[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Claims of Sternglass & others



Some indications of cancer, congenital malformation and chromosomal

aberrations in high background radiation areas are given in the papers

below.



Authors



Nair MK. Nambi KSV. Amma NS. Gangadharan P. Jayalekshmi P. Jayadevan S.

Cherian V. Reghuram KN.



Title



Population study in the high natural background radiation area in Kerala,

India



Source



Radiation Research. 152(6 Suppl S):S145-S148, 1999 Dec.



Abstract



A comprehensive survey of the population exposed to high-level natural

radiation is presented. The population living in Karunagappally taluk in

Kerala, India, presents a unique opportunity for studies on the health

effects of chronic exposure to low-level radiation. The environmental

radiation emanates largely from the thorium deposited mostly along coastal

areas. In certain locations on the coast, it is as high as 70 mGy/year and

on average is 7.5 times the level seen in interior areas. Using portable

scintillometers, radiation levels in more than 66,306 houses were measured;

outside levels were also measured in the same house compound. Of the total

population of 400,000, 100,000 lived in areas with high natural radiation.

Information on lifestyle, socio-demographic features, occupation, housing,

residence history, and tobacco and alcohol use was obtained by

house-to-house visits and enumeration of every resident individual. A

population cancer registry system has been established to obtain cancer

incidence rates. In this preliminary analysis, there is no evidence that

cancer occurrence is consistently higher because of the levels of external

gamma-radiation exposure in the area. Further dosimetry-level studies are

needed along with biological studies. Studies of soil, thoron-in-breath, and

the radon-thoron levels in houses are ongoing, and further case-control

analyses are continuing. (C) 1999 by Radiation Research Society.

[References: 6]



 +++++++++++++++++++++



Radiat Res 1999 Dec;152(6 Suppl):S149-53

Genetic monitoring of the human population from high-level natural radiation

areas of Kerala on the southwest coast of India. I. Prevalence of congenital

malformations in newborns.



Jaikrishan G, Andrews VJ, Thampi MV, Koya PK, Rajan VK, Chauhan PS.



Monazite Survey Project, Cell Biology Division, Bhabha Atomic Research

Centre, Trombay, Mumbai-400 085, India.



In the densely populated monazite-bearing sands of Kerala, on the southwest

coast of India, natural radiation dose rates range from 1. 0 to over 35.0

mGy per year in certain well-defined high-level natural radiation areas. As

a part of the program to assess the health effects of this naturally

occurring high-level natural radiation on human populations, monitoring of

newborns is being undertaken to determine the incidence of congenital

malformations. From August 1995 to December 1998, a total of 36,805 newborns

were screened, including 212 (0.58%) stillbirths. There were 36,263

singletons, 536 (1.45%) twins, and 6 born as triplets. The overall incidence

of malformations was 1.46% and was dependent on maternal age. The stillborns

exhibited a very high malformation rate of 20.75% compared to 1.35% among

the live births. Likewise, twins also had a higher malformation rate (2.99%)

compared to singletons (1.44%). About 3.5% of the newborns originated from

consanguineous marriages. Consanguinity also led to a relatively higher rate

of malformations (1.97%) as well as of stillbirths (1.18%). About 92% of the

deliveries took place by the maternal age of 29 years and only 1.2% among

women above 34 years old. The stratification of newborns with malformations,

stillbirths or twinning showed no correlation with the natural radiation

levels in the different areas. Thus no significant differences were observed

in any of the reproductive parameters between the two population groups

based on the monitoring of 26,151 newborns from high-level natural radiation

and 10,654 from normal-level natural radiation (dose rate </=1.5 mGy/year)

areas of the Kerala coast.



++++++++++++++++



      Radiat Res 1999 Dec;152(6 Suppl):S154-8











Genetic monitoring of the human population from high-level natural radiation

areas of Kerala on the southwest coast of India. II. Incidence of numerical

and structural chromosomal aberrations in the lymphocytes of newborns.



Cheriyan VD, Kurien CJ, Das B, Ramachandran EN, Karuppasamy CV, Thampi MV,

George KP, Kesavan PC, Koya PK, Chauhan PS.



Monazite Survey Project, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Trombay Mumbai-400

84085, India.



