[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Making it real
Dear Dr. Ted Rockwell:
As I heartedly intend the health effects of radiation experienced from the
Co-60 incidents would benefit the entire humanity, I like to give you some
my thought based as a suggestion to you for dealing with the disconnect
between the health effects of low-dose radiation and the radiation
protection. In case you will suggest a new design to the nuclear submarine
radiation protection, you might have something new, if you believe in what I
talk here.
The high-dose acute radiation from atomic bomb explosion surely could casual
people and increase the cancer mortality, especially the leukemia. But the
low-dose acute radiation< 200 mSv is harmless, even beneficial to people as
observed by Dr Sohei Kondo who whole life studied the biological casualty of
the atomic survivors, and the RERF report itself also reveled the same
facts. So that the LNT model is appropriate only for high dose acute
radiation, not appropriate to low-dose, that might be beneficial in reverse.
The radiation from the peaceful use of nuclear energy received slowly in a
long period of time, is characteristically classified as chronic radiation.
The acute radiation should be more harmful than the chronic radiation.
physiologically and pathologically, So that the chronic radiation dose <200
mSv should be more beneficial than the same dose of acute radiation. There
are so many epidemiological investigations indicated the public lining in
the high natural background areas, in high concentration radon districts had
lower cancer mortality, and the nuclear energy workers who receives a little
higher chronic radiation doses, have more lower cancer mortality. Only those
chronic radiation doses are still not high enough to show an obvious and
refutable result. Incidentally an incredible incident serendipitously
occurred in Taiwan, the chronic doses were much higher received and
accumulated to high-dose level among the affected cohort. Their cancer
mortality reduced sharply to the cohort as immunized by a vaccine. So that
in the 1999 ANS annual meeting, I stressed the chronic radiation from
nuclear energy was always beneficial to humanity and might be effective for
immune of the most miserable sickness-cancers. The chronic radiation might
have many health benefits. I investigated only the cancers reduction, In
2003 HPS annual, I mentioned also the hereditary malfunctions could be
effective reduced.
But there is an important exception. How are the health effects of radiation
from a nuclear accident? The accident releases high radioactive fission
products from the melted or damaged fuel rods in the reactor. The
radioactive products are mostly contain in the reactor containment, the
workers would still receive low-dose chronic radiation, and would not harmed
but benefited. The gaseous and vaporized could often be discharged to the
environment. But after they are highly diluted in large volume and decayed
for hours and days, they would also turn to be low-dose chronic radiation
and also beneficial to public. This was the possible case of Three Mile
Island usual accident of the American type reactor. But the Chernobyl
reactor accident was different. The explosion of the reactor vessel cause
the high radioactive products rapidly released to the reactor hall, the
operators and fire fighters exposed to the high dose radiation was quite
like the acute radiation exposed to the atomic bomb survivors. 31 persons
were died in the accident and hundred of them might have higher cancer
mortality in the future. But when the radioactive vaporized and gaseous
isotopes deposited on the ground, only chronic radiation exposed to the
public, only beneficial effects induced to them. The 200,000 emergency
recovery and decontamination workers in Russia was a good cohort for follow
up their health condition. The international radiation scientists of the
IAEA and UNSCEAR did not observe the 150 excess leukemia deaths in ten years
after the accident based on the LNT predication, actually the cancer deaths
of the workers were smaller than the spontaneous deaths number, though it
was considered might attribute to ¡§ healthy workers effects and the better
care of the workers.¡¨ A nuclear accident could cause a property loss, but
not a serious public hazard.
I wish my viewpoints will help friends to have more thought on radiation has
much beneficial biological effects and will have more medical application!..
Sincerely yours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Y. C. Luan
>From: "Ted Rockwell" <tedrock@starpower.net>
>To: "Rad-Sci-L" <rad-sci-l@WPI.EDU>, "RADSAFE"
><owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
>Subject: Making it real
>Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 19:13:58 -0500
>
>Friends:
>
>I'm looking for a suggestion or two. The nuclear community seems to have a
>disconnect between how it describes the biological effects of low-dose
>radiation and the rules it prescribes for radiation protection. This
>disconnect is exacerbated by the disconnect between how it "realistically"
>describes the potential consequences of a nuclear casualty and the formal
>requirements for handling such casualties. If the release and dispersion
>of
>radioactivity from a realistic worst case casualty are as limited as
>described in the peer-reviewed 20 Sept 02 and 10 Jan 03 Science papers
>based
>on the major EPRI and industry programs of the 1970s, and if the prediction
>of deaths from radiation doses below 5 or 10 rad are scientifically invalid
>as stated in ANS Position Statement 41 and the related HPS statement it
>cites, then there are specific regulations and policies that should be
>changed and others that perhaps need to be created.
>
>For example, when DOE reports the latest fuel shipment casualty evaluation,
>they "predict" a number of cancers. When we ask why this is, Ruth Weiner
>tells us that DOE requires that the result be reported in terms of cancers
>calculated from collective dose, even though no individual dose would be
>high enough to be harmful. And there are DOE and NRC policies that measure
>the quality of rad protection programs by how much they hold down total
>collective dose, even though that provides a strong incentive to minimize
>needed inspection and tests in radiation zones. Similarly, when critics
>argue that plants like Indian Point should be shut down, because it is
>infeasible to evacuate hundreds of thousands of people from the area in a
>few hours, it is ineffective to mutter that such an evacuation will
>probably
>not be needed. If it is not, we should change the requirements now. If we
>need more information to make that judgment, we should quickly define just
>what we need and go after it.
>
>NOW TO MY QUESTION: What specific rules, regulations or practices should be
>modified to reduce the differences between radiation reductions currently
>required and those we could derive from a realistic appraisal of real-world
>power plants and their fuel?
>
>I don't want to get into arguing "whether this would be worth the effort"
>at
>this point, and I don't expect anyone to have a complete list of such
>documents. At this stage, I'd just like some suggestions as to what kinds
>of documents or policies would have to be examined. Let's not worry, for
>the moment, about how hard it would be to make the mod, or whether the
>public would "buy it."
>
>For now, let's just think about possible ways to start this process. I'm
>sure there are areas that have never occurred to me. After a round or two
>of preliminary consideration, then it will be time enough to start think
>about what's worth doing and what simply isn't. At present, it seems clear
>that we have an enormous gap between situations we consider realistic and
>what we are required to protect against.
>
>Any ideas?
>
>Thanks.
>
>Ted Rockwell
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail