Re: lochbaum on radiation

["ruth_weiner" <ruth_weiner@email.msn.com>]

Lochbaum's response has (deliberately or inadvertently) some subtly
misleading aspects, to wit:

1.  The anthropogenicity of I-131 and the natural occurrence of radon have
nothing to do with their radiological (or chemical) characteristics.  The
uranium isotopes (and the plutonium isotopes for all that) and their
daughters occur naturally but can also be produced anthropogenically. It
simply does not matter whether a radionuclide is anthropogenic (I use the
term because women make them, too) or present naturally as far as either the
emissions or their effects are concerned.  For example, naturally present
K-40 is indistinguishable from artificially produced K-40.  Why Lochbaum
couldn't have said as much is beyond me.
2.  Pure iodine (ANY iodine -- radioactive or stable) is not a gas at
ambient temperatures and pressure.  It is a liquid with a high vapor
pressure.  It can also be present as the iodide ion (as in iodized salt).
It is bioconcentrated in the human thyroid because the thyroid requires
iodine.  I believe the primary pathway for radioiodine (unless it is
injected for diagnostic or therapeutic purposes) is ingestion, not
inhalation.
 3.  Radon, on the other hand, is a gas (it is one of the family of inert
gases like helium and neon) and the primary pathway is inhalation into the
lung because it is a gas.

This information is available in any basic chemistry or physical chemistry
or introductory environmental chemistry text.

The NRC quote reads as if it were from some publication "written for the lay
public" and it is of course, in the main, OK because the NRC knows its
stuff.  I would appreciate knowing what the actual citation is:"TIP:36..."
tells me nothing.

Ruth Weiner
ruth_weiner@msn.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Norman & Karen Cohen <norco@bellatlantic.net>
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sunday, May 07, 2000 9:37 PM
Subject: lochbaum on radiation


