Re: Long term effects from ionizing rad

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

I would add to Emelie's fine response only that there are many studies of
patients exposed to radiation at moderate levels that show no effects, and
even beneficial effects, far above the "low dose" environmental or natural
background levels, with data that substantially contradict the LNT projections 
(even if ignoring the environmental studies at high-background levels were
warranted). A few studies with adverse effects at high doses (like the
Thorotrast patients, the tuberculosis fluoroscopy studies, the radium body
burden populations, etc) have adverse health cases at high doses. 

These are jumped on to draw a straight line to zero, ignoring the data from
the adverse effects at high doses to zero, and then state: "This shows/proves
the LNT", eg, the IARC study that misrepresents the data, the Canadian
fluoroscopy study that is listed as the second most important study (after the 
Japanese a-bomb survivors) in the BEIR report, that has tables in the original 
paper that show 1/3 reductions in normal breast cancer rates in women exposed
to 15 rem (which was then republished by a DOE researcher that obfuscates
those data). These are among the many hundreds of studies ignored to maintain
the LNT. (The Modan tinea capitis study at 1-9 rad is one unconfirmed study
performed without controls, not confirmed by a later study with controls. The
LNT army can trot out about 6 poor studies with poor data to "show" the LNT;
none of which stand up on technical considerations.) 

Nobel Laureate Rosalyn Yalow summarized some of those studies in her papers. I 
and others have distributed many on this list and elsewhere, including, eg,
Otto Raabe's work and reports that have been published extensively to show no
adverse effects from moderate to high chronic doses from radium and other
significant exposures.  Note that in addition to the lack of bone cancer below 
1000+ rad, the HPJ 1983 Vol 44, Suppl 1 on the 1981 Int'l Conf on radium etc,
(in which Otto Raabe's excellent paper says 15 years ago what he is still
saying today, and continues to be ignored by the gov't-funded rad protection
interests), that Dr. Spiers reports that the LNT projects 13 excess cases of
leukemia, based on the dose to bone marrow and ICRP risk factors for leukemia, 
in 1285 radium dial painters in which the expected incidence is 5.4 with 4
cases observed. 

This is consistently repeated in the literature. There is no LNT except the
LNT that is used to fund $100s Billions of government programs and authorities 
(like the $85 Billion at Hanford), and in which DOE de-funded the radium dial
painter program at the Center for Human Radiobiology at Argonne starting in
1983 (following the Int'l Conf at which Robley Evans stated that after another 
10 years of extensive work (following his retirement and on which he based his 
1974 HPJ paper destroying the BEIR report), with now several thousand cases in 
the US and more internationally, instead of the few hundred his work had
included, that 'there is still no case under a thousand rad' (and getting more 
statistically strong all the time). DOE killed the program, just as it killed
the publication of the shipyard worker study. 

It seems other researchers and programs got the message. But we've had $100
Millions to fund "research" on releases of (8-day) I-131 to fear-monger at
Hanford and elsewhere to keep the cash flowing; and to fear-monger about
50's-60's fallout, when millions of people received high doses of I-131 for
medical diagnostic purposes, with no adverse effects in medical follow-up
studies. But ATSDR uses Hanford to get $Millions to study this trivial dose to 
this small population, and seeing this as a "model" to assess the entire
nation as a "hazardous dump site" because of the NIH reports on I-131 fallout
doses. 

(Sorry I was traveling, and a bad backlog, during the great radon debate.
Unfortunately, it didn't seem to address the fact that radon case-control
studies have worse statistics because the doses are not known than Cohen's
ecological study, and are therefore less reliable. I hope Bill Field's efforts 
to better quantify actual doses improves this data, but there can't be much
confidence in that based on what the experts know about the uncertain lung
doses associated with radon levels. Without actual doses, any case-control
studies lose their advantage of finding a meaningful result with small numbers 
of cases and controls. Semantics about definitions are not relevant to testing 
statistical validity of the attempt of science to reflect reality thru
mathematics and modeling. I would still appreciate any comments on the
significance of knowing the dose to case-control studies.) 

Regards, Jim Muckerheide
muckerheide@mediaone.net
 
> There are many studies out there but probably would not give her the
> exact type of information and reassurance that she is looking for.  Most
> of it deals with radionuclide transport, transplacental transfer,
> modeling and doses, some effects of huge amounts of administered
> activity, some human data (very little) for large acute doses (e.g.
> exposure during nuclear medicine examination), etc.  
> 
> Good contacts for more info. include the various women's group within
> the industry e.g.  Women in Nuclear (WIN),  Women's Energy Networks and
> the Women in the American Nuclear Society (or whatever the group is
> called).  Other possible information sources are ORAU (Mike Stabin),
> John Harrison (NRPB in the UK), Mel Sikov and his group at Battelle,
> Audrey Wegst (Kansas but don't remember exactly where - a lit. search
> would give the info).  I'm sure that there are more but my memory is
> rusty - it's been awhile since I did this type of R&D for a living.
> 
> However, you may want to point out that thousands of women worldwide
> work in all fields of the nuclear industry.  Most of us are only exposed
> to chronic low-levels while others are exposed to higher levels.   Many
> of us have had children or are currently pregnant or planning to become
> pregnant within a given time frame.  Many of us have grandchildren.
> 
> I spent most of my first pregnancy on top of a research reactor.  I
> worked with tritium and cerium before and during my second pregnancy.
> It is important to mentioned that women in this industry carry out their
> rad-related work, with the resulting low-level exposures, before, during
> and after their pregnancies.  And except for being perfect, our children
> and grandchildren are just fine - healthy and normal. 
> 
> 
> Emelie Lamothe
> lamothee@aecl.ca
> 
> > ----------
> > From:         David Hearnsberger[SMTP:hberger@trinity.tamu.edu]
> > Sent:         Thursday, March 12, 1998 12:23 PM
> > To:   Multiple recipients of list
> > Subject:      Long term effects from ionizing radiation
> > 
> > A female rad worker asked if there have been any studies related to
> > the
> > effects of chronic exposure to low-levels of ionizing radiation. Her
> > question is more directed towards what the effects could be if she
> > planned
> > to become pregnant in say, 5 years from now. I hope this question
> > isn't
> > too vague. If any of you can direct me to some reference material so
> > that
> > I can obtain it for her, please let me know. Thanks in advance.
> > 
> > *****************************************************************
> > David W. Hearnsberger         phone:  (409)845-7551           *
> > Texas A&M University          fax:    (409)862-2667           *
> > Nuclear Science Center                email:
> > hberger@trinity.tamu.edu*
> > Bldg. 1095 Nuclear Science Road                                 *
> > College Station, Texas                                          *
> >                  77843                                          *
> > *****************************************************************