RE: Nuclear radiation more dangerous than thought: scientist

["Tsurikov, Nick" <ntsuriko@rgc.com.au>]

Dear Sandy,

If you would like to read the arguments in detail, please have a look on
the "Professor Wolfgang Kohnlein Main Page" located in Australia on
http://www.foe.arc.net.au/kohnlein/kohnlein.html

Page extract:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Professor Kohnlein is a Director of the Institute for Radiation Biology,
University of Munster Germany. 
Wolfgang was invited to Australia to address medical and environmental
groups on the subject of Ionizing Radiation.  He is the author and
co-editor of several scientific books and articles on radiation and
radiation epidemiology. 
During his visit to Australia, Wolfgang spoke on his challenge to
current radiation exposure regulations and radiation hazards, associated
with the Nuclear fuel cycle, particularly occupational exposures -
ranging from Uranium miners to workers in other Nuclear facilities. 
<Picture: [Button]>WOLFGANG KOHNLEIN - CURRICULUM VITAE. 
<Picture: [Button]>RISK ESTIMATES OF LOW LEVEL IONIZING RADIATION
22-3-97. 
<Picture: [Button]>CHRONIC LOW-DOSE RADIOACTIVE EXPOSURE: FALSE ALARM OR
PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARD ? 13-7-97 
<Picture: [Button]>REDUCED RADIO-BIOLOGICAL EFFECTIVENESS AT LOW-RATE,
LOW-DOSE EXPOSURES 8-2-92. 
<Picture: [Button]>THE EFFECTS OF ALPHA-PARTICLES ON CHROMOSOMAL
ALTERATIONS 1-7-97.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

And several quotes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"My research indicates that enough data of exposed individuals exists to
show that there is no safe dose, no safe dose-rate, nor a safe dose
threshold...,
"Newer studies reported 0.05 Sv as the doubling dose for leukemia, lung
cancer and other cancer forms while the official estimates in
interagency reports are still well over 1 Sv...,
"With the much better data and direct risk estimates available today,
scientific evaluation of radiation risks should replace the obsolete
older estimates by the newer ones. That this did not happen in the
latest reports of the official commissions suggests that official
estimates are no longer a scientific product but rather a political
one...,
"...the "primary principle": In dealing with potentially hazardous
technologies the benefit of the doubt must go to the public and not to
the technologies.  In practical terms this means that the critics of a
technology must present sound evidence of the hazard and after this the
burden of proof shifts to the proponents to show that the technology is
save. 
"If we consider that 0.02 Sv per year exposure is currently allowed for
nuclear workers by the national nuclear regulatory commissions then a
doubling dose for lung cancer and leukemia will accumulate within a
three years time. A dose that doubles the risk of a fatal disease in
such a short time is a serious public health hazard. Since the
proponents of nuclear technologies failed to prove that such exposures
are save permissible doses should reduced drastically as claimed for
many years."
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I wonder, should we just legally ban all radiation from existence and go
live back in caves?  But, again, caves in granite rock will "give rise
to radiation exposure" from gamma-radiation, not even speaking about
radon, - and, therefore, it will be very dangerous to live in them...  

Kind regards
Nick Tsurikov
Radiation Safety Officer
RGC Mineral Sands Ltd
Eneabba, Western Australia
ntsuriko@rgc.com.au


----------
From:  Sandy Perle[SMTP:sandyfl@earthlink.net]
Sent:  Friday, 17 July 1998 9:37
To:  Multiple recipients of list
Subject:  Nuclear radiation more dangerous than thought: scientist

   BONN, July 12 (AFP) - Nuclear radiation is more dangerous to  
health than first thought and the scale measuring its effect should 
be reviewed, three German scientist said in an article published 
Sunday. 
   Writing in the Frankfurter Allgemeinen Sonntagszeitung weekly,  
Wolfgang Koehnlein, head of the nuclear biology institute at the 
university of Muenster, said the current scale dated back to the 
atomic bombs of 1945. 
   Koehnlein, who is also president of Germany's association for  
protection against radiation, said that over the years since then 
the number of people suffering from radiation damage had been 
greater than initially predicted. 
   Roland Scholz, biochemistry professor at Munich university, said 
 that at the time of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs it was not 
known that even minimal doses of radiation could cause cancer. 
   The latest knowledge of the medical effects of Hiroshima,  
nuclear weapons tests since the 1950s and the Chernobyl disaster 
had 
not been taken into account, Scholz said. 
   Edmund Lengfelder, professor of nuclear medicine at Munich,  
stressed the high rate of cancers and leukaemia contracted by 
children in Belarus following Chernobyl. 
   Cases of diabetes, respiratory illness and eye problems had also 
 increased, he said, accusing the experts of International Energy 
Agency of misleading public opinion over the level of danger to 
health. 
------------------
Sandy Perle
Technical Director
ICN Dosimetry Division
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Office: (800) 548-5100 x2306 
Fax:    (714) 668-3149
  
sandyfl@earthlink.net
sperle@icnpharm.com

Personal Website: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/1205
        
ICN Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com

"The object of opening the mind, as of opening 
the mouth, is to close it again on something solid"
              - G. K. Chesterton -

The opinions expressed are solely, absolutely, positively, definitely
those of the author, and NOT my employer