The term "safe levels of radiation" is coming from within the nuclear establishment. Not scientists

[NNN0LHI]

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=55118

'No Safe Levels' of Radiation in Japan

By Dahr Jamail*

<snip>Yet scientists and activists question these government and nuclear industry "safe" limits of radiation exposure.

"The U.S. Department of Energy has testified that there is no level of radiation that is so low that it is without health risks," Jacqueline Cabasso, the Executive Director of the Western States Legal Foundation, told Al Jazeera. snip

"Karl Morgan, who worked on the Manhattan project, later came out against the nuclear industry when he understood the danger of low levels of ionising radiation-and he said there is no safe dose of radiation exposure," Cabasso continued, "That means all this talk about what a worker or the public can withstand on a yearly basis is bogus. There is no safe level of radiation exposure. These so-called safe levels are coming from within the nuclear establishment." snip

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) published a report in 2006 titled Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) report, VII Phase 2. NAS BEIR VII was an expert panel who reviewed available peer reviewed literature and wrote, "the committee concludes that the preponderance of information indicates that there will be some risk, even at low doses."

The concluding statement of the report reads, "The committee concludes that the current scientific evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that there is a linear, no-threshold dose-response relationship between exposure to ionising radiation and the development of cancer in humans."

This means that the sum of several very small exposures to radiation has the same effect as one large exposure, since the effects of radiation are cumulative.

[DCKit]

1. "who'd have thought" and "that can't happen here" are phrases that come to mind.

Liars. And I hate liars.

[FogerRox]

2. I feel like I have to separate the wheat from the chaff

Simply put

Princeton says

The cell can repair certain levels of cell damage. At low doses, such as that received every day from background radiation, cellular damage is rapidly repaired.

http://web.princeton.edu/sites/ehs/osradtraining/biologicaleffects/page.htm

university of California, UC Davis

The cell can repair certain levels of cell damage

http://www.research.ucdavis.edu/home.cfm?id=mrt,13,1209,1210

NJ DEP

Most cells have the ability to repair some damage

http://www.state.nj.us/dep//rpp/llrw/download/fact07.pdf

Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility

Cells can often repair radiation damage,

These are divided into two categories:
threshold effects and non-threshold effects.
Threshold effects appear after a certain level
of radiation exposure is reached and enough
cells have been damaged to make the effect
apparent. Non-threshold effects can occur at
lower levels of radiation exposure.

http://www.jlab.org/

http://www.radiation-scott.org/EMS_2005_Poster_Web_version_B.pdf

French Academy of Sciences,
National Academy of Medicine
Joint Report (2005)
“…this report raises doubts on the
validity of using the LNTfor evaluating
the carcinogenic risk of low doses…”
Exact opposite conclusion from BEIR VII
(Phase 2)Report.

RADIATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL BIOPHYSICS
Volume 44, Number 4, 245-251, DOI: 10.1007/s00411-006-0032-9

CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE
Recent reports on the effect of low doses of ionizing radiation and its dose–effect relationship
M. Tubiana, A. Aurengo, D. Averbeck and R. Masse

http://www.springerlink.com/content/yg4m73410313447j/

The conclusion of the French Report is that the linear no-threshold relationship (LNT) may greatly overestimate the carcinogenic effect of low doses (<100 mSv) and even more that of very low doses (<10 mSv), such as those delivered during X-ray examinations. Conversely, the conclusion of the BEIR VII report is that LNT should be used for assessing the detrimental effects of these low and very low doses. The causes of these diverging conclusions should be carefully examined. They seem to be mostly associated with the interpretation of recent biological data. The point of view of the French Report is that these recent data are incompatible with the postulate on which LNT is implicitly based, namely the constancy of the carcinogenic effect per unit dose, irrespective of dose and dose rate.

I got your scientists.

[FogerRox]

3. More scientists

British Journal of Radiology (2005) 78, 3-7
© 2005 British Institute of Radiology
doi: 10.1259/bjr/63353075

Evidence for beneficial low level radiation effects and radiation hormesis
L E Feinendegen, MD
Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf, Germany and Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY,



Low doses in the mGy range cause a dual effect on cellular DNA. One is a relatively low probability of DNA damage per energy deposition event and increases in proportion to the dose. At background exposures this damage to DNA is orders of magnitude lower than that from endogenous sources, such as reactive oxygen species. The other effect at comparable doses is adaptive protection against DNA damage from many, mainly endogenous, sources, depending on cell type, species and metabolism. Adaptive protection causes DNA damage prevention and repair and immune stimulation.

http://bjr.birjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/78/925/3
.............

