Re: French Academy denounces LNT and use of collective dose [FW]

[Muckerheide <muckerheide@MEDIAONE.NET>]

 From: "Franta, Jaroslav" <frantaj@AECL.CA>

 

> Anyone know whether the French Academy of Medicine's statement, entitled

> "Medical Irradiation, Radioactive Waste, and Disinformation," is available

> on the internet somewhere ?

> 

> Thanks 

> 

> Jaro 



============



Jaro,



See:

http://cnts.wpi.edu/RSH/Docs/Other%20Docs/academy_of_medicine_of_france.htm



I translated "Radioactive Waste" as "Radioactivity Releases," which is more

consistent with the text.



Regards, Jim



> NUCLEONICS WEEK - December 13, 2001

> FRENCH ACADEMY DENOUNCES NEW

> LIMITS, RADIATION MISINFORMATION

> 

> France's Academy of Medicine has renewed its opposition

> to a 20-milliSievert (2 rem) annual dose limit for professional

> exposures, saying such a regulation would "bring no

> health benefit while hampering operation of medical radiology

> departments by making it more difficult to develop new techniques."

> The Academy, in a new opinion issued Dec. 4, said

> France should adopt without modification the Euratom radiation

> protection directive, which sets a professional dose limit

> of 100 mSv averaged over five years and doesn't change the

> current annual exposure limit of 50 mSv.

> The French administration is in the final throes of drafting

> decrees to enact the 1996 Euratom general directive, as well

> as a 1997 directive covering rad protection in medical practices.

> The French nuclear industry, too, has railed against the

> current draft which stipulates a strict 12-month dose limit of

> 20 mSv (see related story, page 11).

> The Academy also "denounces" the use of the linear nonthreshold

> (LNT) theory to estimate the health effect of doses

> below a few milliSieverts, the order of magnitude of the variation

> in natural background radiation among French regions.

> It also condemns the use of the collective dose concept to

> estimate health effects, saying "these procedures have no

> scientific validity, even if they appear convenient for administrative

> reasons."

> The Academy's statement, entitled "Medical Irradiation,

> Radioactive Waste, and Disinformation," was signed by Guy de The,

> chairman of its public health commission, and Maurice Tubiana,

> a renowned cancer specialist. Other drafters were Andre Aurengo,

> another well-known radiotherapist, and Roland Masse,

> a former director of rad protection agency OPRI.

> They are in the forefront of French scientists combating

> what they see as the misuse of international radiation

> protection recommendations to fan public concern about the health effects of

> low doses.

> Within the French system, the Academy scientists are

> often considered to represent an extreme view and they have

> clashed on occasion with radiation protection professionals

> who appreciate the current system, including the use of the

> LNT hypothesis and collective dose, because it simplifies their lives.

> The full Academy adopted the opinion in a unanimous vote Dec. 4.

> The statement supplements one issued in October 2000

> and goes into more detail on medical irradiation. In particular,

> the Academy says that radiation protection efforts should be

> increased for medical X-rays to reduce doses for certain exams,

> such as scans for young people, and recommends further

> measures, such as more training for radiology personnel. The

> scientists say it is "unacceptable" that while medical irradiation

> represents 95% of artificial irradiation received by a

> typical Frenchman, "so few resources" are devoted to reducing

> medical doses compared to the "high funding" given to

> rad protection in power industry.

> X-rays represent an effective dose of about 1 mSv/year in

> France, compared to 2-4 mSv from natural sources. The

> Academy makes several recommendations about how to optimize

> medical doses and how to justify them, two principles

> required under the Euratom directive 97/43 that will be enacted

> into national regulations next year.

> 'Disinformation'

> But the Academy goes further to address what it considers

> "disinformation" that has been circulating recently about the

> radiological risks from nuclear waste and the health effects of

> the Chernobyl accident.

> Concerning radwaste, the Academy says that risk studies

> should give priority to isotopes not on the basis of collective

> dose, but on the basis of potential individual doses, "since

> collective doses calculated from individual doses below a few

> microSieverts can have no health significance." Besides supporting

> more epidemiological studies of people living in naturally

> high-radiation areas like India's Kerala state and of ex-USSR

> populations exposed to relatively high doses of nuclear

> and other contaminants over long periods, the doctors call for

> a "significant national effort" in France, similar to that underway

> in the U.S., to study biological mechanisms implicated in

> cellular response below 100 mSv.

> The Academy scientists assert that it is "legitimate" to

> evaluate risks from nuclear plant dismantling and waste transport,

> storage and disposal programs on the basis of what is

> known about millions of people living in high-background

> areas, since the dose levels are lower in the case of industrial

> activities and there's no difference in biological impact of

> natural or artificial radiation. They noted that no adverse

> health effects have been detected in Kerala or other high-background

> areas in studies so far.

> The doctors also say the LNT theory of dose-effect relation

> is disproven by numerous experimental and epidemiological data.

> No increase in cancer has been shown in Hiroshima

> and Nagasaki survivors at doses below 200 mSv for adults

> and 100 mSv for children, they asserted, the only "doubt"

> being for in-utero exposure where 10 mSv could be the limit.

> The Academy railed in particular against the use of the

> LNT hypothesis to evaluate risks from Chernobyl fallout

> outside the ex-USSR. It said high doses to thyroids of children

> in areas near Chernobyl (1-3 Gray average in the most-exposed

> regions) have led to about 2,000 cancers, with about

> 10 deaths so far. But "no increase in thyroid affections that

> can be attributed to Chernobyl fallout has been shown outside

> of the USSR, for example in Poland or other adjacent states," it says.

> France has been plunged for the past several months in

> a controversy over the role of Chernobyl fallout in an increase

> of thyroid cancer, among all age groups, since the 1986 accident.

> The dispute is complicated by disagreement over the

> extent of Chernobyl fallout in France and charges that authorities

> of the time hid the truth about the contamination from the

> French public and failed to take necessary countermeasures.

> Some 100 people who suffer from thyroid cancer have now

> filed suit in Paris court seeking to establish authorities' responsibility

> for their plight, and the matter has received broad publicity.

> Doctors who work with radiation say that the incidence of

> thyroid cancer has risen everywhere over the past 15 years

> thanks to widespread screening, including in areas not affected

> by Chernobyl (NW, 12 April, 1). The Academy's latest

> opinion is designed to press the point that the doses from

> Chernobyl fallout in France could only have been very low,

> given the distance from the Ukrainian reactor, and because

> such low doses haven't been shown to cause any negative

> health impacts elsewhere, they can't be held responsible for a

> perceived increase in thyroid problems in France.

> -Ann MacLachlan, Paris

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 



************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.