Fwd: Re: Low Level Radiation Health Effects: Compiling the Data

["jim_hoerner" <jim_hoerner@HOTMAIL.COM>]

--- In abolition-caucus@y..., "Jim Hoerner" <jim_hoerner@h...> wrote:

--- In abolition-caucus@y..., "Rosalie Bertell, Ph.D., GNSH"



<rbertell@a...> wrote:

>Dear Jim,

>

>You seem to be totally immersed in the Physicist's approach to health!  I

>wonder if you have ever studied the intricacies of ecological and human

>physiological science.  Probably you are so immersed in your reality that

>you cannot even hear me.



Hello, Dr. Bertell.  I hear you.  NO NEED TO YELL.



>However. I will try this one more time to reach

>you with an alternative scientific view.  As a plenary member of the HPS

>myself,



Thank you for your reply.



To be a plenary member of HPS, all it takes is five years of

experience in 

the radiation safety profession.  They have some interesting position an 

policy papers at http://www.hps.org/hpspublications/papers.html

For example, from

http://www.hps.org/documents/radiationrisk.pdf

"Below 10 rem (which includes occupational and environmental exposures), 

risks of health effects are either too small to be observed or are 

non-existent...Current radiation protection standards and practices are 

based on the premise that any radiation

dose, no matter how small, can result in detrimental health effects,

such as 

cancer and genetic damage. Further, it is assumed that these effects are 

produced in direct proportion to the dose received, i.e., doubling the 

radiation dose results in a doubling of the effect. These two assumptions 

lead to a dose-response relationship, often referred to as the linear, 

no-threshold model, for estimating health effects at radiation dose

levels 

of interest. There is, however, substantial scientific evidence that this 

model is an oversimplification of the dose-response relationship and

results 

in an overestimation of health risks in the low dose range."



>I know that you are being encouraged to fight against this

>alternative view.



No you don't.  My only encouragement is my personal motivation to debate 

those that post errors and misinformation.  That, and all of my fan mail. 

:-)



>I feel sorry for you, though, because you may wake up

>some day with health problems and no one to help you.



No need to feel sorry for me.  If I ever do wake up with health problems, 

they most certainly won't be caused by low level radiation (LLR).



>THE ICRP WAS ESTABLISHED IN THE EARLY 1950'S



Wrong.  The ICRP was established in 1928.  See 

http://w3.uokhsc.edu/rso/HTML/Protection_history.htm



>WHEN THE PHYSICISTS FROM THE

>MANHATTAN PROJECT ASKED TO JOIN THE MEDICAL RADIOLOGISTS' SOCIETY TO 

>JOINTLY

>SET OCCUPATIONAL STANDARDS FOR HANDLING RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS.  BOTH

GOUPS

>MAKE THEIR LIVING FROM SUCH ACTIVITIES.  THEY ATTEMPTED TO DECIDE HOW

MUCH

>RADIATION EXPOSURE PEOPLE (INCLUDING THEMSELVES) WOULD BE ABLE TO STAND

>WHILE PROMOTING THE BENEFITS OF THEIR ACTIVITIES.  THEY HAVE STUDIED

>RADIATION NOT HEALTH.



That is wrong.  In order to set dose limits, one must have an

understanding 

of health.  The 2001-2005 Commission members are listed here: 

http://www.icrp.org/members.htm  I assure you that the Radiologists and 

Epidemiologists have extensively studied the biological effects of 

radiation.



>ONCOLOGISTS, EPIDEMIOLOGISTS, PEDIATRICIANS, PUBLIC HEALTH EXPERTS, AND 

>EVEN

>OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH EXPERTS HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED FROM THE MAIN COMMITTEE

>(WHICH MAKES ALL DECISIONS) BY THE  ICRP BY-LAWS. THESE ARE THE

EXPERTS WHO

>WORK WITH THE RESULTS OF EXPOSURE TO RADIATION.



Wrong.  However, these occupations would learn from the publications of 

members of the ICRP.  Pediatricians, public health experts, and

occupational 

health experts generally do not have extensive knowledge of radiation 

safety.  Your argument transparently weak in that these health

professionals 

do not see many patients that were exposed to harmful radiation.



