What is the Impact of Radiation on Children Living Near Chernobyl?

[Nereid]

Radiation and public health

I'm interested to explore the relationship between radioactivity and public health, in the broader context of economic benefits and social values.

As you'll have seen from my questions to theroyprocess, there seems to be considerable emotion but not much reason behind an 'anti-nuclear' stance.

As with all choices in public health, there are pros and cons. So how do you go about making decisions, when all choices carry costs (monetary, health, collateral risks, ...), and all realistic ones deliver benefits?

That's why I came here - for an informed discussion and debate.

Being a board in Physics Forums, I also expect a high level of discussion on the underlying nuclear physics.

Is this why you're here too?

 

[FZ+]

I think the anti-nuclear stance is based on the image of nuclear problems as a low probability/high impact threat: It probably won't happen, but the consequences if it does happen is very very bad.

 

[selfAdjoint]

There is also the element of choice involved. We can decide not to have nuclear power, but there is very little we can do to eleiminate natural radioactivity, and only limited ways to avoid it. So if N is the natural radioactive dose in some location, and P is the dose resulting from nuclear power at the same spot, then the fact that P < N is irrelevant to the choice should we have N or N + P? Especially if you also believe that there is no minimum dose for harm from radioactivity.

 

[cozzmikjoker]

Originally posted by FZ+
I think the anti-nuclear stance is based on the image of nuclear problems as a low probability/high impact threat: It probably won't happen, but the consequences if it does happen is very very bad.

Sounds like it's not worth the risk. It's the reason I won't have a loaded gun in my house.
Without the bullets, it CANNOT kill you. With the bullets, however, there is a remote chance that it could go off regardless of where it's stored.
I weigh it like this: if I'm going to die without a certain thing and that certain thing has the potential of killing me, I have no choice.
But if I can live without something and it has that same potential, why should I keep/use it?

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by FZ+
I think the anti-nuclear stance is based on the image of nuclear problems as a low probability/high impact threat: It probably won't happen, but the consequences if it does happen is very very bad.

Interesting ... any particular nuclear problems? or is the use of all radioactive material a bad idea, whether in medicine (e.g. cancer therapy), industry (e.g. food sterilization), even science (e.g. RTGs on spaceprobes, testing GR)?

Perhaps the worse 'nuclear problem' is nuclear weapon proliferation; if so, do you truly believe we can put the genie back in the bottle?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by cozzmikjoker
Originally posted by Nereid
Which arguments do you find particularly convincing?

I don't argue anymore. Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt, had enough. I have a life and also I'm on too many other boards, so there's just not enough free time to rattle cages on here.

By "arguments" he meant "reasons." What are your reasons for your opinion? Or, what pieces of information were most important in forming your opinion?

I think the anti-nuclear stance is based on the image of nuclear problems as a low probability/high impact threat: It probably won't happen, but the consequences if it does happen is very very bad.

I think you are right, FZ+, but the problem is that most people don't know either the probability or the impact. So most people overestimate both the probability and the impact, leading them in the direction of theroyprocess - irrational fear of the unknown.

Sounds like it's not worth the risk. [re: FZ+'s post]

But he didn't SAY what the risks are! See, this is exactly my point. Its as if the word "risk" itself is all the information you need. It isn't. There is a real and calculable risk associated with EVERYTHING we do as humans. To decide if something is worth the risk or not, you have to know WHAT the risk is.

 

[cozzmikjoker]

Russ said: By "arguments" he meant "reasons." What are your reasons for your opinion? Or, what pieces of information were most important in forming your opinion


Well, we already know that radiation and nuclear stuff is deadly. It doesn't take a rocket scientist. Let's be realistic.

Look at chemotherapy. The radiation might kill some or most of the cancer but many people die because the radiation compromises their immune system and they die as a result of the effects of the radiation weakening them.
Keeping all of that in mind, if someone is going to tell me that anything nuclear is safe, then isn't the burden of proof upon them?

Finally, with the toxic waste that has been dumped in the past, I really don't want to put my faith in someone else to "do the right thing" when it comes to nuclear power plants. Sorry, no can do.

