Breathing radioactive material versus an X-ray
Is there a material difference between ingesting radioactive material or breathing in radioactive fallout and an X-ray or CT Scan? It seems that X-rays or CT scans last for a brief period of time and is external to the body whereas ingesting radioactive material stays with you for a much longer period of time.
We all realize that it is not your job to monitor the air, water and respond to questions on the forums so I just wanted to thank you for performing this service for the people of California. It is greatly appreciated.
Prolonged Low level exposure from Fukushima
According to this report the dangers of low level radiation are acute:
"The Practical
Implications for Human Health:
"The practical implications for human health, of realistic versus mistaken risk-estimates in this field, can be illustrated by evaluation of the Chernobyl accident, but this accident is just "the tip of the iceberg.
"Proposals are pending to exclude very low-dose exposure of entire populations from consideration in risk-estimates, and also to handle a large share of radioactive waste as if it were not radioactive -- in other words, to declare a threshold by using edict to over-rule evidence.
"It is self-evident that if a mistaken notion about safe doses and dose-rates prevails in this field, human exposures to ionizing radiation will rise dramatically -- from occupational, environmental, and medical doses. Quite aside from heritable genetic consequences, which are not discussed in this book, such a mistake would be far from trivial. Over time, it could mean cancer inflicted on a hundred million or more humans.
"Indeed, low-dose ionizing radiation may turn out to be the most important single carcinogen to which huge numbers of humans are actually exposed. No one can possibly be sure yet, in the absence of comparable data on all the other human carcinogens and on the magnitude of exposure to them."
"Radiation-Induced Cancer from Low-Dose Exposure : AN INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS" 1990
Link:
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/RIC/index.html
This book also address the issue of supralinearity (the idea that linearity of dose-risk estimate is inaccurate - i.e. lower doses may provide a higher risk proportional to higher exposures) I am glad that this has been acknowledged here on this site as one possibility.
I highly recommend this publication for those who want to get a beter handle on the risks. It looks closely at the studies from Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well as at the problems with reports on Chernobyl which claimed a much lower risk than what the evidence showed in terms of cancers and deaths.
I hope your team will consider this research when discussing and analyzing and explaining the risks.
There is a huge difference.
There is a huge difference. I-131 will concentrate in your thyroid and stay there for some time if inhaled/ingested. Don't believe these comparisons, there is no safe level of radiation.
The thyroid concentration
The thyroid concentration and uptake percentages are taken into account within the allowable levels on intake (ALI) and these are determined from the accepted values from the International Committee on Radiation Protection (ICRP) which is the body of experts charged with reviewing all literature on the subject and adjusting dose values when required.
We live now and have lived for millions of years among natural radioactive materials made of uranium, thorium, and potassium. We are subjected to whole-body gamma-ray exposure, we breath and we ingest radioactive particles all of the time. This is all natural, we are not talking about man-made stuff here. "Safe" must be put in context. Is is safe to put a toddler in a 1" of water if he/she does not know how to swim? Usually the answer is yes. If I put a few more drops of water in, is that toddler still safe? Sure. What if a put a few feet? Probably no. The context is important here. If I just said, "there is no safe amount of extra water", this would seem extreme. This is just a simple analogy to communicate my point, so don't read too much into it. The fact is we live our lives every day with that 1" of water. There are unsafe levels of radiation exposure (the few feet of water) that we know. What I am suggesting, and there has been some evidence produced, is that there is a threshold of exposure that becomes unsafe. The problem is no one has been able to adequately quantify where this threshold exists and so the ICRP is limited to using the "no-threshold" model and extrapolate everything linearly down to zero dose. The French Academy of Sciences released a report in 2005 on Dose-effect relationships and estimation of the carcinogenic effects of low doses of ionizing radiation in which they reject the linear no-threshold model for low-dose exposure and even suggest valid evidence for hormetic effect where low dose exposure actually has a net positive effect on health. The hypothesis is that low-levels of radiation increases the the cell defense mechanisms and reduces the normal rate of cell mutation, caused by many other factors, resulting in a net reduction in cancer incidence.