>NO ONE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION, EVEN THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION, CAN

>SELECT A REPRESENTATIVE TO SERVE ON THE ICRP.  NEW MEMBERS ARE

PROPOSED BY

>CURRENT MEMBERS AND ACCEPTED BY THEIR OWN EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE.  IN OTHER

>WORDS THEY ARE ARE AS I HAVE SAID, SELF-APPOINTED AND SELF-PERPETUATING.



I sense a little jealousy perhaps?  Next you'll be calling them a

bunch of 

gray-haired men.



>THESE PHYSICSTS ALSO CLAIM TO BASE THEIR RADIATION STANDARDS ON

STUDIES OF

>THE ATOMIC BOMB SURVIVORS.  THIS IS BLATANTLY FALSE.  THE ATOMIC BOMB

STUDY

>POPULATION WAS SELECTED FROM THE 1950 JAPANESE CENSUS AND THE DATA

WAS NOT

>READY FOR ANALYSIS UNTIL AFTER THE ASSIGNMENTS OF RADIATION DOSE IN 1967.

>THE STANDARDS SET IN 1952 WERE IN EFFECT UNTIL 1990 (WHEN 870 SCIENTISTS 

>AND

>PHYSICIANS PROTESTED THEIR LAX PROTECTION OF HEALTH).



What is blatantly false, is what you state above.



http://www.dceg.cancer.gov/ebp/reb/pdfs/sabs.pdf

JAMAŽ The Journal of the American Medical Association

August 1, 1990, Volume 264



"...the epidemiologic studies of atomic bomb survi-vors

have provided the single most important source of infor-mation

on the immediate and delayed effects of acute, whole-body

exposure to ionizing radiation...Many of the analyses focus on a

sample of 

more than 100 000 survivors who were identified from a 1950

national census. The population includes men, women, and children,

followed 

up prospectively to the present time, who received a range of doses from 

background to near lethal levels...intense study of nearly 70 000

offspring 

of atomic bomb survivors has failed to identify an increase in congenital 

anomalies, cancer, chromosome aberrations in circulating lymphocytes, or 

muta-tional blood protein changes. Based on a recent analysis of eight 

different indicators, humans now appear less sensitive to the genetic 

effects of radiation than previously thought... Cancer has been the major 

late effect of radiation exposure

in the atomic bomb survivors...Data from the atomic bomb survivors

provide 

much of the scientific basis for setting radiation protection

standards... 

Large radiation doses cause cancer, but we may never know whether small 

doses, on the order of natural background radiation, do so.

Nonetheless, it 

is prudent to assume that there is no threshold below which radiation

would 

fail to cause some deleterious effect, and

models must be applied to estimate hazards at low doses. In this

regard, the 

study of Japanese atomic bomb survivors has generated an extensive

body of 

data, and continues to provide the framework by which we understand the 

effects of radiation and judge the potential risks from low-level 

exposures."



>NO! THEY ARE ADULT MALES TRYING TO DECIDE HOW MUCH RADIATION EXPOSURE AND

>DETRIMENT CAN BE "ACCEPTED" FOR THE BENEFITS OF THEIR INDUSTRIES.  IT IS 

>NOT

>THE EMPLOYER WHO IS THE BEST CONSULTANT ABOUT INDUSTRIAL HAZARDS.

MUCH MORE

>CAN BE LEARNED FROM THE DOCTORS AND NURSES WHO CARE FOR THEIR

ILLNESSES OR

>THE GENERAL PUBLIC WHO SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES OF BRAVADO.



No!  The adult males you mention are more likely to be exposed than the 

general public.  Wouldn't they want to protect themselves?  The

doctors and 

nurses learn from the adult males like Dr. Greta Joy Dicus and Dr. Annie 

Sugier of the ICRP, not the other way around.



>MOST HAZARDS HAVE A HORMETIC EFFECT ON THE BODY.



Well said.



>ALTHOUGH LINEAR EXTRAPOLATION IS THE CLAIMED STANDARD, ACTUALLY IF

YOU LOOK

>AT THE  ATOMIC BOMB LINEAR EXTRAPOLATION YOU WILL FIND A RISK FACTOR OF

>ABOUT 18 TO 20 FATAL CANCERS PER 100 PERSON SIEVERT EXPOSURE.  BEIR AND

>UNSCEAR REDUCE THIS TO 8 TO 10 FOR LOW DOSE AND ICRP REDUCES IT AGAIN

TO 4

>OR 5 FOR SLOW DOSE RATE.  IT IS NO LONGER LINEAR.