 

[cozzmikjoker]

Knowing the answer to those questions is how you know what the risk really is

True. I have to admit having a bit of curiosity and wanting to take a peak at those autopsey reports that Dr. Kaku has on the workers killed in the nuclear labs.

There are other issues, too. Our society is becoming ill with chronic diseases at younger and younger ages (diabetes, obesity, heart disease) as a result of the changes in diet and sedentary lifestyle. I just don't think any of us want to add any more problems than we already have.
And then you've got the magnetosphere (depleting?) and we won't have as much protection from cosmic radiation and stuff.
We're going to helena handbasket, Russ.

 

[theroyprocess]

Physician Jailed for Chernobyl Research

FYI


Subject: [NucNews] Dr Yurl Bandazhevsky -eco-prisoner - contact details


Dear All,
some of you may already have this, just come through
from the ELP,(Earth Liberation Prisoners) which is
publicising his case. If anyone has any update on this
contact then please let me know. Dr Bandazhevsky needs
all the support he can get.
cheers
davey


Dr. Yurl Bandazhevsky
Ul. Kalvarijskaya 36
PO Box 35K
Minsk 220600, Belarus.

Serving 8 years for telling the world that the nuclear radiation around Chernobyl is worse than the Belarus Government has admitted.




* See also: NucNews Links and Archives (by date) at http://nucnews.net * (Posted for educational and research purposes only, in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107) *




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MANIFESTO FOR PR. BANDAZHEVSKY'S RELEASE AND
FREEDOM OF RESEARCH

Pr. Yury Bandazhevsky is currently imprisoned
in Minsk, Belarus since
June 2001. As a Doctor and an Expert on radiation
exposure caused by the
Chernobyl accident he was appointed in 1990 as
Rector of the Gomel Medical
institute. Gomel has been the hardest hit area by
nuclear releases. From
1990 to 1999, along with his wife Galina, also a
Doctor, Pr. Bandazhevsky
studied damages caused by Caesium 137: heart
diseases, cataracts, early
aging, etc.. He has discovered a measurable
relationship between nuclear
doses and various symptoms. In 1999, he published
his results at a time
when many people wanted to turn a blind eye to the
problems and wish to send
Belarus inhabitants back to the lands that are
still contaminated. Before his
arrest in July 1999 he had written a report
critical of the Belarus Government
official research conducted with international
funds regarding Chernobyl
after effects. Pr. Bandazhevsky was arrested
shortly after the issuance of
this report on the basis of a Presidential Decree
" for the Combat of
terrorism."

In 2001, he stood accused of having received
money from students
seeking admission to Gomel Medical Institute.
After a trial held before a
Military Tribunal he was sentenced to eight years
imprisonment. Expert
witnesses who attended the trial have noted at
least 8 infringements of the
Belarussian Criminal Code and the main prosecution
witness had retracted his
statement against Pr. Bandazhevsky. Pr.
Bandazhevsky is currently jailed in
a penal colony with harsh conditions tantamount to
a Gulag.

But we think that the right to a fair trial
is not the only one to have
been thwarted. Beside people's opinions about
things nuclear, what is at stake is
the RIGHT TO KNOW THE TRUTH, the right to conduct
research and the scientist's
right to communicate data. Also the right for
people to know it without
interference that is politically or economically
motivated.

THE INDEPENDENCE OF ALL RESEARCH in the
services of Humanity is as
important a principle as the independence of
Justice. Pr. Bandazhevsky's
imprisonment flouts both these principles.
Therefore, we, the undersigned,
ask for the immediate and unconditional release
of Pr. Bandazhevsky in
order that he can carry on his research without
interference at his
Institute.

We suggest that all scientists, researchers,
scholars and citizens
stand for these principles:

- Sign this manifesto for freedom of research
and Pr. Bandazhevsky's
unconditional and immediate release.
- But also to have Pr. Bandazhevsky appointed as
a Best Man (or Honourable
Citizen) of their cities, such as Paris and
Clermont-Ferrand (France)
- Or have him appointed as Doctor Honoris
Causa in their universities

We wish to publish this Manifesto in a large
newspaper and send it to the
Belarus Government. Please sign it and pass it
to all parties interested in justice, freedom of
speech, freedom to conduct objective research and
human rights asking them to sign it, too. Your
help is greatly appreciated and will go a long way
in helping to free Dr. Bandazhevsky and promote
accurate research and publication of the radiation
induced effects of Chernobyl on humanity.

 

[theroyprocess]

Dr. Bandazhevsky Eco-Prisoner

FYI

Aleksei Smirnov,
Governments have a long history of cover-ups. A professor friend
of mine said 'the business' of government is to lie...lie...LIE!
This IS the reason Dr. Bandazhevsky is in jail...for daring to
tell the TRUTH about radiation health effects from Chernobyl.
So far as your government's 'recognized facts' on Chernobyl
caused sickness and deaths...a lie is a fact...not necessarily
the TRUTH !

http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/1993/may93/may93Gofman.html


Dennis F. Nester
Phoenix, Arizona
USA


----- Original Message -----
From: "Aleksei Smirnov (Mail.Ru)" <21185857772@mail.ru>
To: "davey garland" <thunderelf@yahoo.co.uk>
Cc: <nucnews@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2003 11:25 PM
Subject: Re: [NucNews] Dr Yurl Bandazhevsky -eco-prisoner - contact
details


Shall we open discussion on Chernobyl effects using recognised facts
instead of blaming the Belarus government with no proof?
Best regards
Aleksei Smirnov

----------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: [NucNews] Dr Yurl Bandazhevsky -eco-prisoner - contact details

Dear All,
some of you may already have this, just come through
from the ELP,(Earth Liberation Prisoners) which is
publicising his case. If anyone has any update on this
contact then please let me know. Dr Bandazhevsky needs
all the support he can get.
cheers
davey

Dr. Yurl Bandazhevsky
Ul. Kalvarijskaya 36
PO Box 35K
Minsk 220600, Belarus.

Serving 8 years for telling the world that the nuclear radiation around
Chernobyl is worse than the Belarus Government has admitted.

 

[theroyprocess]

Depleted Uranium Genetic Deformities

FYI

The DU-caused deformities is not a matter of controversy
anyway, be it for kids of G.I.'s who were exposed to it...
http://www.life.com/Life/essay/gulfwar/gulf01.html
or even less so for the kids whose mothers were living near
contaminated areas..
http://www.benjaminforiraq.org/contaminazioneitaly.htm
and this is the most "viewable" web page, another one (exhibitpicturs.html)
shows that deformities are similar to the ones near Chernobyl
after the (in)famous plant blew up, pour mémoire sampled here:
http://lille.indymedia.org/article.php3?id_article=11 (mirror)
http://membres.lycos.fr/mat66/special_tcherno.html





* See also: NucNews Links and Archives (by date) at http://nucnews.net * (Posted for educational and research purposes only, in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107) *

 

[Nereid]

What is the number of cosmic ray-caused deformities, theroyprocess? Of those caused by ¹⁴C? ⁴⁰K? Natrually occurring ²³⁵U and ²³⁸U? Thorium? Radium? Radon? Why aren't you concerned about these (they're just as preventable)?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by theroyprocess
...DU...

What does DU have to do with this thread? As we discussed in another thread, the problems with DU are chemical, not radiological.

 

[theroyprocess]

God vs. Man

Russ and Nereid,

If "God" kills you with natural source radiation...it's called death by natural causes.
If man kills you with radiation...it's called MURDER !

Explain it to the parents and the limbless babies when they are old enough
to understand...why it was OK for you to cause and profit from YOUR
radioactive products:

http://www.life.com/Life/essay/gulfwar/gulf01.html

 

[theroyprocess]

Scientific Evidence

Russ,

You don't want real evidence...when some brave researcher has REAL
evidence...he is trashed by the status quo i.e.