From the French Academy Report: "The efficacy of cellular defense mechanisms is very high in the dose range corresponding to natural irradiation (1 to 20 mSv/year), but it declines at higher doses. The question is above which dose it declines."
The conclusion they make is that a threshold exists. Thus, it seems, there actually may be a "safe" level of radiation contrary to your statement.
Threshold and "safe" level of radiation
The National Academy of Sciences in their 2005 study concluded that there is no safe level of radiation. So, you are saying we should believe the French Academy of Science over our own NAS study. Coincidentally, France is one of the largest users of nuclear energy in Europe, if not the world. Making arguments based on a study from another country, largely unavailable in the US, when a relevant study is available in the US, undermines your credibility.
With respect to context, it is likely that "natural" radiation is also "unsafe", hence the need for protection from the sun, and the prevalence of skin cancers from "natural" sources. Out bodies are able to repair the damage caused by the cellular radiation damage. That does not mean that "natural" radiation is "safe". And that does not mean the incremental increase in radiation from the Japan nuclear accident is "safe", it likely will cause damage to some organisms.
My only point to quoting the
My only point to quoting the French study is to provide a counter-argument to a blanket statement. The French Academy of Science is, by no means, a fringe scientific entity and they have reviewed a good multitude of research to support their claims. The problem is that no group or nation has a definitive answer on low-dose exposure models and so making a statement like there is "no safe exposure to radiation" is a bit strong considering research to the contrary. However, there is research that suggests supra-linearity (that low-dose exposure has a greater than proportional effect) and that should also receive merit. Obviously the debate rages on. I have maintained that to our best knowledge and using the ICRP publication 30 as guidance, we suggest there is not zero risk here and that using the linear no-threshold (standard) model is proper.
Agreed
I think the real question is really how many additional cancers per 100,000 this accident (and our exposure) will cause.
The issue is that there seems to be very little the average person in California (or the US for that matter) can do about it--especially with elevated levels being picked up on the East Coast now (although our exposure via inhalation is still greater here in CA).
I guess some people are just less troubled by an increase of a few cancer cases per 100,000 but as someone who just had to deal with my 12 year old sister passing away from cancer (and who has a child on the way), I view even an increase of even 1 or 2 cancers per 100,000 as terrible and I'd like to do everything I can to make sure that my family/children aren't exposed to these additional radioactive particles. Also the timing of heavy extremely rainfall starting 4 days after the explosions at reactors 1 & 3 (and the fire in the reactor 4 building) is troubling as it seems that the CA state government is doing very little in terms of monitoring. This is an incredible resource but the state should be running parallel studies for all of this stuff (air/water/snowpack/food).
ugh, frustrating.
This is one of those circumstances
This is one of those circumstances where the best thing to do is keep ourselves informed, try to stay calm, support those who are doing their best to help the rest of us and try to make a change. (I do have lost many family members to cancer.)
In the meantime, make sure you get your regular dose of Vitamins A, B, C, D and E, and find safe source of antioxidants. I'm one of those in a quandary where we can't leave the state but I can't help but be concerned for my 5 month old and 3 year old. So we are sticking to soy milk, eating healthier and taking our vitamins. When you are going through radiation treatment, they tell you NOT to take them or consume antioxidants because they help repair your body from damage such as this. It may not be a cure, but any chance we give our bodies to fight this, the better.
I am giving myself and my
I am giving myself and my children iodine supplementation via Logol's solution. The dosages are fairly minimal, and not even close to the level of the much ballyhooed K-I pills, but should help reduce any thyroid uptake of the reported low levels of increase of radioactive iodine in the air. Children are especially susceptible. In any case, iodine deficiency in the US diet has been on the rise the past few decades. This is a great forum of info, and is the best one I have found on this topic and reporting real time information. But I find it exasperating and infuriating that our federal and state governments have essentially kept the lid on any consistent and meaningful dissemination of information on this situation. Why is is that we have to rely on a university science department (albeit a world class university) acting on its own to get the best information? It is very troubling. I am concerned that if a similar accident happened in California, we would be similarly kept in the dark, at far greater exposure to risk...
See
See http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/2044#dosecompare in the FAQ. Same goes for an x-ray as for a cross country flight.
You're welcome =)