Re: DANGER: RADIOACTIVE RECYCLING ALERT

[Muckerheide <muckerheide@mediaone.net>]

> National and International (U.S., Mexico,
> and Taiwan) private recycling industries have had accidental incidents
> of smelting teletherapy units and other non-accelerator medical devices
> with large radioactive sources that have been mixed with other recycled
> metals.  This clearly isn't an intentional operation on the part of
> anyone, but as with any other industry, some accidents do occur.

Right. 

> Greg Gibbons
> (gibbgreg@isu.edu)

Even spending >10 million times other human health and safety
investments per life "saved". 

Rad accidents kill <~2 people/year for the last 15-20 years in the
entire world. Zero from low-dose-rate radiation, 100s to 1000s of times
limits. (We even had to regurgitate the Goiania 10th anniversary to
promulgate more public fear of radioactivity, successfully reported
around the world, for the benefit of the rad protection
industry/agencies - while more occupational accidents happen in many
industries every day with little protection investment.

Taiwan:  the greatest melted source exposure - in housing units
(1982-84, to present). 10,000 residents (mean dose ~4.8 mSv/yr, down to
~3.3 mSv/yr now, highest dose >900 mSv/yr - few in highest-dose group
relocated after source found in '92). 

6 cancer cases in 15 years, as claimed by the "Residents Association"
itself (2 in children who were in lowest-dose residences). 

$millions spent by rad protectionists on 'dose-reconstruction', blood
tests, etc etc, but no report on the age-adjusted cancer rate, even
though every resident is well recorded. ( ~4% of raw cancer rate in
Taipei population - hope to get age-adjusted rate documented shortly).  

As usual, rad protectionists don't want to know (i.e., suppress) the
data. Have constrained reporting age-adjusted results. Nor making data
available when asked.

The lower cancer is as expected. Stimulation of the immune functions
that readily control (prevent and cure) cancer is well-documented (turn
of the century, Manhattan Project, Oak Ridge post-war thru 60's, Los
Alamos into 80s) until cumulative breakdown of immune capabilities and
physiological processes with advanced age. The oldest won't live longer
than the strongest (immune competent) unstimulated group, but mid-life
premature cancer is consistently reduced, resulting in consistently
longer mean life. 

E.g., recent data for mouse strain (spf), 80% "natural" death from
thymic lymphoma, significantly reduced; mice with injected tumor cells,
highly reduced, etc. Last year, 300 each of controls, 70 mSv, 140 mSv
(thorium in sealed bags under cages, all in same room, controls lived
550 days when 50% dead, both irradiated groups lived 775 days.

Yes, "accidents happen." One "accident" was healthier and larger
colonies from split samples on one slide instead of others,
consistently. Eventually found to have higher thorium in the glass. 

In 1896 Shrader at U.Mo. showed J.J. Thompson was wrong in saying
radiation would not be likely to be bacteriacidal by irradiating Guinea
pigs then injecting them with diptheria bacillus: all controls died <24
hours, irradiated animals recovered (see:
http://cnts.wpi.edu/rsh/Data_Docs/1-3/1/1314lu95.html

also note report on Spalding's 1982 report at Los Alamos, with 1
representative Table showing number alive in various dose and dose rate
groups when 50% of controls died. (Spalding's report is on the Los
Alamos server:

[1.8MB] http://lib-www.lanl.gov/la-pubs/00321857.pdf 

There are 2000 more definitive sources, while NONE support any adverse
health effect at low to moderate doses.

As Nobel Laureate Rosalyn Yalow says: "there is no evidence that
radiation exposures at the levels equivalent to medical usage are
harmful" 

As Gunnar Walinder says :-)
http://cnts.wpi.edu/rsh/About/brochure.html#Walinder

and President emeritus of the NCRP Lauriston Taylor says :-)
http://cnts.wpi.edu/rsh/About/brochure.html#Taylor

In any event, the walls of this charade are crumbling :-)

And when they do, the real future of radiation sciences and radiation
protection to support cost-effective radiation technologies begins! 
Profesionals who no longer depend on fear-mongering to steal from the
public while reducing public health and safety in order to clean dust
off dirt!

Regards, Jim Muckerheide
Radiation, Science, and Health
muckerheide@mediaone.net
==============================
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html