Subject: [NucNews] Dr Yurl Bandazhevsky -eco-prisoner - contact details

Dear All,
some of you may already have this, just come through
from the ELP,(Earth Liberation Prisoners) which is
publicising his case. If anyone has any update on this
contact then please let me know. Dr Bandazhevsky needs
all the support he can get.
cheers
davey

Dr. Yurl Bandazhevsky
Ul. Kalvarijskaya 36
PO Box 35K
Minsk 220600, Belarus.

Serving 8 years for telling the world that the nuclear radiation around
Chernobyl is worse than the Belarus Government has admitted.

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by theroyprocess
Russ and Nereid,

If "God" kills you with natural source radiation...it's called death by natural causes.
If man kills you with radiation...it's called MURDER !

Explain it to the parents and the limbless babies when they are old enough
to understand...why it was OK for you to cause and profit from YOUR
radioactive products:

http://www.life.com/Life/essay/gulfwar/gulf01.html

If "God" kills you with plague, smallpox, TB, etc, it's called 'preventable death'.

If "God" kills you with skin cancer caused by excessive exposure to the Sun, it's called 'preventable death'.

If you die while digging coal from a deep-cut mine, or later (e.g. from 'black lung'), is that 'death by natural causes' or 'MURDER!'?

If you die as a result of long exposure to the fine particulates from diesel exhaust, is that MURDER! at the hands of the oil industry?

As Russ says (and as I've been trying to get you to debate for several months now), it's all about alternatives, costs, societal choices, etc.

What is the basis - logical, emotional, cynical, whatever - by which we go about making the inevitable trade-off's?

As this is PF, I would hope that we can debate the choices from the basis of sound data and sound science. And sound economics would be nice too.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by theroyprocess
Russ,

You don't want real evidence...when some brave researcher has REAL
evidence...he is trashed by the status quo i.e.

What a cop out - you're saying you have real evidence but won't give it to me because you think I won't accept it. If this is because a lot of people have told you before that your data and/or analysis is flawed, maybe you need to start looking for another reason people disagree with you, besides a massive conspiracy?

Either way, by only spouting propaganda, you'll NEVER convince anyone who matters, only people who don't know enough to see that you don't have a real case to make.

 

[theroyprocess]

Germany Distributes Anti-Radiation Drug

The next Chernobyl magnitude catastrophe is
inevitable with 441 aging nuclear power plants
world wide. Governments are preparing by
storing and distributing iodine pills which does
not protect from the whole spectrum of radioactive
elements. It could all be prevented by abandening
nuclear power NOW and transmute and eliminate
high level nuclear waste forever. But this is
unlikely until the next meltdown happens.

FDA APRROVED ANTI-RADIATION DRUGS

http://www.nukepills.com/contentbuilder/layout.php3?contentPath=content/00/01/08/65/98/userdirectory6.content

PLUTONIUM FOUND IN BABY TEETH

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4808545-107983,00.html

http://www.radiation.org/index.html

LIFE MAGAZINE SPECIAL

http://www.life.com/Life/essay/gulfwar/gulf01.html


Germany buys anti-radiation pills for people near nuclear plants

BERLIN (AFP) Jan 11, 2004

http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040111164235.3sourdwz.html

Germany has bought 137 million potassium iodide tablets to protect
people living near nuclear power plants from radiation exposure in case
of disaster, the environment ministry said Sunday.

A ministry spokesman said the move was unrelated to current terrorism
fears but was based on a recommendation by radiation protection authorities.

Potassium iodide is thought to protect the thyroid gland from absorbing
radiation.

News magazine Der Spiegel reported in an advance copy of its Monday
issue that Germany planned to establish seven centers across the country
in which people in a radius of up to 100 kilometers (60 miles) could be
treated in case of a nuclear emergency.

The majority of the tablets would be available at such centers.

Germany has agreed to phase out its 19 nuclear power plants over the
next two decades due to safety concerns.


--


Posted for educational and research purposes only,
~ in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 ~

See also http://nucnews.net - NucNews Links and Archives

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by theroyprocess
The next Chernobyl magnitude catastrophe is
inevitable with 441 aging nuclear power plants
world wide. Governments are preparing by
storing and distributing iodine pills which does
not protect from the whole spectrum of radioactive
elements. It could all be prevented by abandening
nuclear power NOW and transmute and eliminate
high level nuclear waste forever. But this is
unlikely until the next meltdown happens.

