A health phyicists's opinion?
A lot of posts here are clamoring and speaking of studies wherein low levels of radiation over time can wreak havoc to children and developing fetuses. Some from sources that probably are credible, and some that likely aren't(I've already seen Busby's site and Idealist.ws and most of what I see is really emotional language and hardly any off-site links.)
You guys claim not to be health physicists, and I think it is quite troubling that there isn't one to address these concerns. Could there be someone there to consult on these matters?
However one thing to understand is that we all are already being exposed to manmade sources of ionizing radiation. Nuclear warheads, nuclear waste, and bombs tests have littered isotopes upon the sea, the area around Simi Valley in California has had undocumented numbers of Cs-137 spewed from a highly censored partial meltdown incident in the 50s there. Plutonium and Cs-137 from nuclear tests still drift the air currents to this day.
Academic integrity
I am also a doctor and it is very disturbing that many of the experts are comparing inhalation or ingestion of radioactive particles to background radiation or various forms of X-ray. Perhaps they are trying to simplify things, but there is no comparison. Even when we are looking at particles with a relatively short half life such as I-131, the biological concentration of these particles within a small area (e.g., the thyroid gland) is not taken into account. These types of misleading comparisons make experts look like they have no understanding of physics or medicine. I have been very disappointed so far and really hope that the staff at UC Berkeley can have some academic integrity and present valid scientific data without obscuring it for political purposes.
Thank you for saying this
Thank you for saying this (if indeed you are a doctor, this being the internet and all).
I agree that comparing radiation levels to the exposure endured during a cross-country trip is just plain wrong and gives people a false sense of security.
There is also a lot of talk about "well, we live in a radioactive soup already" ... but if that's the case, why are we seeing large spikes, particularly in the rainwater, correlated to the Japanese disaster?
Agree with the OP, I would love to see some health experts speak out about what is going on... the silence in the media is deafening, but that's to be expected considering they are owned by the same people who build nuclear power plants.
Alex
Amen!
Amen!
Important Study/Conclusion
I'm a lawyer at a large law firm seeking the best data out there for a wife that is 14 weeks pregnant, I don't typically get alarmed by much but I'm also not reassured by comparing an airplane flight to ingesting radioactive particles like I-131 and Ce-137 on a developing baby.
I've done quite a bit of research because I am concerned and there are very credible published suggesting particularly adverse effects on those in utero between 8-15 weeks that are exposed to very low levels of fallout. I'm not worried about my health, just my kid that's on the way and it would be great to get health physicists involved here to provide clarity and to address reasonable, commonsense measures to avoid exposure if there are people that should because simply put it seems that there are studies strongly suggesting some of Professor Chivers statements are off the mark for pregnant women/infants/children.
See, e.g. the links below to a few of these studies--
###
"Increases in Leukemia in Infants in Wales and Scotland Following Chernobyl: Evidence for Erros in Statutory Risk Estimates"
by Chris Busby and Molly Scott Cato
Environment, Climate Change, Energy Economics and Energy Policy (Vol. 11, 2 Mar. 2000)
Abstract available at:
http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/t136k231xn1j26q6/
###
"Effect of low dose ionizing radiation exposure in utero on cognitive function in adolescence"
by Kristin Sverdvik Heiervang, Sarnoff Mednick, Kjetil Sundet and Bjorn Rishovd Rund
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 2010, 51, 210–215
Abstract available at:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2010.00814.x/abst...
###
"Chernobyl’s subclinical legacy: Prenatal exposure to radioactive fallout and school outcomes in Sweden"
by Douglas Almond, Lena Edlund and Marten Palme
Article available at:
http://www.nber.org/~almond/revision_nov6.pdf
###
"The linear no-threshold dose-effect relation: Is it relevant to radiation protection regulation?"
by Rudi H. Nussbaum
Medical Physics 25 (3) March 1998
Abstract available at:
http://online.medphys.org/resource/1/mphya6/v25/i3/p291_s1?isAuthorized=no
Nussbaum concludes in part:
"Spokespersons for such commissions and other experts often compare exposures due to ingested radioactivity from fallout to annual doses from external background, to exposures during air travel, or to routine diagnostic x-ray examinations. Such comparisons are not only scientifically dishonest but also highly misleading to the public."
Btw
Not trying to critical of the team and/or project--to the contrary I'd be willing to make a financial contribution if that was ever necessary. This work is truly a public service. Just seems like this could actually be a health issue for some people (see Prof Chivers comment on current milk levels and a 1:200,000 incidence rate). Curious at what point the current regulatory guidelines consider the increased IR to be of concern to public health when you add up air, milk, and other sources we'll all be consuming over the coming months.
Appreciated
I understand what you mean by the very occupational exposure in things and keeping risks in mind.
When it comes to researching the effects of low-dose radiation, well I do understand that it can still be a risk, but one thing I question about such studies is how they know a cancer incident is caused by low levels of radiation over a long period of time. This is in consideration of the carcinogenic soup we are exposed to perpetually also known sometimes as the "body burden". Such things found in low levels in the bloodsteams of millions perhaps billions of people as mercury, lead, pthalates, fire retardants, pesticides, PCBs, BPA, benzene, formaldehyde, nitrosamines, and various other industrial chemicals found in everyday items such as mattresses, computers, carpets, upholstery, food, textiles, paints, etc.
