UC Berkeley professor Kai Vetter - Two different stories told on safety of local radioactivity

Steve Wing

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 2011-04-23 15:48.

Arnie Gundersen's video with Steve Wing (epidemiologist at NCSU, I think), says some interesting things:
http://www.fairewinds.com/updates

I would be more inclined to heed the words of someone that studies these things as part of his lifelong research.

What he says is that the radiation doses that have spread out, while it does dilute the concentration of radiation, it does not dilute the number of cancers that that radiation can cause - having millions and millions of people exposed to a small dose couldl give the same number of cancers as a few thousand of people exposed to the same dosse.

A direct quote from the video:

"spreading out a dose over a larger? area reduces each person's cancer risk, but doesn't reduce the number of cancers that result from that radiation."

He does state the "no safe dose of radiation" linear model.

I have an elderly neighbor that recently had a very rare cancer in her breast. It was not breast cancer, it took awhile for them to identify it. It seems it was a cancer cause by the radiation treatment she had for breast cancer 20 years earlier, per all the specialists that worked on her case.

I think it's a bit arrogant on our part to think that many of these VERY limited studies really tell the whole story.

I also wish folks here would lighten up on the scientists that are collecting this incredibly important data. They have interpreted it from their points of view, in the world in which they study. It's neither right or wrong, but important in the context that it's given. Very rarely do we have all information we need to make certain decisions, at best we can approximate.

LisaT

Radiation Statements

Submitted by JohnQPublic (not verified) on Sat, 2011-04-23 11:16.

On your milk monitoring page you state: "Please note that though all I-131 activities have increased due to this revision, the levels are still very low -- one would have to consume at least 1,900 liters of milk to receive the same radiation dose as a cross-country airplane trip."

While no doubt, the levels of radiation exposure are low, is this statement not a canard? I expect this type of reporting from CNN not from a nuclear scientist.

There is a world of differenec between a one time transient exposure to radiation passing through the body, and a gamma or beta emmiter particle lodged in the body of an infant (referring also to Cesium and other isotopes).

Please knock off the politicfal correctness, professor.

flip side

Submitted by JohnQPublic (not verified) on Sat, 2011-04-23 11:27.

On the flip side- thanks a lot for doing this work.

This is commentary not

Submitted by dchivers on Sat, 2011-04-23 06:56.

This is commentary not unlike some we have seen on this forum. Once again, we have no interests within our group within the nuclear industry and we have provided our data and analysis of the situation freely and without filters. Professor Vetter continues to reiterate, as the entire BRAWM team does, that the amounts of fallout we are observing here in California are extremely low and is not a health concern. We have consulted world-class health physicists at Berkeley and elsewhere on this matter. We have also answered to the claim that the 181 times the EPA limit for drinking water is a misinterpretation of the situation. I am copying a log entry that was posted on our main sample page:


4/5 (9:25am):

Response to some misleading claims about our measurements

Some claims have been made recently that our data shows that Bay Area water exceeds EPA regulations by a factor of 181 -- sometimes this has been reported as 18,100% higher, or erroneously as a factor of 18,100 higher. This claim is misleading. Specifically, the reports refer to the I-131 activity of 20.1 Bq/L measured in rainwater on 3/23. The EPA limit for I-131 is 3 pCi/L, or 0.111 Bq/L. There are a number of things wrong with this claim.

First, the measurement we made was of rainwater, not drinking water, so the drinking water limit does not apply. We instead should be discussing tap water, in which we detected a small amount of I-131 (0.024 Bq/L). This is a factor of almost 1,000 below the rainwater measurement and a factor of 4.6 below the EPA limit.

It should also be noted that the EPA limit assumes the water is ingested over the course of an entire year. That is, someone drinking 3 pCi/L water for an entire year would reach the EPA dose limit of 4 millirem, which is a very small dose. The tap water measurement of 0.024 Bq/L on 3/29 is our only detection of I-131; on subsequent days it could not be detected, probably due to the radioactive decay of I-131. So this tap water could have been ingested for at most 1 day, giving the public a dose 365 times smaller than if one assumes an entire year of ingestion. That means the tap water is effectively a factor of 1,700 below the EPA limit.

Finally, we believe that the clear decay in all isotopes shown in our air filtration measurements is an indication that water activity levels are declining at least for now.

Thank you again for all your

Submitted by O'Neal Jones (not verified) on Sat, 2011-04-23 12:52.