Chernobyl killed roughly 40 people (YOU provided a source for that number). Air pollution kills 40,000 per year in the US alone. Which is worse?

Quick math: 40/(40,000*40 years) = 1/400,000. That's right, coal is over 40,000 times worse.

If we abandoned nuclear power today, it would be replaced in the short term (for the next 20 years at least) by coal and oil. Your solution would result in probably an additional 20,000 deaths a year from the added air pollution.

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by cozzmikjoker
Knowing the answer to those questions is how you know what the risk really is

True. I have to admit having a bit of curiosity and wanting to take a peak at those autopsey reports that Dr. Kaku has on the workers killed in the nuclear labs.

There are other issues, too. Our society is becoming ill with chronic diseases at younger and younger ages (diabetes, obesity, heart disease) as a result of the changes in diet and sedentary lifestyle. I just don't think any of us want to add any more problems than we already have.
And then you've got the magnetosphere (depleting?) and we won't have as much protection from cosmic radiation and stuff.
We're going to helena handbasket, Russ.

Despite the impression created in media reports, data on health etc suggests the world is a much better place today than even a decade ago. The big exception in the developed world (and increasingly the developing world) is, as you say, 'a result of the changes in diet and sedentary lifestyle' - a rise in obesity, heart disease, diabetes etc. If you believe in free will , these results are the individuals' own choices, and should not cause us any lost sleep.

For folk in the developing world to attain material standards of living closer to those of folk in the developed world, a significant increase in energy supply will be needed. If this comes from burning fossil fuels, there will be severe impacts on the Earth and its passengers - global warming, massive species extinction, hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths (coal miners, oil workers, etc). If it comes from nuclear energy, there will be some impact too (a few hundred preventable deaths, according to theroyprocess's sources).

So, what choice should we make, and why? Remember that 'do nothing' condemns hundreds of millions of people in developing economies to poverty.

 

[theroyprocess]

Nuclear Legacy

Nereid,

Explain it to these children if they live long enough to understand.

http://www.life.com/Life/essay/gulfwar/gulf02.html

 

[theroyprocess]

Cancer From Fallout

To illustrate my point that radiation caused illness IS
imperceptible to the victim...until cancer appears years later.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Woman's leukemia linked to radiation

By Marathana Furches
Newton Kansan January 18, 2004

http://thekansan.com/stories/011704/fro_0117040003.shtml

Toni Gough has never been to war and doesn't have military training, but she can tell you about the effects of nuclear radiation and government testing.

After Gough was diagnosed with acute myelogenous leukemia in 2002, her doctor discovered she didn't have the correct genetic make-up for the disease. Gough later discovered her cancer was caused by a relative of a different sort -- Uncle Sam.

The U.S. government performed above-ground nuclear testing in Nevada from Jan. 21, 1951, through Oct. 31, 1958, and from June 30 through July 31, 1962.

"I just can't understand why the government did this. It bothers me that they knew, after the bombs were dropped in Japan, that radiation caused cancers and they still did testing in the United States," Gough said. "Who knew they were doing testing in Nevada?"

Gough didn't make the connection to her childhood home until she contacted family members and informed them of her situation.

"My doctor said that since my leukemia wasn't genetic, it most likely was caused by my being exposed to extremely large amounts of radiation. But my husband and I couldn't figure out when or where that could have happened," Gough said.

When an aunt heard of Gough's plight, she wrote back and told her niece that she had cancer, it was caused by nuclear testing and Gough should look into it and the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program.

Gough lived in Gila County, Ariz., from the time she was 2 until she was in junior high. She doesn't know whether her family was aware of the testing at the time.

"I was only 2 when we moved there and didn't really pay attention to things like that when I was young," Gough said.

While in Gila County, Gough's younger brother died at the age of 2. Doctors ruled out a birth defect as a cause of death. Gough believes there is a strong possibility the radiation could have had an adverse affect on her brother while he was still a fetus.

"It bothers me I never got the chance to know my brother, and that our government may have had a part in it," Gough said.