>Dave's two cents. Now is radiation all the same, or are there
"differences"? Or our
>we looking
>at the same thing in two different ways?
>
>norm
>
>DaveL wrote:
>
>> Hello Norm:
>>
>> Regarding your question about radiation, there are differences in the
biological
>> effects from different kinds of background radiation, differences in the
>> biological effects from different kinds of man-made radiation, and
therefore
>> differences between biological effects of background and man-made
radiation. The
>> differences are due to the energy levels involved and to the pathways for
>> damage. For example, Iodine-131 is primarily a man-made radiation source.
It is
>> a gas that can be inhaled. Inside the body, it tends to be absorbed by
the
>> thyroid gland where is can cause thyroid cancer. Radon is also a
radioactive
>> gas, but it is primarily a background or natural radiation source. When
inhaled,
>> it tends to cause damage to the lungs. I realize that this response is
not a
>> simple, clean answer to your question, but it's my best effort to do so.
>>
>> Here's information on radiation effects from the NRC (I don't know if the
>> RadSafe folks have given this material their endorsement or not):
>>
>> =====
>>
>>     TIP:36 - Biological Effect of Radiation
>>
>> Background
>>
>> Radiation is all around us, occurring naturally in the environment. We
are
>> exposed all the time to radiation from radon in the air; uranium, radium
and
>> thorium in the earth; cosmic rays from outer space and the sun;
radioactive
>> potassium in our food and water; and radioactive material within our own
bodies.
>> This is commonly called naturally-occurring background radiation.
>>
>> The average radiation exposure to an individual in the United States is
about
>> 360 millirem (mrem) or 3.6 millisievert (mSv) per year. About 300mrem (3
mSv) of
>> this is from natural sources, including radon [200 mrem(2mSv)] that
emanates
>> from the ground, as well as cosmic, terrestrial and internal radiation
[100 mrem
>> (1mSv)]. The largest man-made source is medical diagnosis, accounting for
about
>> 50 mrem (0.5 mSv) per year. Consumer products such as smoke detectors,
exit
>> signs and luminous watch dials contribute about 10 mrem (0.1 mSv) per
year.
>>
>> Background radiation varies depending on the area where you live, the
type of
>> housing construction you live in, and what you eat. For instance,
Colorado has
>> higher radiation levels because, at its high altitude, there is more
exposure to
>> cosmic rays and with its naturally-occurring uranium enriched soil, there
is
>> more terrestrial radiation. Brick homes have higher natural radiation
levels
>> than homes made of other materials such as wood; domestic water supplies
>> naturally contain radon; and certain foods such as bananas and Brazil
nuts
>> naturally contain higher levels of radiation than other foods.
>>
>> In addition, consumer products such as tobacco, fertilizer product and
coal have
>> noticeable concentrations of naturally-occurring radionuclides including
>> potassium-40. Above this background level, the NRC limits maximum
radiation dose
>> to the public to 100 mrem per year (1 mSv/yr), and limits dose to adults
working
>> in nuclear operations to 5,000 mrem per year (50 mSv/yr).
>>
>> Discussion
>>
>> Biological effects of radiation on living cells may result in three
outcomes:
>> (1) cells repair themselves, resulting in no damage; (2) cells die, much
like
>> millions of body cells do every day, being replaced through normal
biological
>> processes; or (3) cells change their reproductive structure. The effects
of
>> radiation, like those of most chemical substances, can be seen clearly
only at
>> doses much higher than are allowed by Federal regulations.
>>
>> Biological effects of radiation may be classified as prompt or delayed.
Prompt
>> effects can appear in a matter of minutes to as long as a few weeks after
>> exposure to very high doses of radiation. The higher the dose, the sooner
the
>> effects will appear, and the higher the probability of death. For
example, in
>> 1986, firefighters battling the fire at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant
in the
>> Ukraine died from very large doses [approximately 1,100,000 millirad
(11,000
>> milligray)] of radiation.
>>
>> Because radiation affects different people in different ways, it is not
possible
>> to indicate what dose is needed to be fatal. However, it is believed that
50% of
>> a population would die within thirty days after receiving a dose over a
period
>> of a few minutes to hours of between 250,000 to 450,000 mrem (2500 to
4500 mSv).
>> This would vary depending on the health of the individuals before the
exposure
>> and the medical care received after the exposure.
>>
>> It should be noted that the doses referred to above are acute whole body
doses,
>> meaning that the whole body is exposed to the radiation in a very short
period
>> of time (minutes to hours). Exposure of only parts of the body will
likely lead
>> to more localized effects, such as skin burns or tissue damage in the
exposed
>> area.
>>
>> Delayed effects of radiation are effects that appear many years (usually
between
>> 5-20 years) after exposure. The period before cancer appears is known as
the
>> latent period. Genetic effects and the development of cancer are the
primary
>> health concerns. The cancers that may develop as a result of radiation
exposure
>> are indistinguishable from those that develop spontaneously or as a
result of
>> exposure to other carcinogens. Radiation exposure may be only the
initiating
>> step that may or may not eventually lead to cancer. Genetic effects may
appear
>> in the exposed person's direct offspring, or may appear several
generations
>> later, depending on whether the altered genes are dominant or recessive.
>>
>> Although radiation is known to cause cancers at high doses and high dose
rates,
>> currently there are no data to unequivocally establish the occurrence of
cancer
>> following exposure to low doses and dose rates -- below about 20,000 mrem
(200
>> mSv). Studies of a population exposed to chronic low-levels of radiation
above
>> normal background have shown no biological effects. This population
includes
>> occupationally exposed radiation workers and people living in areas
having high
>> levels of background radiation [above 1,000 mrem (10 mSv) per year].
>>
>> In the absence of sufficient data to the contrary, the radiation
protection
>> community conservatively assumes that any amount of radiation may pose
some risk
>> for causing cancer and hereditary effects, and that the risk is higher
for
>> higher level doses. The NRC's dose limits for both radiation workers and
members
>> of the public were developed on that basis. (NRC regulations and
radiation
>> exposure limits are contained in Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations
>> under Part 20.)
>>
>> September 1999
>>
>> =====
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Dave Lochbaum
>> Nuclear Safety Engineer
>> Union of Concerned Scientists
>> 1616 P Street NW Suite 310
>> Washington, DC 20036
>> (202) 332-0900
>> (202) 332-0905 fax
>> website:  www.ucsusa.org
>>
>
>Coalition for Peace and Justice and the UNPLUG Salem Campaign; 321 Barr
Ave.,
>Linwood, NJ 08221; 609-601-8537 or 609-601-8583 (8583: fax, answer
machine);
>norco@bellatlantic.net;  UNPLUG SALEM WEBSITE:  http://www.unplugsalem.org/
>COALITION FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE WEBSITE:
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~norco/
>ICQ# 54268619; The Coalition for Peace and Justice is a chapter of Peace
Action.
>“We have two lives, the one we’re given, and the other one we make” (Mary
Chapin
>Carpenter)
>“Get up, stand up, stand up for your rights...Get up, stand up, don’t give
up the
>fight!” (Bob Marley)
>
>
>
>
>************************************************************************
>The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html



************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html