from lochbaum, differences in biological effects of radiation

[Norman & Karen Cohen <norco@bellatlantic.net>]

Radsafe guys and gals, I posted this to the list on the last go-round, from Dave
Lochbaum, Union of Concerned Scientists. Please note what he says, "there are
differences in the biological effects". That's all I've been saying all along. I
think much of our discussion has been about apples and oranges and has been talking
past each other.

peace
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,
>
>

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