[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [Fwd: [graffis-l] Plutonium cancer risk may be higher than thought]
Brian and other Radsafers
We have heard for decades that plutonium is the "most hazardous element know
to man", but the ICRP says the natural thorium is more hazardous based on
activity and effective dose. I have always assumed that the ICRP's doses and
risks were a better measure of hazard than hearsay.
Are there some new results that need to be reviewed, and will these be in
the "leaked" New Scientist article? Note that I didn't say New Scientist
publication!
John
_________________
John R Johnson, Ph.D.
*****
President, IDIAS, Inc
4535 West 9-Th Ave
Vancouver B. C.
V6R 2E2
(604) 222-9840
idias@interchange.ubc.ca
*****
or most mornings
Consultant in Radiation Protection
TRIUMF
4004 Wesbrook Mall
Vancouver B. C.
V6R 2E2
(604) 222-1047 Ext. 6610
Fax: (604) 222-7309
johnsjr@triumf.ca
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
[mailto:owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu]On Behalf Of Brian Rees
Sent: July 19, 2004 12:22 PM
To: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [graffis-l] Plutonium cancer risk may be higher than
thought]
Now how is the danger from plutonium so much more dangerous than the
myriad other low level sources of radiation that we're exposed to, at levels
that dwarf the exposure from plutonium? How do they account for that? Or
am I missing the point? (I'm not, these are rhetorical questions)
(Obviously) my own personal opinion.
Brian Rees
At 03:46 PM 7/18/2004, you wrote:
I had thought that plutonium was considered to be the most hazardous
substance known to man. Now we find it is even much more dangerous than
that. Considering that over ten tons of Pu was released to the environment
during atmospheric nuclear explosives testing and everyone has been exposed
to it, I guess we are all doomed! Too bad--- I was hoping to live forever.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [graffis-l] Plutonium cancer risk may be higher than thought
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 08:03:34 -0400
From: Mark Graffis <mgraffis@vitelcom.net>
Reply-To: graffis-l@yahoogroups.com
To: x3 <graffis-l@yahoogroups.com>
New Scientist
09:30 18 July 04
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996152
Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free
issues.
Plutonium may be many times more dangerous than previously thought.
The
cancer risk from exposure inside the body could be 10 times higher
than is
allowed for in calculating international safety limits.
The danger is highlighted in a report written by radiation experts
for the
UK government, which has been leaked to New Scientist. The experts
are
unanimous in saying that low-level radiation emitted by plutonium may
cause
more damage to human cells than previously believed. Their opinion
could
provoke a rethink of the guidelines on exposure to radiation.
Several tonnes of plutonium have been released into the environment
over the
last 60 years by nuclear weapons tests and nuclear plants.
Concern over the harmfulness of plutonium is growing because of
discoveries
about the subtle effects of low-level radiation. Researchers in
Europe and
North America have shown that the descendants of cells that seem to
survive
radiation unharmed can suffer delayed damage, a phenomenon called
"genomic
instability" (New Scientist print edition, 20 January 2001).
Bystander effect
Cells adjacent to those that are irradiated can also sustain damage,
known
as "the bystander effect". And an increase was found in the
number of
mutations in small pieces of DNA called mini-satellites that are
passed from
one generation to the next. The fear is that these effects could
trigger
cancers and other ill effects.
The report, which is due to be published in the next few months, has
been
drawn up by the Committee Examining Radiation Risks from Internal
Emitters
(CERRIE). The committee includes 12 specialists from the UK
government's
National Radiological Protection Board, the nuclear industry,
universities
and environmental groups.
All members of the committee agree that the margin of uncertainty
over the
risks of plutonium and similar radionuclides inside the body
"could extend
over at least an order of magnitude".
This "should be borne in mind by those making judgements and
policy
decisions on low-level internal radiation", says CERRIE's
chairman, Dudley
Goodhead, the former director of the UK Medical Research Council's
Radiation
and Genome Stability Unit at Harwell in Oxfordshire.
Rob Edwards
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
--------------------~-->
Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/yQLSAA/xbTolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/graffis-l/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
graffis-l-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
--
Coalition for Peace and Justice
(http://www.coalitionforpeaceandjustice.org);
and the UNPLUG Salem Campaign
(http://www.unplugsalem.org);
321 Barr Ave., Linwood, NJ 08221; 609-601-8583/37;
ncohen12@comcast.net. The
Coalition for Peace and Justice is a chapter of Peace Action
(http://www.peace-action.org).
"You can say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one" (Lennon).
"Don't be late for your life" (Mary Chapin Carpenter).