Re: BBC article on Radiation

[Russ Johnson <rujohnso@nmsu.edu>]

Some things other than what was mentioned in the write-up came to mind. Not

necessarily commenting negatively.



First, the demographic population base from which the data comes reflects

changes over time resulting from increasing diversity. If more people from

countries where greater longevity is common are entering the US, then that

will tend to affect the data. Also, due to better medical care and so forth,

it just might be possible people are becoming "healthier" and living longer?

That one is debatable, hence the question.



Second, I didn't see any relationship stated in this study between radiation

exposure and longevity.

So, no conclusions. A long-term study of radiation workers with good

experimental controls might show some correlation. I'm wondering if anyone

has ever done that? It certainly would lend a lot more credence to the ALARA

concept.



Finally, this could be a "burp" or data spike, which is not uncommon in

short term studies.

Kind of like the global warming debate. It could be a trend or it could just

be a short cycle.

I would like to see perhaps a two-generation study to see if the trend

continues.

-Russ



John Jacobus wrote:



> After posting my comments below someone asked for

> proof the the number of centenarians is really

> increasing.  I did some checking, and it is true.  Try

> http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/jun99/nia-16.htm

>

> More importantly, I think this clearly shows that our

> regulatory climate aiming to REDUCE radiation

> exposures to the public is improving longevity!  Maybe

> remediation in Ramsar, Iran, would increase the number

> of those over 100 years of age.

>

> --- John Jacobus <crispy_bird@yahoo.com> wrote:

>

> > I think there is a difference between saying the

> > low-level radiation posses no risk and that it is

> > beneficial.  I also expect that this will start a

> > flurry of e-mails, but it has been a slow day around

> > here.

> >

> > I am sure if you check, you will find that the

> > number

> > of centenarians is increasing in this country, or

> > others, without any changes in radiation levels.

> > Willard Scott, the retired TV personality, used to

> > send out birthday cards to them all the time.  I

> > would

> > also question the simpliest statement that radiation

> > protection standards are increasing the rate of

> > cancers.

> >

> http://rex.nci.nih.gov/massmedia/backgrounders/mortality.htm

> >

> > Only good epidemiological studies performed by

> > qualified epidemiologist, not those with regulatory

> > agendas one way or the other, should be evaluating

> > the

> > low-level effects of radiation.

> >

> >

> > --- Joel Baumbaugh <baumbaug@NOSC.MIL> wrote:

> >

> > > I thought that this article might be of interest

> > to

> > > the list.

> > >

> > > Joel Baumbaugh (baumbaug@nosc.mil)

> > > SSC-SD....

> > >

> > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3554422.stm

> > >

> > >

> > > Low level radiation 'no danger'

> > >

> > > The widely held view that even low levels of

> > > radiation damage health has no

> > > basis in hard science, a leading expert has said.

> > > Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, former chairman of

> > a

> > > United Nations

> > > committee on radiation effects, believes low

> > levels

> > > may even be beneficial.

> > > He told the BBC Today programme: "Low levels of

> > > radiation are probably

> > > essential for life itself."

> > > However, the National Radiological Protection

> > Board

> > > rejected the claim.

> > > The standard measurement of radiation is set in

> > > terms of milliSieverts

> > > (mSv) per year. In the 1920s, the maximum dose

> > > regarded as safe was 700mSv.

> > > By 1941, it was reduced to 70. By the 1990s, it

> > > became 20 for people

> > > exposed to radiation as part of their job, and 1

> > mSv

> > > for the general

> > > population.

> > > Some people believe the maximum dose should be

> > lower

> > > still.

> > > Cancer protection

> > > Professor Jaworoski, now based at the Central

> > > Laboratory for Radiological

> > > Protection in Warsaw, Poland, said the background

> > > level of radiation was

> > > around 2.5mSv.

> > > However, in some parts of the world background

> > > levels were as high as

> > > 700-800mSV.

> > > He said a study in the Iranian city of Ramsar had

> > > shown people routinely

> > > exposed to 250mSv came to no harm.

> > > "There were many generations of people living in

> > > these houses, and there

> > > was no evidence of any harm. One of the gentlemen

> > > living there was more

> > > than 100 years old."

> > > Professor Jaworoski said the view that low levels

> > of

> > > radiation were harmful

> > > was little more than an "administrative

> > assumption".

> > > His view was echoed by Lord Dick Taverne, chairman

> > > of the pressue group

> > > Sense About Science.

> > > Writing in Prospect magazine, he said: "Far from

> > > safeguarding our health,

> > > current safety standards will almost certainly

> > > increase the incidence of

> > > cancer.

> > > "A low dose of radiation seems to stimulate DNA

> > > repair and the immune

> > > system, so providing a measure of protection

> > against

> > > cancer."

> > > Dr Michael Clarke, of the NRPB, said the

> > scientific

> > > consensus was that low

> > > level radiation probably did pose a small risk to

> > > health.

> > > "The consensus is that every little bit does a

> > > little bit of harm, and you

> > > extrapolate from what you can see at high doses,

> > > down to low doses.

> > > "A small exposure gives you a very small risk.

> > Maybe

> > > over the years more

> > > science will show that DNA repair mechanisms are

> > > stimulated by low level

> > > radiation, but it is not clear at the moment."

> > > However, Dr Clarke accepted that there was little

> > > hard evidence that low

> > > radiation levels do damage health, but he said it

> > > was difficult to tease

> > > out the effect from all the other potentially

> > > damaging factors.

> > > Story from BBC NEWS:

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> > =====

> > +++++++++++++++++++

> > "We Americans have no commission from God to police

> > the world"

> > Benjamin Harrison

> >

> > -- John

> > John Jacobus, MS

> > Certified Health Physicist

> > e-mail:  crispy_bird@yahoo.com

> >

> >

> >

> > __________________________________

> > Do you Yahoo!?

> > Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!

> > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

> >

>

> =====

> +++++++++++++++++++

> "Everyone is ignorant, only on different subjects."

> Will Rogers

>

> -- John

> John Jacobus, MS

> Certified Health Physicist

> e-mail:  crispy_bird@yahoo.com

>

>

> __________________________________

> Do you Yahoo!?

> New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!

> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

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

> 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/