Re: Low Level Radiation Health Effects: Compiling the Data

[KnowNukes relay <kn_relay@YAHOO.COM>]

[Radsafers, please cc Know_Nukes-owner[at]yahoogroups.com any replies you would

like posted to abolition-caucus and Know_Nukes - JH]



From: "Rosalie Bertell, Ph.D., GNSH" <rbertell@adelphia.net>

To: abolition-caucus@yahoogroups.com, ausinuke@yahoogroups.com,

downwinders@yahoogroups.com, environment@yahoogroups.com,

nucnews@yahoogroups.com, "KnowNukes relay" <kn_relay@yahoo.com>, "ßáëîêîâ À.Â."

<yablokov@online.ru>



Dear Friends,



KN has clearly set out the radiation philosophy and mantra of the

self-appointed and self-perpetuating "experts" at the ICRP 

(International Commission on Radiological Protection).  Membership in this 

organization consists of those whose livelihood depends on people accepting the



negative effects of radiation pollution.



KN neglects some very important scientific considerations on which 

these opinions rest.  For example, such a simple question as how one 

calculates dose.  Starting from a nuclear event, this means you have to know

the

quantity and isotopic breakdown of all emissions to the environment, 

the transport of these particles, gases and liquids in the environment, the

chemical interactions in the environment, uptake in the food web

(terrestrial and marine), uptake by plants animals and humans, 

distribution of the various isotopes in the body and the length of time it

remains there, etc.  There are problems and guesses with every one of these

steps.



There are also problems with respect to the chemical carrier of the

radionuclides.  For example, tritium as a gas or in an organic compound 

will behave differently in the body. Its. residence time in the body and

incorporation in human tissues differs.  Physicists (such as those in 

ICRP) tend to reduce all calculation to the energy deposited in tissue, 

making some crude accommodations for different types of radiation.  These 

estimates are also in question.  The simplistic report from KN just assumes

that 

we know dose by some sort of miracle and all agree on how to adjust for 

types of chemical carrier and radiation.



Dr. Rosalie Bertell



----- Original Message -----

From: ßáëîêîâ À.Â. <yablokov@online.ru>

To: <abolition-caucus@yahoogroups.com>; <ausinuke@yahoogroups.com>;

<downwinders@yahoogroups.com>; <environment@yahoogroups.com>;

<nucnews@yahoogroups.com>; KnowNukes relay <kn_relay@yahoo.com>

Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 8:47 AM

Subject: Re: [abolition-caucus] Fwd: [KN] "Low Level Radiation Health

Effects: Compiling the Data





Dear Colleaques,



@Compiling the data@ on low level radiation give us only one side of 

the problem. WE have answers to all of these questions . Alexey Yablokov



----- Original Message -----

From: KnowNukes relay <kn_relay@yahoo.com>

To: <abolition-caucus@yahoogroups.com>; <ausinuke@yahoogroups.com>;

<downwinders@yahoogroups.com>; <environment@yahoogroups.com>;

<nucnews@yahoogroups.com>

Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 2:05 AM

Subject: [abolition-caucus] Fwd: [KN] "Low Level Radiation Health 

Effects:

Compiling the Data





> >From: Karl Johanson <karljohanson@shaw.ca>

> >To: Know_Nukes@yahoogroups.com

>

> >Low Level Radiation Health Effects: Compiling the Data

> >Revision 1

> >March 19, 1998

> >by Radiation, Science, and Health, Inc.,

> >Edited by J. Muckerheide

> >

> >Professor Emeritus, and Member of the UN Scientific Committee on the

Effects

> >of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), of the Central Laboratory for 

Radiological

> >Protection, Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski states (1995b) that:

> >"The ICRP assumption on linearity was not very realistic. It was ...

> >accepted, however, because it simplified regulatory work by allowing

> >extrapolation ... The original purpose was to regulate ... a 

relatively

> >small group of occupationally exposed persons and it did not involve

> >exceedingly high costs to society.

> >

> >"The dose limit for the public was set at 50 mSv over a lifetime ... 

less

> >than one-third of the global average lifetime dose from background

radiation

> >... and many tens or hundreds of times lower than the lifetime dose 

in

many

> >regions of the world.

> >

> >"Limiting exposure below the levels of natural radiation at which

millions

> >of people have lived since time immemorial is a logical consequence 

of

the

> >... assumption from 1959: if such dose is detrimental, then one 

should

also

> >attempt decrease the risk of background radiation ... or the risk of

> >man-made radiation even at such trivial levels as 1 mSv/year.