So Gough contacted the government and got the paperwork to apply for compensation through the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. The act provides "compassionate payments to individuals who contracted certain cancers and other serious diseases as a result of their exposure to radiation released during above-ground nuclear weapons tests or as a result of their exposure to radiation during employment in underground uranium mines," according to the U.S. Department of Justice.

The Department of Justice divides claimants into five categories: uranium miners, uranium millers, ore transporters, downwinders and onsite participants. Gough is classified as a downwinder.

Downwinders lived in areas affected by the nuclear testing in 10 counties in Utah -- Beaver, Garfield, Iron, Kane, Millard, Piute, San Juan, Sevier, Washington and Wayne -- and five counties in Arizona -- Apache, Coconino, Gila, Navajo and Yavapai. The Nevada counties include Eureka, Lander, Lincoln, Nye, White Pine and "that portion of Clark County that consists of townships 13 through 16 at ranges 63 through 71," according to the Department of Justice. That portion of Clark County does not include Las Vegas.

Gough said she wants others who may be suffering from cancer that may have been a result of government testing to know about the compensation act.

more...

 

[Nereid]

How about I collect newspaper stories on road accidents? You know, "Joan X, 34-year old mother of two infants, was tragically killed today when the SUV she was driving skidded on a patch of 'black ice' and collided head-on with a tank-transporter in YYY ...". In the US, I believe there are tens of thousands of such stories, every year.

Or, much less seen in any newspaper, "Wang Meiming, 34-year old mother from Xiping passed away yesterday after contracting blood poisoning from her local clinic. Neighbours said that, since her husband had died two years ago, Meiming had been unable to find work, and couldn't afford the medicine needed to save her life."

Can we please have a discussion based on science?

BTW, for every downwinder with leukemia, how many airline pilots are there with cosmic-ray induced leukemia?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Nereid
How about I collect newspaper stories on road accidents? You know, "Joan X, 34-year old mother of two infants, was tragically killed today when the SUV she was driving skidded on a patch of 'black ice' and collided head-on with a tank-transporter in YYY ...". In the US, I believe there are tens of thousands of such stories, every year.

Can we please have a discussion based on science?

Great idea - with theroyprocess's penchant for news stories, mabye she'll believe them more than the facts we give her.

Important note: while virtually all of your stories, theroyprocess, contain only anecdotal evidence of individual deaths, I'll be posting stories with real, scientific evidence of thousands of deaths. With all due respect to that woman's aunt, I'll leave the diagnosis to the doctors and scientists. I also apparently need to point out that the allegation there was of weapons tests - nothing to do with commercial power. The anti-nuke crowd incorrectly lumps the two together all the time.

So here's an interesting link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/waste/story/0,12188,854660,00.html

A few key quotes:

"Even on a conservative estimate, air pollution is killing 10 times more people than road accidents every year. As individuals we must all take responsibility to reduce our contribution to pollution."

Sorry Nereid - road accidents are trivial compared to air pollution.

"According to the mayor's draft air quality strategy, published in 2001, 24,000 people a year die prematurely across Britain because of air pollution. We need to do more to bring emissions from motor vehicles in the capital under control."

Yikes. 24,000 people. A year. Shocked, theroyprocess?

The great London smog brought the capital to a standstill in December 1952. Adverse weather conditions and high levels of smoke from coal fires in homes formed a smog that brought death to thousands as it blanketed the capital. The some 4,000 deaths came in just four days.

This one shocked even me - I'd never heard of such a thing.

 

[Nereid]

Good points Russ.

May I also add that what happened in 1952 in London continues to happen today, in the winter in industrial cities of developing countries above ~30^o N (or below, S). Taiyuan, Shijiazhuang, Lanzhou (even Beijing) are not household names ... but then they're not Americans who are dying, so it doesn't count, right? Maybe Wang Meiming was one of them?? (I'm in a black mood, and will probably regret these words).

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Nereid
May I also add that what happened in 1952 in London continues to happen today, in the winter in industrial cities of developing countries above ~30^o N (or below, S). Taiyuan, Shijiazhuang, Lanzhou (even Beijing) are not household names ... but then they're not Americans who are dying, so it doesn't count, right?