First of all, the dose rate effect is based upon science.  Do you deny

that 

acute doses are worse than chronic exposures?  Adjusting for dose rate

in no 

way invalidates the linear extrapolation, as you erroneously claim

above.  

500 rem delivered instantaneously may kill someone within months, but

over a 

lifetime it might not be noticed.



My goodness, Dr. Bertell.  Linear extrapolation is undeniably used. 

Sure, 

if you extrapolate from 1000 rem, you'll get a different answer than

if you 

do so from 100 rem.  Please read the following which should help explain 

your misunderstanding.



- UNSCEAR, 1993:3 0.11 fatal cancers per person-sievert for high

doses (comparable to those experienced by the survivors of the

Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings). For low doses, UNSCEAR

states that "no single figure can be quoted" for the risk reduction

factor, "but it is clear that the factor is small. The data from the

Japanese studies suggest a factor not exceeding 2."4 For a

population between the ages of 18 and 64 (corresponding to the

ages of people in a typical industrial work force), a factor of 2

yields a 

fatal cancer risk at low dose rates of 0.04 per person-sievert.



- BEIR Committee, 1990:5 0.08 fatal cancers per person-sievert for a

single dose of 0.1 sievert, based on Hiroshima and Nagasaki

survivor data. This figure is unadjusted for any reduction of risk at

low dose rates.



- ICRP, 1991:6 0.05 fatal cancers per person-sievert for the entire

population and 0.04 fatal cancers per person-sievert for adult

workers, with both estimates being for low doses and incorporating a

dose rate reduction factor of 2.



- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency uses a cancer incidence

risk factor of 0.06 per person-sievert.7 Since the cancer incidence

rate is about 50 percent greater than the cancer fatality rate, the

implicit risk for fatal cancers is about 0.04 per person-sievert.



>MOST OF THE HEALTH PHYSICISTS I HAVE DEALT WITH ARE LOOKING ONLY FOR

CANCER

>AS A HEALTH EFFECT.



That is wrong.  Please see my JAMA reference above for more detail on the 

subject.



>THIS IS A RARE EVENT.  IT WAS CHOSEN AS A MARKER FOR

>DETRIMENT, BUT HAS NEVER BEEN CLAIMED BY HEALTH PROFESSIONALS TO BE THE 

>ONLY

>HEALTH EFFECT.



>THERE ARE MORE BROAD EFFECTS LIKE DAMAGE TO THE IMMUNE SYSTEM,

ACCELERATION

>OF THE AGING PROCESS, HEART DISEASE, AND AUTO-IMMUNE DISEASES WHICH

HEALTH

>PROBLEMS  (IF THEY NOTICE OR EXPERIENCE  THEM) THEY DO NOT RELATE TO

THEIR

>RADIATION EXPOSURE.  DAMAGE TO OFFSPRING IS ALSO BROADER INCLUDING A

RANGE

>OF CONGENITAL DISEASES AND MALFORMATIONS IN ADDITION TO SOME GENETIC 

>DAMAGE.



Now you are sounding like a snake oil salesperson.  There are a number of 

anti-nuclear people out there peddling their own pseudo-science

claiming all 

kinds of adverse health effects from low level radiation.  It's like 

claiming that damage to the immune system is caused by microscopic

drandruff 

left by invisible pink unicorns that sneak into your bedroom in the

middle 

of the night.  It's a baseless claim that cannot be proven or disproven.



>CALCULATING DOSE FROM A RADIOLOGICAL EVENT, ESPECIALLY WHEN MATERIAL IS

>RELEASED TO THE ENVIRONMENT IS NOT SIMPLE.  ONLY A FOOL WOULD THINK THEY

>COULD ESTIMATE A DOSE FOR EVERY PERSON EXPOSED IN EVERY POSSIBLE

SITUATION!



And only a fool would think it is necessary.  A conservative dose to the 

maximum exposed individual can be reliably calculated, and that is all

that 

is necessary for licensing.  Bounding or average doses to large

populations 

can also be reliably calculated and confirmed with measurements.