Cytogenetic studies using cord blood samples from newborns from high-level

natural radiation areas of the Kerala coast in Southwest India have been in

progress since 1986. A total of 963,940 metaphases from 10,230 newborns have

been screened for various types of chromosomal aberrations. Comparison of

8,493 newborns (804,212 cells) from high-level natural radiation areas (dose

rate >1.5 mGy/year) and 1,737 newborns (159,728 cells) from normal-level

natural radiation areas (</=1.5 mGy/year) did not show any significant

difference in the frequency of dicentrics, translocations, inversions or

other types of aberrations known to be associated with radiation exposure.

The cytogenetic studies were continued for constitutional anomalies using

karyotype analysis, and scoring of 16,169 newborns has been completed. The

overall frequency of constitutional anomalies was 4.95 +/- 0.55 per 1,000

newborns, which is comparable to the incidence reported in the literature.

Within the limitations of sample size, the frequencies of total autosomal

and sex aneuploids as well as structural anomalies were comparable between

the high-level and normal-level natural radiation areas. A striking

observation was the presence of rogue cells, the rarely occurring metaphases

with a high level of chromosomal damage, which have not been reported

previously among newborns.



 ++++++++++++



IN France, where I was borned and lived for 50 years, there is no indication

of excess cancer or leukemia risk in high radiation areas.   Same in Saxony,

Germany, Brasil, Colorado (if annual dose rates in any nuclear facility were

as high as natural levels in Denver, these facilities would be evacuated in

a panic).  Yet, age corrected cancer mortality in Mountain states is much

lower than in the Atlantic coast states, which have THREE TIMES less average

natural annual doses.





To add a few percent to radiation  levels in Moiuntain states would not

increase their cancer rates to coastal state levels.



Another source of info:



Biologic response to low doss of ionizing radiatio: Detriment vs dose - Part

1: Dose response of cells and tissues , L. Feinendegen and M. Pollycove, The

J of Nucl  Medicine - Newsline, Vol 42(7) pp. 17N-27N (2001)



Biologic response to low doss of ionizing radiatio: Detriment vs dose - Part

2: Dose response of organisms , L. Feinendegen and M. Pollycove, The J of

Nucl  Medicine - Newsline, Vol 42(9) pp. 26N-32N (2001)







Philippe Duport



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

From: "Bolling, Jason E" <bollingje@ports.usec.com>

To: <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 7:55 AM

Subject: RE: Claims of Sternglass & others





> OK, OK,

>

> I am not saying Sternglass is right (or even close to right).  However, a

> question, if I may....  :)

>

> Isn't it true that the body's response to radiation/contamination is

> specific to the type of radiation (alpha, beta, gamma, or neutron) and its

> energy?  Are the naturally occurring sources (i.e., K-40) significantly

> different from the sources from NPPs such that the response to the

naturally

> occurring sources has been successfully adapted to (via evolution) and

these

> new "artificial" sources have a different impact?  (I know, probably a

dumb

> question.  To the body, ionizing radiation is ionizing radiation and the

> only difference should be the amount of energy deposited.)

>

> Just looking for truth,

>

> Jason Bolling

> Nuclear Criticality Safety

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Patricia Milligan [mailto:PXM@nrc.gov]

> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 3:41 PM

> To: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu; bollingje@ports.usec.com

> Subject: Re: Claims of Sternglass & others

>

>

> well, the typical adult body contains about 100,000 pCi of K-40, with a

> resultant dose of about 40 mrem/yr.   The radiation dose from K-40 in the

> soil is about 10 mrem/yr.... this is pretty much the same around the

world.

> so, going back to the French experience...they have a lot of nuclear power

> plants that release the same types and quantities of effluents just like

> U.S. nuclear power plants and their residents have about 100,000 +/- pCi

of

> K-40 and other naturally occuring isotopes just like U.S. residents

and..the

> country is bordered by nuclear power plants i.e.  Switzerland, Germany..so

> one could reasonably expect the average French resident to be "exposed" to

> very small amounts of radioactive materials in quantities equal to or

> greater than those of  U.S. residents and STILL the infant mortality in

> France is about half the rate in the U.S.  Please explain that to me as I

am

> having a difficult time understanding this issue. Perhaps I am just too

> dense to understand that U.S. radiation and releases from U.S. power

plants

> are so much more harmful.....

>

> P. Milligan, CHP, RPh.

> 301-415-2223

>

> >>> "Bolling, Jason E" <bollingje@ports.usec.com> 05/02/02 02:32PM >>>

> My understanding of the claims of Sternglass and others regarding

increasing

> infant mortality rates (and also increasing miscarriage rates) is that the

> small amounts of radioactive materials that are allowed to be discharged

> from NPPs are taken in by the mothers during pregnancy and passed to the

> baby either in utero or through breast milk or cow milk (after birth).

