Re: radium question

[Muckerheide <muckerheide@mediaone.net>]

Radsafers, 

The "From" bug hit my earlier message. Resending.

Regards, Jim
============

Philippe, Chris, Group, 
cc: Bob Rowland and Bob Thomas to correct any errors and clarify any
facts :-)

Bob Rowland's book is a key resource. Bob was the Director of the Center
for Human Radiobiology (CHR) at Argonne. There are no adverse effects at
less than 1000 rad (10 Gy) which would be 3000 rem at Robley Evan's RBE,
or 20,000 rem at an RBE of 20 used by persons less knowledgeable of
radium body-burden. This is based on ingestion of more than 250,000 pCi.
>From a later paper, Rowland reports:
http://cnts.wpi.edu/RSH/Data_Docs/1-2/4/124Ro97.html and
http://cnts.wpi.edu/RSH/Data_Docs/1-2/4/1/12416ro97.html

More rad health effects from radium data are in these sections, see:
http://cnts.wpi.edu/RSH/Data_Docs/1-2/4/1/1241list.html and the ToC
http://cnts.wpi.edu/RSH/Data_Docs/

Note that the idea that radium in drinking water has possible adverse
effects is simply fraud. EPA states in a 1991 Fed Reg notice in response
to the SAB recommendation that it use the radium dial painter data, that
to do so would require it to draw a linear response from non-linear
data, or give up its policy of assuming a linear response, which it
would not do. See the quote in the paper by HPS Fellow, and Director of
the CHR after Dr. Rowland, Bob Thomas:
http://cnts.wpi.edu/RSH/Data_Docs/1-2/4/1/12417th94.html

Note also: DOE killed the radium dial painter program starting in 1983
following the publication of HPJ 1983 Suppl 1 that reported on the 1981
Wisconsin Conference at which Dr. Robley Evans' Invited Summary reports
(about p.592) to the effect that with thousands of cases in the US and
around the world now/then reported, 'it is confirmed that there are no
adverse effects with uptake <50 uCi, a dose of >1000 rad' (injestion of
<250 uCi), confirming his 1974 HPJ paper based on the 600 cases in the
MIT studies before transfer to the CHR. (Note that more recent data on a
higher clearance rate of radium as a function of body-burden makes the
estimates of original intake higher as indicated in Rowland's book, and
addressed in his more recnt paper.)

The CHR was intended to follow the radium-contaminated population for
their lifetimes (like the Japanesse survivor study). Evan's paper also
clearly convicted BEIR 1972 of dishonesty in presenting the data as a
linear response, noting that at least ICRP had stated that the LNT was a
conservative upper bound, but that BEIR falsely presented it as a
scientific model. See eg:
http://cnts.wpi.edu/RSH/Data_Docs/1-2/4/1/12411ev74.html

Proposed reductions in limits of radium in water by EPA are simply
another case of the commitment to fraud by "radiation protection" that
is being perpetrated on the public by the regulators and government
agencies to gain Congressional authority and funding. These costs are
driven by the explicit direct fear-mongering by government and
international agencies and their funded "scientists" to exceed $2
Trillions world-wide, especially to the explicit health and societal
detriment of developing societies, by the closed ICRP/NCRP/NRER/IAEA
closed society and its funding of the perpetrators.

Thanks Philippe.

Clearly my own opinion :-)

Regards, Jim Muckerheide
muckerheide@mediaone.net
Radiation, Science, and Health, Inc.
the Center for Nuclear Technology and Society at WPI
ANS Low-Level Radiation Health Effects Committee
Mass. State Nuclear Engineer
Mass. Governor's Advisory Council on Radiation Protection
=========================================================

Philippe Duport wrote:
> 
> One of the most comprehensive review of the health effects of ingested
> Ra-226 in real human beings (not a theoretical study) is that by R.E.
> Rowlands, Radium in Humans - A Review of U.S. Studies, Argonne National
> Lab. Report No. ANL/ER-3, UC-408, Sept. 1994.  I think this report is
> available to the public from the US Dpt of Commerce, National Technical
> Information Service, 5825 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA, 22161, Tel:
> (703) 487 4650.
> 
> Philippe Duport
> International Centre for Low Dose Radiation Research, University of Ottawa,
> Canada.  E-mail: pduport@uottawa.ca or pduport@synapse.net
> ++++++++++
> At 10:31 AM 7/11/1999 -0500, you wrote:
> >Radsafers,
> >
> >I would appreciate your help responding to the following question which was
> >sent to me.  If you have specific experience with this type of exposure and
> >risk analysis, please email Chris directly.
> >
> >Bill Field
> >
> >College of Public Health
> >Department of Epidemiology
> >University of Iowa
> >bill-field@uiowa.edu
> >
> >QUESTION FROM CHRIS
> >
> >I am looking for information on the effects of radium exposure, i.e.,
> whether
> >or not radium can be absorbed through the skin (i.e., through bathing,
> etc.),
> >whether irrigating lawns and crops with radium-contaminated water results in
> >any risk of radium being released into the air and then into the human body,
> >and if so, at what levels exposure becomes a problem.  I am aware of the EPA
> >MCL standards, but am wondering if there is any more specific information
> >available.  I have recently become aware that the water supply in the area
> in
> >which I live and work during the field season has had consistently high
> >levels of radium 226 and 228 (averaging 12.5 pCi/L over the last year or so)
> >-- hence, my concern.
> >
> >Thanks in advance,
> >gebauer@cnetco.com
> >Chris Gebauer
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html