I'm aware of that, but its a lot harder to find info on China. As bad as that London article is, western cities are virgin forests compared with Bejing and other Chinese cities.

edit: well, ok, not all that hard: http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/kf0f/Air_polln_risks.htm

The results suggest that air pollution is responsible for more than 1 million deaths per year in China, or one in every seven deaths nationwide.

A MILLION deaths a year! 1,000,000!

 

[theroyprocess]

Low Dose Radiation Health Effects

FYI

Even low radiation doses in infants may reduce future cognitive function

Diagnostic Imaging Online
January 22, 2004

http://www.diagnosticimaging.com/dinews/2004012201.shtml

Small amounts of radiation, equivalent to the doses used in CT scans of the skull, could adversely affect an infant's intellectual capacity in adulthood, according to a new study.

Swedish researchers studying the dose-related responses for both learning ability and logical reasoning found that the number of boys attending high school decreased in relation to the amount of ionizing radiation they had received as infants. Results of the study were published in the January issue of the British Medical Journal.

"This is the first study that shows effects at such low doses," said Dr. Per Hall, an associate professor of medical epidemiology and biostatistics at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm.

Hall and colleagues examined the records of 4577 men who had received radiation therapy for cutaneous hemangioma before the age of 18 months at the Karolinska University Hospital between 1930 and 1959. The types of radiation included beta rays, gamma rays, and x-rays, with the most common type of treatment using applicators containing radium-226. X-ray treatment included contact therapy at less then or equal to 60 kVp.

Today's CT scanners deliver far higher doses of radiation than ordinary x-rays, and new techniques such as spiral CT scanning deliver even higher doses.

After excluding subjects who had missing information and records, Hall and colleagues were able to analyze 2551 for high school attendance and 2211 for cognitive function. They found a significant decrease in high school attendance in boys who had received radiation doses higher than 100 mGy compared with those who had received the lowest doses of 1 to 20 mGy.

The researchers also reported a significant decreasing trend in cognitive test results for concept discrimination, general instruction, and technical comprehension in relation to increasing radiation doses received as infants.

Comments published along with the original paper raised several questions about the study. One concern was the fact that most children having a CT head scan today would not be receiving doses as high as 100 mGy and that radiation exposure and machines in the past were notorious for inadequate shielding protection and inaccuracy.

Hall noted in response that a Swedish survey found radiation doses for a CT head scan in children to average 68 mGy, going as high as 130 mGy.

"We believe that there is a causal relationship between ionizing radiation at low doses and decreased mental capacity," Hall said.



* See also: NucNews Links and Archives (by date) at http://nucnews.net * (Posted for educational and research purposes only, in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107) *

 

[Nereid]

Radiation levels in smoke from factories?

theroyprocess,

Do you have any URLs which give the radiation levels of the particulates in a) smoke from industrial plants (e.g. chemical, oil refineries, heavy metal smelting), b) coal-fired powerplant smoke, c) diesel engines?

I'm interested to know what sort of radiation dose people in developing economies get from inhaling air pollution. A detailed breakdown of the radionuclides would also be of interest.

Thank you in anticipation,
Nereid

 

[theroyprocess]

Non-Regulated Nuke Dumping

This is a crime against humanity...the nuke industry is out of control.

NIRS RADIATION ALERT and UPDATE (1/2004)

Nuclear Power and Weapons Waste to go to Regular Landfills
and other “Non-Regulated Management”

Environmental Protection Agency joins Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Departments of Energy and Transportation in Deregulating Radioactive Waste

Comments due to EPA by March 17, 2004
Email to: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov


The US Environmental Protection Agency is planning to make a new rule that would allow nuclear waste to go to places that are not licensed for radioactive materials.

The goal appears to be to redefine radioactive materials, no matter what their source (nuclear power, nuclear weapons, naturally occurring or other), based on EPA-calculated and projected risks. The new category of nuclear materials (once called BRC or Below Regulatory Concern) would supposedly not need radioactive regulatory controls. EPA does not consider all the potential health effects of radiation and hazardous materials in estimating the risks. They have never demonstrated the accuracy of their predictions.