> >

> >"Yet such reasoning was less than palatable to many scientists ... 

not

only

> >because of the epistemological problem of trespassing beyond the 

limits

of

> >knowledge ... but also because of the absurd practical consequences 

and

the

> >moral aspects.

> >

> >"As demonstrated by Walinder (1987), on the complementarity 

principle,

the

> >stochastic phenomenon of radiation carcinogenesis cannot be for an 

open

> >system, such as a human being or a population. It can only be done 

if the

> >radiation dose is much more powerful than the natural dose, combined 

with

> >other carcinogenic factors ... A conception that mathematical models

adapted

> >for high-dose effects can be limitlessly extrapolated to low doses 

and

still

> >represent a biological reality is epistemologically unacceptable

(Walinder

> >1987). The absurd practical consequences were exposed by the 

Chernobyl

> >accident.

> >

> >"Long before that Professor W.V. Mayneord, one of the most notable

persons

> >in radiation protection and a former member of the UK delegation to

UNSCEAR

> >and of ICRP stated (Mayneord 1964): 'I have always felt that the 

argument

> >because at higher values of dose an observed effect is proportional 

to

dose,

> >at very low doses there is necessarily some 'effect' of dose, 

however

small,

> >is nonsense.'

> >

> >"Dr. Lauriston Taylor, former president of the US NCRP, defined

applications

> >of the linear, no-threshold dose-effect relationship to such 

calculations

as

> >'deeply immoral uses of our scientific heritage' (Taylor 1980).

> >

> >"The no-threshold arithmetic ... led to a decision by the Supreme 

Soviet

> >(but against the advice of the leading Soviet scientists (Ilyin 

1993) to

> >evacuate about 116,000 inhabitants of Ukraine and Belarus, causing

> >unspeakable suffering and a loss of many billions of dollars, 

equivalent

to

> >about 1.5% of the GNP of the ... Soviet Union (ICP 1991).

> >

> >"The intervention level for evacuation was a 70-year lifetime 

radiation

dose

> >of 350 mSv, about twice the world average natural background dose 

(168

mSv).

> >All families with pregnant women and children less than 12 years of 

age

were

> >relocated from areas ... [where] the Cs-137 body burden in children 

still

> >living in these areas was ... between 40 and 2250 Bq, which is less 

than

the

> >natural burden of radioactive K-40 (4000 Bq) in adults. Body burdens 

of

> >several thousand Bq are now common in Northern Canada and were as 

high as

> >100,000 Bq during weapons tests in the 1960s (Tracy 1994)."

> >

> >"...one might ask why governments ... do not relocate populations in

(high

> >natural background) areas ... why isn't everyone evacuated from 

Norway,

> >where the average lifetime dose is 365 mSv (Henriksen and Saxebol 

1988)

and

> >in some districts 1500 mSv? Should not regions of India with >2000 

mSv

> >(Sunta 1990) be depopulated?

> >

> >"What about areas of Iran with >3000 mSv? ... (I)n the city of 

Ramsar

> >several generations in one household have been receiving average

individual

> >lifetime doses of natural radiation of 17,000 mSv, 240 times the 

current

> >ICRP limit. Yet these individuals show no increased incidence of 

disease,

> >and some of them have lived to be 110 years of age (Sohrabi 1990)."

> >

> >"The recognition by UNSCEAR, the most distinguished international

scientific

> >body on the matters of ionizing radiation, of the possibility that 

low

doses

> >of radiation may result in changes in cells and organisms which 

reflect

an

> >ability to adapt to the effects of radiation, may inspire the 

authorities

to

> >begin a more realistic approach to problems of estimating and 

managing

the

> >risks of ionizing radiation. The past 4 decades witnessed regulatory

> >activity, stemming from the linearity principle, steadily decreasing

> >radiation standards to an absurd sub-natural level of 1 mSv per 

year. The

> >time is ripe for renunciation of linearity principle in radiation

protection

> >of the public and for considering a practical threshold dose as a 

basis

for

> >radiation standards."

>

> --

> Forwarded by Know_Nukes-owner[at]yahoogroups.com (Jim Hoerner)







__________________________________________________

Do You Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards®

http://movies.yahoo.com/

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

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.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/