The

> very small amounts of radioactive materials are thereby concentrated in

> vulnerable developing tissue.  The resulting dose from the material is

> internal and concentrated on small areas.  (Therefore, the whole body dose

> is very small, but the actual dose to the few specific grams of tissue

where

> the material concentrates is larger.)

>

> Their claim is not that the *radiation* emitted from the plant is so very

> dangerous, but the extremely small amounts of *contamination* are causing

an

> observable decrease in the rate of live births (so-called infant

> mortality?).  Sternglass' book is available at

> http://www.ratical.com/radiation/SecretFallout/

>

> I don't agree with the findings of this book, but I believe above ground

> nuclear testing was halted due to these kinds of concerns.  Are they

valid?

> I signed up for this mailing list to try to find out.  What kinds of

studies

> exist on the Web to refute these kinds of claims?  Sternglass appears to

> have a whole website devoted to him.  Where is the data to show he is

wrong?

>

> Following on your suggestion, Mr. King, of taking measurements to PROVE

the

> claims, I suppose it would be necessary to perform autopsies on fetuses

that

> were either miscarried or died at birth to determine if the concentration

of

> small amounts of contamination is actually occurring as is claimed.  Does

> anybody know if this has been done?

>

> Just looking for truth,

>

> Jason Bolling

> Nuclear Criticality Safety

>

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Vincent A King/KINGVA/CC01/INEEL/US [mailto:KINGVA@INEL.GOV]

> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 12:24 PM

> To: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

> Subject: Re: Tooth Fairy Project - NY Times - some responses

>

>

>

> Norm, Norm, Norm.

>

> WHAT radiation?  There IS NO RADIATION EXPOSURE to these 'poor innocents'

> except what they get from nature or their doctors and dentists.

>

> How do I know this?

>

> Because measuring radiation and detecting radioactive materials is easy.

> We know how to do it.  Also because every nuclear power plant monitors

> their effluents and the environment around their site, including Salem and

> Hope Creek.  YOU CAN MONITOR THE ENVIRONMENT TOO if you're really that

> concerned about this. (HINT: downwind and downstream give the best

results.

> It also helps to look at the same time the culprit is there, rather than

> before or after.)  Do you know what you will find?  Plenty of natural

> radiation and nothing from the power plants.  No guessing is needed.

>

> Why rely on conjecture and speculation when all you have to do is go out,

> find the evidence (with readily available technology), and PROVE to

> everybody beyond a shadow of a doubt that these "continual doses of low

> level radiation" exist?  I've suggested this before and received no

> response.

>

> No fair, Norm.  You don't get to start with the premise of "continual

doses

> of low level radiation" when you haven't provided proof and the means to

> prove it are available.

>

> That reminds me, I'm also still waiting for answers to a couple of other

> questions that I've asked:

>

> -How do these radioactive materials sneak past effluent and environmental

> monitoring in amounts large enough to give anyone a significant dose? It's

> far more straighforward and accurate to monitor/model the pollutant from

> source to receptor than to try to observe speculative 'effects' at a

> distance.

>

> -What's the right answer for spent nuclear fuel?  Keep it onsite? Ship it

> to Yucca Mountain? (If so, how?)  Put it in the alley out back and hope

> someone steals it?  It exists whether you like it or not (I know: you

> don't), so you have to have some opinion on what to do with it.  You can't

> exclude ALL options, so what is the option most acceptable to you?  (New

> question - why do anti's act as if spent fuel has just now come into

> existence?  It's only been around for decades...when does this great

burden

> on humanity begin?)

>

> - Why don't people in higher background radiation areas than those around

> Salem/Hope Creek show any negative health effects?  These people are

ALWAYS

> receiving "continual doses of low level radiation," but at levels even

> higher than the ones you are concerned with.  If the health effects are

> real, rather than imagined, then they should be evident anywhere there is

a

> higher radiation dose to people.

>

> These questions aren't that hard, are they?  If you really are that

> concerned, you should be able to provide an honest, thoughtful answer to

> them.  And if you or your group can't generate enough logic to deal with

> questions like these, why should your efforts to influence energy

> generation alternatives be given any credence?

>

> Vincent King,

> Idaho Falls

> ************************************************************************

> 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/

> ************************************************************************

> 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/

>



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

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/