Gould and background radiation

[Holloway3@aol.com]

Glenn Carlson writes:

<< Since the additional contribution to "background" from weapons testing 
 fallout is in fact measureable, isn't Gould's claim true?  Are you claiming 
 that the increased background from fallout is offset by a reduction in 
 background elsewhere?
 
 Glenn A. Carlson, P.E.
 glennacarlson@aol.com >>
-----------------------------------------
In my restatement of Gould's claim, I erred in making his claim less sweeping 
than what he actually said.  I should have said that Gould claims that total 
background (including man-made) has increased significantly, rather than 
measurably.  As to whether fallout has increased the background by a 
measurable amount or not, it depends on what measurement method is used.  
Some commonly used methods of measuring dose to people, such as with TLDs,  
would surely NOT find a detectable increase in dose from man-made nuclides in 
the environment.  

If you used TLD measurements in 1944 and used the same method now, I don't 
think you would find a measurable increase in background for the following 
reasons.  Some estimates of the total dose to U.S. citizens suggest that the 
average person receives 360 millirem per year from both background and all 
other sources. About 300 millirem of that is from natural background.  The 
360 millirem total dose includes 2 millirem from three sources lumped 
together which include FALLOUT, air travel and occupational exposure.  

Obviously it is possible to measure Sr-90, Pu-239 + 240 and Cs-137 from 
fallout, if that is the source of your objection.  But it is equally clear 
that fallout has caused no SIGNIFICANT increase in background radiation.  Let 
me show you what Gould actually posted on the Internet about background 
radiation and let's see if you want to defend his statements as quoted below: 

>>>>>5. Another indication that manmade radiation has increased exponentially 
since the dawn of the Nuclear Age comes from measures of radioactive carbon 
in the atmosphere since 1950, following a longterm decline in the preceding 
100 years when natural carbon had been replacing carbon-14 because of 
industrialization. 

6. According to Dr. Alice Stewart, who has been measuring background 
radiation levels in England since the 1950s, there may have been a doubling 
in such levels since 1945, because of the exponential increase in manmade 
radiation since 1945. So while Holloway may be right that our immune response 
to cancer has always been a function of background radiation, then it must 
follow that the world-wide increase in cancer must reflect such significant 
increases in background radiation. <<<<<<<<<
   
The above quote is from Jay M. Gould at the following link: 
http://www.bnlfable.com/wwwboard/messages/152.html
------------------------
Mr. Carlson,  the claims made by Gould do not coincide with the facts.  It is 
rather remarkable that his knowledge of the situation is so shallow.  So in 
answer to your question, I would say that his claims, as stated above, are 
not at all true.  Gould is very clever with words but does not give an honest 
description of the situation. The most straight forward reading of his 
comments is that "such levels" refers to the total radiation background.  The 
comment by Gould that "there may have been" a doubling of background 
radiation levels since 1945 is rather weak.  I know of no other finding of 
that nature. I don't believe it.  

Gould's last sentence refers to "significant increases"  in background 
radiation.  There is no reason to expect such significant increases from 
man-made nuclides and none has been found to my knowledge.  If you know of 
any such significant increases, then please tell us. 

He also mentions an "exponential" increase in man-made radiation since 1945.  
What he does not mention is that there was no man-made radiation in the 
environment prior to 1945, so any increase at all (from zero) can be 
considered exponential. What he does not do is to compare the present amounts 
of man-made radionuclides with the amounts present from the 30 or more 
nuclides of the three natural decay chains.  Mr. Carlson, if you wish to 
defend the proposition that the total background radiation has increased 
enough to be a health problem since the advent of man-made radionuclides, I 
am interested in seeing your evidence.  

R. Holloway
holloway3@aol.com

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