[ RadSafe ] RE: LNT now NOT "reasonable"

[Marcel Schouwenburg]

Posted by RadSafe moderator on behalf of yuan-chi luan <nbcsoc op hotmail.com>.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friends:
I am glad that Jim has provided all concerned message for understanding 
whether the LNT is reasonable. In light of fully understanding LNT 
issue, I would like to give some data observed in the unique Taiwan 
Co-60 contamination incident in the following:
 

   1. In August 1945, the two atomic bombs exploded in Japan, killed
      half of the Japanese around the explosion ground zero in Hiroshima
      and Nagasaki. The survivors in the near distances from ground zero
      received doses> 2000 mSv in a short period of time, did have their
      cancer mortality increased, particularly with leukemia increased
      to more than 10 times of natural mortality of the general
      population. But the survivors in the far distances from ground
      zero received doses < 200 mSv might be harmless, even beneficial
      to them. Coincidentally, a Co-60 contaminated apartments incident
      occurred 20 years ago in Taiwan, the health effects of radiation
      received by the residents living in the Co-60 contaminated
      apartments, in low dose rate < 1 mSv/hr, with doses might
      accumulate to high level, were not harmful, but beneficial to
      them, even could effectively immunize the cancer mortality of the
      residents. There were many positions in the Co-60 contaminated
      apartments detected in the dose rate>1 mSv/hr in 1983, the doses
      received by the residents might up to a few Sv in one year.
      Actually the average dose rate in 1983 was 50 mSv/y, the
      accumulated dose in 21 years was about 410 mSv, maximum to 6000
      mSv, but all the residents have their cancer mortality reduced to
      only about 3% of the general population based on the government
      statistics and the resident self relief organization. So that the
      LNT derived from acute radiation in the A-bomb has nothing to do
      with the chronic radiation received by the residents in the Co-60
      contaminated apartments,
   2. The radiation received by the workers and the public in peaceful
      uses of nuclear energy and medical application of radiation is of
      course not the acute radiation from A-bomb explosion in Japan, but
      the chronic radiation from Co-60 contaminated apartments incident
      in Taiwan, only constantly received in lower doses than the
      residents. So that the radiation received by the worker and public
      is also always beneficial to them, only not so beneficial as the
      radiation from the contaminated apartments, and the radiation
      protection policy and measures should base on the chronic
      radiation, not on the LNT derived from the A-bomb. .
   3. I have deep sympathy with Dr John Cameron, he was still trying to
      prove the radiation in low dose was beneficial to human beings
      when he was is his final stage of life. My conscience is also
      forcing me to tell the world that health effects of the acute
      radiation from the A-bomb are completely different from the health
      effects of the chronic radiation received in the peaceful uses of
      the nuclear energy and medical application of radiation. Since the
      Co-60 contamination first discovered in August 1992 in Taiwan, I
      started to believe the chronic radiation is beneficial to human
      health, and I started to present my assertion in the 1999 ANS
      annual meeting in Boston, I am regretful that our government did
      intend to have a project to prove the beneficial health effects of
      chronic radiation due to the national policy, and I was happy the
      HPS tried to recommend the US DOE, even the Department of State to
      do something about it, though no action taken was known. DOE
      permitted 28 scientists to submit a formal application of proving
      the health effects of chronic radiation, I was regretful they
      finally preferred only with study in molecular cellular, though
      the project reviewer prefer this dramatic epi study. The results
      of chronic radiation beneficial to people experienced in Taiwan
      C0-60 incident of course are still not recognized by the
      international radiation regulations. Is it possible some other
      scientists or communities want to prove the beneficial effects of
      chronic radiation?!
   4. But the chronic radiation might be used in prevention of cancers
      and hereditary defects is still in my dream. Dr Kazuo Sakai of the
      Japan Creipi Institute tests on low dose rate radiation could
      prevent diabetic and AIDS of the mice, and the Russian scientist
      indicated Chernobyl chronic radiation could reduce heart disease
      are also in my dream.. I wish all my dream will become true when I
      am still living in my final stage of life..

 
Regards.
Y.C. Luan     Senior Scientist of NuSTA and Consutant of NBC Society

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------