It's not alright for them to be there, just looking at the larger picture here.
An answer from an MD
Hello:
I would like to comment on your comment. I am not sure what your background is.
I am a physician. It is a known fact that radiation can cause caner, therefore, patients for example usually wear protective lead clothing with a dental xray that covers the thyroid. Radiation causes a change or damage in the genetic information of a cell. The cell may be able to repair this successfully.
Many things can cause cancer. But we need to get out of our denial that low dose radiation is safe.
It is not. I am personally very worried what happened to California and I am worried about the cumulative aspect. I lived through Chernobyl in Germany and now this.
The problem is we cannot always be free from environmental toxins.
But please we all need to get out of the denial that ANY dose of radiation can cause damage on the cellular level. It is about out own body's defense that determines whether one person will get affect and one person not.
I also see quite a lot of lymphoma patients here in the bay area (I am a neurologist) much more than in North Carolina where I trained.
Nobody knows what causes this.
Scientific clinical studies try to rule out causes and try to establish a likelihood of cause and outcome.
To be honoest, I personally am worried about the big amount of Iodine 131 that has come to us here. But I guarantee you, NO ONE expected it to happen like that.
AFter all, 5000 miles is quite a distance.
I think we just need to be mindful and not careless with the knowledge that we have.
So we should not shower in the recent rain.
Otherwise we all need to move on with our lifes.
NO ONE expected it is quite
NO ONE expected it is quite UNTRUE. There are blogs and countless sites where people VERY MUCH EXPECTED it.
"But we need to get out of our denial that low dose radiation is safe."
As to radiation exposure, where are all you physicians when TSA rolled out all the backscatter machines? Why are you not BANDING TOGETHER and demanding that they cease to use them? Would this mean going out on a limb professionally? After all, you will be treating people down the line should frequent travelers develop problems. An no women should be exposed for sure.
I just find it frustrating to read some of the physician comments here but you all do nothing about the forced exposure of the American public. You could band together and pull your powerful political weight just like the pilot's banded together and fought back.
Reasonable standards?
First, it would be nice if readers are being misled by commentators that you would clarify what those are and why. Even experts can misunderstand things. In this particular case, you yourself are saying that dose calculations can take into account different tissues, etc., however you use "whole body" and state that it is a "reasonable standard". However, to my understanding, the primary isotope of concern in your milk and water studies is I-131 (correct me if I'm wrong). If that's the case, there is no reasonable way that you can use a whole body dose when there is plenty of scientific literature showing that I-131 will primarily concentrate in the thyroid. Furthermore, risk assessment for the average euthyroid male is not going to be relevant to the large body of Americans who are hypothyroid, children, fetuses, etc. An unacceptably large percentage of the population is not going to deal with I-131 in the same way a healthy middle aged person will. Before generalized statements are made as to the "safety" of a reading, scientific integrity would require qualifications to that statement or at the very least, further analysis for at-risk individuals to identify who may be at risk and what precautions they should take.
Regardless, I want to commend you for your integrity and willingness to engage in these discussions.
Thank you for your response.
Thank you for your response. I checked your citations and it is very important to note that the conversion factors are based on occupational exposure limits in adults. Clearly occupational exposure limits are going to be very different than ideal exposure limits (e.g., same standard for worker in a nuclear facility and newborn?). The calculations, therefore, are very likely to be giving a false sense of security to high risk individuals. Furthermore, I-131 will also concentrate in breast milk (though presumably at a somewhat lower concentration than the mother ingested) and that needs to be accounted for when we are looking at health risks of infants as well. I would humbly suggest qualifying any statements made when comparing the radiation doses because of these differences.
Thanks again for your work and especially for your activity on these Boards, they are much appreciated.
Answer from MD
I wish I could do something, of course. I am not sure whether that would have any impact in the US, politics control everything.
Read the article http://www.wtvm.com/Global/story.asp?S=14343830
which was an eyo opener to me. It is scary how the US is handling it.
What could we as physicians do? Write a letter to congress, someone tried and got a standard response. I think, we as citizens should ALL do something like demonstrating, like they do in Europe. Where is the American citizen, watching Hollywood news? Let us all demonstrate or write a letter to the authorities
That is an excellent and eye-opening article and I agree
that we all should be doing all we can to make sure there are no risks of such high exposures in the future (which, from my perspective, means no more nukes and shut the rest of them down).
I mean, Jeez, we still haven't figured out a safe way to even store the spent fuel rods for tens of thousands of years (which burning rods may well have produced much of what we are seeing crossing the northern hemisphere now and raining down on us). We cannot protect them indefinitely with any certainty that they will not be attacked by terrorists or crazies or just subject to natural disasters where the water is drained out and they melt and burn covering the globe with fallout.
Not to mention ongoing "allowable" and "permissible" emissions of strontium 90 and other radionuclides from operating commercial plants (which can vent out lots of radioactive gases and particulates and are allowed to do so at every plant6) which have been proven to cause bith defects, cancers, hypothyroid disorder, metabolic disorders and even the mutating of viruses and bacteria (as predicted by Sakharov in the 1950's) which may be the cause of things like Lyme disease, and SARS, and MRSA when compounded by accidents such as Fukushima, Chernobyl, TMI etc etc etc.
I aprrciate your take, doc, but am surprised that you were surprised by the EPA story and report. But then again doctors are told that nukes are safe like we all have been programmed to believe.