Medical Physics / Volume 25 / Issue 3 Previous Article | Next Article
Med. Phys. 25, 279 (1998); doi:10.1118/1.598208 (6 pages)

The linear no-threshold debate: Where do we go from here?
Kenneth L. Mossman
Arizona State University, Box 872701, Tempe, Arizona 85287-2701

LNT-derived risk estimates appear to be overly restrictive

http://online.medphys.org/resource/1/mphya6/v25/i3/p279_s1?isAuthorized=no

[FogerRox]

4. Not that we shouldnt build out renewables and shut down nuke fission plants

But citing one controversial paper that is not widely accepted by scientists... might not be the best way ....

[kristopher]

5. The NAS study isn't widely accepted by scientists?

Really? Did you honestly just write that? I'd have to consider there may be alternative possibilities for the disagreement beside the unproven conclusion that it isn't "widely accepted by scientists". It is the habit of most large and powerful industries (and the nuclear industry certainly qualifies) to corrupt the academic process sufficiently that they can create the IMAGE of controversy where there actually is very little.

But we agree, build out renewables ASAP and it will decrease the urgency of the question.

[FogerRox]

9. The LNT model has been around for decades, at least 1999, IIRC

Look at some of the link I provided, there are 2 schools of thought. Try Google scholar.


Its clear that in some individuals the LNT Model works, sometimes it doesnt. Many Japanese that survived the Atomic bombs lived long healthy lives, but a family member standing next to them when the bomb dropped, had all sorts of radiation related maladies.

Heres another take LNT says that if background on the surface of the Earth is 10 CPM, and a transcontinental flight passenger then gets 5 times that, the risk goes up 5 times. But are we seeing these radiation maladies in frequent business flyers? After all they do receive much larger doses than folks who rarely fly, thusly lies the incongruity.

Doesnt low level ionizing radiation plays a role in the evolution of homo sapiens from what ever we were, Neanderthal?

I dont buy that "corrupt the academic process" stuff, thats just CT, or a cop out, red the material yourself, dont pass the buck) I didnt bother to post a paper penned by some dude from the NRC, I like to look at the science and make up my own mind, it is clear that there are 2 mechanisms one is a linear non threshold (LNT) model, but the LNT doesnt explain all of the facts, and the other model does, like low level ionizing radiation stimulates cellular autophagy and increases immune response, which the LNT model does not explain.

And also remember as a government entity, its safer to go by a more restrictive guideline (which is the LNT) to protect the part of the population that is easily effected by these low levels of ionizing radiation.

[kristopher]

17. You "don't buy" that the academic process can be corrupted?

You're demonstrably wrong. Your absurd comment about the NAS study was enough to place your objectivity in question, but denying the well known presence of the problems related to special interest science is simply foolish. Have you ever even thought about it? Or have you always just accepted the increasing presence of corporate funding of universities as a non-event?

Sci Eng Ethics DOI 10.1007/s11948-009-9181-y
Climate Change, Nuclear Economics, and Conflicts of Interest
Kristin Shrader-Frechette
Received: 10 August 2009 / Accepted: 19 October 2009 Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009
Abstract Merck suppressed data on harmful effects of its drug Vioxx, and Guidant suppressed data on electrical flaws in one of its heart-defibrillator models. Both cases reveal how financial conflicts of interest can skew biomedical research. Such conflicts also occur in electric-utility-related research. Attempting to show that increased atomic energy can help address climate change, some industry advocates claim nuclear power is an inexpensive way to generate low-carbon electricity. Surveying 30 recent nuclear analyses, this paper shows that industry-funded studies appear to fall into conflicts of interest and to illegitimately trim cost data in several main ways. They exclude costs of full-liability insurance, underestimate interest rates and construction times by using ‘‘overnight’’ costs, and overestimate load factors and reactor lifetimes. If these trimmed costs are included, nuclear-generated electricity can be shown roughly 6 times more expensive than most studies claim. After answering four objections, the paper concludes that, although there may be reasons to use reactors to address climate change, economics does not appear to be one of them.