1) First, EPA would allow mixed radioactive and hazardous wastes to go to facilities permitted for hazardous waste only (RCRA C hazardous waste dumps and processors).

2) Second, radioactive waste (not mixed with hazardous) could be permitted to go to places that do not have radioactive licenses or regulations, such as regular garbage dumps or incinerators or hazardous sites. EPA justifies this by claiming they will provide an acceptable level of protection from radiation risk. It seems obvious this would be a problem for communities around the waste sites, many of which already leak.

3) Third, EPA suggests that a “non-regulatory approach” to management of radioactive waste is an option and requests creative ideas for “partnering” with waste generators or other schemes to relieve the regulatory burden. Nothing would prevent radioactive materials from going to recycling facilities and being mixed with the normal recycling streams which are made into everyday household items like toys, cookware, personal use items, cars, furniture and civil engineering projects like roads and buildings.

4) This dangerous proposal dovetails neatly into the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission's rulemaking to deregulate and release radioactive material from control, ironically called "Control of Solids." The NRC is considering several options for nuclear waste deregulation including continuing the current case-by-case release procedures, starting new release procedures that are based on projected risks, sending the waste to sites that are not licensed for nuclear materials. NRC is claiming they could approve "restricted" release of nuclear waste meaning certain conditions would apply but that NRC would not enforce them--someone else, as yet un-named would.

The upshot is that NRC and EPA are joining forces to allow nuclear power and weapons waste which is now generally required to be regulated and controlled, to be released to waste sites never designed to take radioactive materials and either deliberately or unintentionally to the marketplace where it will come into routine daily contact with us, our children and environment.

5) To make matters even worse, the US NRC and US Department of Transportation are on the verge of finalizing new transport regulations (TSR-1) that would exempt various levels of hundreds of radionuclides from regulatory control in transit. This will make it easier for NRC and EPA to deregulate nuclear wastes since they will no longer require regulation, labeling or control as radioactive material during transportation. (This is especially distressing in light of increased security concerns about transportation of nuclear materials that could be used for dirty bombs. More unregulated nuclear materials will be on the roads, rails, barges and aircraft.)

6) Finally, the Department of Energy is in the process of a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on releasing radioactive materials from its sites. In 2000, DOE halted the commercial recycling of potentially radioactive metals from certain contaminated area on its sites, but could resume it. DOE continues to allow radioactively contaminated metals out for unregulated disposal and to allow other radioactively contaminated materials out for recycling or unregulated disposal--soils, concrete, asphalt, plastic, wood, equipment, buildings, sites and more. EPA’s Nov. 18, 2003 notice would help legalize DOE’s release of nuclear weapons wastes from regulatory control.

ACTIONS:

1) Send a letter to the new EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt telling him what you think of the EPA's proposed action, encouraging him withdraw it.
Administrator Mike Leavitt, US Environmental Protection Agency, 1101A,
Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. Washington, DC 20460
leavitt.michael@epa.gov

2) Comment to EPA and get organizations and landfill boards to do so at
a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov
The proposal is on the EPA website (www.epa.gov/radiation[/url]) and will be posted with comments on NIRS website ([url]www.nirs.org[/URL]) soon.

3) Tell EPA we need a 6 month extension to run their ideas by our communities that will be impacted.

4) Let your elected officials know how you feel about these dangers by sending them a copy of your letter to Secretary Leavitt, comments to EPA, NRC, DOT and/or DOE and telling them about your opposition to the federal rules that would deregulate and exempt nuclear materials from regulation.

For more information contact:
Diane D'Arrigo, Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS), 1424 16th Street NW Suite 404, Washington, DC 20036, [email]dianed@nirs.org[/email], 202 328-0002 ext 16
See NIRS website under Campaigns at [url]www.nirs.org[/url] for more info and actions.

 

[russ_watters]

Something near and dear to me right now: http://www.cdc.gov/flu/keyfacts.htm

36,000 Americans die each year from complications of flu.

So far, this year has been worse than average.