "assumptions."  Using the numbers as above and implying
they are representative of reality is a huge blunder.  There are no
scientifically reputable data that demonstrate 1mSv per year to anyone produces
any harm let alone cancers.

> The regulation of toxic substances in the U.S. looks protective in
> comparison. These also allow a lethal risk to those exposed, but the limit
> is
> set at only 1 fatal cancer in 100,000 or in some cases, 1 in 10,000.

Trying to compare risks of toxic substances to risks of low doses of radiation
is an exercise in futility.  All of the risk numbers cited above are
hypothetical.  The error bars are enormous, infinite in some cases.  Therefore,
such statements and comparisons are meaningless.

> Policy
> makers also debate whether it is acceptable for industrial activities to
> result in one death in a million. The nuclear industry is enjoying
> tremendous privilege, literally a licence to kill members of the public
> in the course of normal operations.

The nuclear industry has never been demonstrated to have killed a member of the
US public in the course of normal operations or even in an accident.  At 1
mSv/yr such demonstration will never be made.

> The dose limits for workers in the uranium mining industry are even more
> dangerous.

Again, never demonstrated.

> Deaths per million workers
> per year, worldwide:
>
> Manufacturing workers                  110
> Construction workers                    164

What is the reference to where these numbers came from?  ICRP is cited above.
What is the citation for these numbers?

> Radiation workers @ 3mSv       5,500

These radiation deaths are only hypothetical, not real.  Using numbers in this
way is deceitful and wrong.

> Radiation workers @ 20mSv  37,500

These deaths are only hypothetical, not real.  Using numbers in this way is
deceitful and wrong.

> (mSv = milliSievert, a measurement of
> radiation. Source: ICRP27/ICRP60)
>
> These estimates all rest on the
> shaky foundation that there is a safe
> limit, a dose of radiation so low that
> no harm results.

Not true.  The estimates rest on the shaky linear hypothesis of dose effects
that has been demonstrated to be wrong at low doses.  There are no data that
demonstrate harm below 1000 mSv.

> Many studies,
> bitterly disputed or ignored by the
> industry, show that this is not the
> case.

The studies are not "bitterly" disputed, only shown to be wrong.  If they are
ignored, it is because they are wrong.  As stated above, there are no data
demonstrating harm at doses below 1000 mSv.

> Any dose of radiation can
> increase the risk of disease.

This statement is not known to be true.  If anyone makes such a statement,
demand to see the scientific evidence that supports it.  And Goffman's has been
shown not to support it.
begin:vcard 
n:Tschaeche;Al
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:Nuclear Standards Unlimited
version:2.1
email;internet:antatnsu@postoffice.pacbell.net
title:CEO
x-mozilla-cpt:;0
fn:Al Tschaeche
end:vcard