[FogerRox]

11. 2 very simple points: cellular repair does occur

Autophagy cleans out damaged cell parts which dont repair, which is like an immune response.

These are facts, that argue for a non linear threshold of effect. But yet the linear non threshold (LNT) ignores these facts,

BTW Autophagy is part of some very interesting cancer research, somehow cancer tumors tend to turn off the bodies autophagy process, if it can turned back on, then autophagy might be part of a multiple avenue therapy for cancer patients.

[NNN0LHI]

6. Inexplicably you left this expert on radiation exposure off your list

http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Japanese-government-adviser-Toshiso-Kosako-overcame-emotion-during-news-conference/photo//110430/481/urn_publicid_ap_org_a0577133c005448593eb1da34e6982e9//s:/ap/20110430/ap_on_re_as/as_japan_earthquake

Sat Apr 30, 3:11 AM ET

Japanese government adviser Toshiso Kosako

Japanese government adviser Toshiso Kosako is overcame with emotion during a news conference Friday, April 29, 2011 in Tokyo announcing his resignation from the position. The expert on radiation exposure said he could not stay and allow the government to set what he called improper radiation limits of 20 millisieverts an hour for elementary schools in areas near the tsunami-damaged Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant. (AP Photo/Kyodo News) JAPAN OUT, MANDATORY CREDIT, NO LICENSING IN CHINA, HONG KONG, JAPAN, SOUTH KOREA AND FRANCE… Read more »

[FogerRox]

13. Try google scholar, there are no papers on the 1st 2 pages on low level ionizing radiation

by that author...

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Toshiso+Kosako&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C31&as_sdtp=on

Never ask a question of someone if you yourself dont previously know the answer.

In fact heres his email why dont you ask him if he has written a paper on low level ionizing radiation or the pros and cons of the LNT model Professor Toshizo Kosako, Tokyo University [e-mail]

[Igel]

7. Scientists don't set the rules.

Regulators set the rules and make determinations, balancing all sorts of factors and variables that scientists don't need to.

Industry follows the regulators, at least when it suits them or they're being watched.

Consider salt consumption. The risk of elevated NaCl levels varies by subpopulation in America. The consequence should be, if we *really* care about people, that we regulate salt. If you're AA, unless you've had the right test to show that you're not sensitive to sodium intake, you get a much reduced salt quota per day. If you're Euro or Asian or from other groups, you can have less. This is important--we need to do everything possible to save people's lives, right? So we need laws to make sure that people can't oversalt their food. Food needs to be rationed and have salt indices; without a prescription or license you can't buy salt OTC.

That's science + a "no risk" take on the matter. Like it? You disagree? Are you saying that life, esp. black life, isn't worth saving?

Of course not. Because you know there's more than just health effects of dietary sodium chloride and the need to save lives involved. A lot more.

Democracy vs technocracy.

Let's make things as simple as possible but not simpler than possible. 'Kay?

[NNN0LHI]

8. You want me to compare salt consumption with radiation intake?

I think we are done talking. 'Kay?

Don

[ergot]

10. He seems to be comparing risks...do you find that an unacceptable enterprise?

If so, why?

[FogerRox]

15. Yes, its risk management. Thank you.

If part of the population is easily damaged by low levels of ionizing radiation, then you set the standards to protect them, and ignore the people that arent easily affected by low levels of ionizing radiation. This way everyone is safe.

Do you like salt on your fries?

[ergot]

18. Sure, I even like salt on my watermelon.

:D

[FogerRox]

14. Does the science talk scare you, oh gee...

[FogerRox]

12. Excellent analogy, and very likely spot on correct

see my other comments upthread.

DAmage from low level ionizing radiation is bi-modal, some people get damaged, some actually see an increased immune response and higher levels of cellular repair. But we cant set the standards for the group that isnt as severely effected, we have to set guidelines to protect all people.

I hate getting salt when I order fries, I dont need it.

[defendandprotect]

16. Given the news from Australia last week that their GW scientists are being threatened ....

in fact, their LIVES are being threatened -- can only guess that all of our

world scientists are being threatened on the state of the earth --

pollution -- nuclear accidents -- BP spills -- oil drilling -- and most of all

GLOBAL WARMING --