>I WILL JUST GIVE YOU ONE SMALL EXAMLE OF THE SCIENTIFIC DISCIPINE

MAKING A

>MAJOR MISTAKE WHICH PROBABLY ENDANGERED MILLIONS OF PEOPLE.  DURING THE

>NUCLEAR WEAPON TESTING THE AUTHORITIES MEASURED ONLY RADIOACTIVE CESIUM,

>STRONTIUM AND IODINE IN MILK WHICH THE PUBLIC INCLUDING CHILDREN WERE

>DRINKING. TtHEY NEGLECTED TO MEASURE COBALT 60 BECAUSE THEIR

EXPERIMENTS IN

>THE LABORATORY, USING INORGANIC COBALT SHOWED VERY LITTLE UPTAKE BY THE

>HUMAN GUT.

>

>HOWEVER, IN THE REAL WORLD, THE INORGANIC COBALT 60 WAS TAKEN UP BY 

>GRASSES,

>EATEN BY COWS, AND INCORPORATED INTO VITAMEN B 12 IN THE COW'S RUMEN.

 THIS

>ORGANIC FORM OF COBALT HAD 2000 TIMES THE UPTAKE IN HUMAN LIVERS,

THEREFORE

>DID 2000 TIMES THE DAMAGE REGULATORS EXPECTED BASING THEIR THEORY ON THE

>INORGANIC FORM.



Please provide references to back up your claims above, and quantify what 

"2000 times the damage" means.  I can find no references to support

what you 

say.  I am not interested in studies that show B-12 laced with Co-60

can be 

incorporated into cattle rumen; I'd like to see where millions of people 

were endangered.  Thank you.



>I HAVE NOT FOUND EVEN ENGINEERS TO BE OMNIPOTENT.



Agreed.  I am sure the feeling is mutual.



>IT IS NOT "EASILY MEASURED" AND THERE ARE SERIOUS PROBLEMS FOR

EXAMPLE WITH

>STRONTIUM WHICH ARE JUST BEING DISCOVERED AND HAVE NOT YET BEEN 

>INCORPORATED

>INTO DOSE ESTIMATES.



Serious problems such as?  Please provide the example.  Thank you.



>AGAIN THE PHYSICIST CANNOT AND DOES NOT KNOW ALL OF

>THE THINGS WHICH HAPPEN WHEN POLLUTANTS ARE FREELY RELEASED INTO THE

EARTH

>ENVIRONMENT OR THE HUMAN BODY.



While I agree with that, I would not automatically jump to the conclusion 

that doses that are a tiny fraction of background would be deadly.  That 

seems very illogical.  Why do you?



>DOSE FROM STRONTIUM 90 HAS BEEN SERIOUSLY UNDERESTIMATED, ALTHOUGH  IT IS

>TREATED AS AN ALPHA EMMITTER.



False.



>THE INTERACTION OF THE RADIATION AND THE

>BODY'S REPAIR SYSTEM HAS NOT BEEN FULLY UNDERSTOOD BY PHYSICISTS.



True.  We may never fully understand everything.  The question is, do we 

have enough data to define dose limits conservatively?  The answer is yes.



>YOUR RESPONSE TO ME REFLECTS THAT IGNORANCE.  THEY CERTAINLY

CONTRIBUTE TO 

>THE

>PHYSICAL SIDE OF THE PICTURE BUT KNOW VERY LITTLE ABOUT THE

BIOCHEMICAL AND

>BIOPHYSICAL PROBLEMS WHICH DO NOT FIT THEIR SIMPLE PICTUE.



False.



>I THINK IN YOUR MIND "THE ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY" IS REALLY THE 

>NUCLEAR

>ENGINEERS AND PHYSICISTS WHO WERE TAUGHT USING ICRP TEXTS BY PHYSICISTS.



No, Dr. Bertell, the entire scientific community includes the doctors, 

nurses and everyone else that reads the same texts that the nuclear 

engineers and physicists do when they study about the health effects of 

ionizing radiation.



>THEY KNOW WHAT THEY KNOW, AND ARE OFTEN VERY PROFESSIONAL.  HOWEVER,

THEY

>WOULD BENEFIT FROM A BIT OF HUMILITY.



Agreed.



>BEST WISHES FOR SOME QUIET REFLECTION TIEM DURING HOLY WEEK AND EASTER.

>ROSALIE

> >Dr. Rosalie Bertell



Thank you.  Same to you.



Jim



--

Hold the door for the stranger behind you.  When the driver a 

half-car-length in front of you signals to get over, slow down.  Smile

and 

say "hi" to the folks you pass on the sidewalk.  Give blood.  Volunteer.





_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at

http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

--- End forwarded message ---





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

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/