Thank you again for all your hard work Dchivers and the entire BRAWM team. I feel that because of your hard work I have remained informed. I am however quite concerned about the levels in the rainwater. The sample of rainwater taken on 3/23 had I131 levels @ 20.1 bq/l. Its valid to say this sample wasn't of drinking water, which has an epa limit of .111 bq/l. Unfortunately in rural Humboldt County (as many other parts of the entire west) folks use rainwater catchments to water crops, filter and drink, shower in etc...

No intrests withibn the industry?

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 2011-04-23 10:24.

Sorry,but how can you say you have no interests within the group within the nuclear industry?

If it is decided that

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 2011-04-23 10:38.

If it is decided that nuclear energy is too dangerous, what will you and your students do for work? Nuclear medicine?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121436092

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/health/01radiation.html

If I worked at an ammunition factory, I would probably tow the industry line on gun proliferation. While I might not be a registered member of the NRA I think I would know where my bread is buttered. I would site the linear industry approved studies saying that guns aren't really dangerous and you should probably be more worried about cross country airplane flights than being shot. And bananas. Also I should be worried about the granite counter top that I don't own.

I appreciate the data you have released but I don't think your opinion on risk assessment is unbiased. Thank You

That is a false argument.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 2011-04-23 11:00.

That is a false argument. They are scientists using scientific data. If the data showed different results, they would publish it. Scientists strive to understand the world and report what has been observed. You may claim they are biased because they are in a nuclear engineering department. But nuclear engineering covers a wide scope of topics and a good proportion of research going on at UC Berkeley has no relation to the power industry. This is especially true for Professor Vetter's group that works on detection and not on power reactors. I never understand how there is all of this public mistrust of scientists and scientific data.

good answer

Submitted by Angela (not verified) on Sat, 2011-04-23 17:39.

They have been very clear with everyone about their "allegiances." There is a difference between research scientists and a scientist working for the government or industry. For example, there are thousands of salmon biologists on the west coast that have no interest or connection with fishing, either commercial or recreational.

Most people outside of the world of science don't really understand that peer-reviewed literature is pretty much an ongoing record of our state of knowledge in every scientific discipline. When a scientist is going to do research, they first make a huge effort to find out what is already known and has been published. Once they perform their own research and believe the results are of value, they can submit them to a scientific journal in their field. If the journal accepts it, they distribute the paper to several reviewers with expertise in the same field (thus, the "peer" review). The author has no opportunity to influence this review. The reviews are then sent to the author, who then has to respond to the comments of the other scientists by making corrections to the paper, adding information, etc. So, when you criticize a scientist's work, and you want to be taken seriously, you are obligated to provide published material that supports your argument. It's not a competition--it's a search for the truth. If you can't come up with published data, then it's really not much better than hearsay. The published literature is really the only information worth trusting in my opinion.

Maybe they could still get

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 2011-04-23 12:17.

Maybe they could still get jobs managing the tons of spent fuel rods? Those aren't going anywhere anytime soon.
What's the big deal about detection? If the blast doesn't actually kill you there's nothing to worry about from "low level radiation", right? Really no more dangerous than conventional weapons. Dirty bomb??? HA HA Don't worry we can just raise the safe levels and...there don't you feel safe!

Read this

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 2011-04-23 10:55.

The brawn team cites this report and as stated. In there FAQ page

""There are two competing hypotheses to the linear no-threshold model. One is that low doses of radiation are more harmful than a linear, no-threshold model of effects would suggest. BEIR VII finds that the radiation health effects research, taken as a whole, does not support this hypothesis. The other hypothesis suggests that risks are smaller than predicted by the linear-no-threshold model are nonexistent, or that low doses of radiation may even be beneficial. The report concludes that the preponderance of information indicates that there will be some risk, even at low doses, although the risk is small."

if u choose to read science based facts here u go.read more here.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11340&page=9

»
reply

Cause peer reviewed studies

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 2011-04-23 12:18.

Cause peer reviewed studies are never wrong.

No but one of the best research reports we have

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 2011-04-23 12:59.

Hardly if u read full report u will be left feeling sick I did read some and it's troubling to say the least there is lots of information contained.even on alternate views on low level radiation and cell interaction.read up

Thanks For Continuing Your Work

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 2011-04-23 10:12.

I believe articles like the one posted here are good for giving
us a broader perspective. I just hope that such articles and the
accusatory posts to this forum do not discourage the BRAWM team
from continuing to analyze all media (air, water, food, etc.)
possible/practical and posting results online in a timely manner.
From what I've see, the BRAWM site is the most informative source
of current *data*. In a lot of cases, weeks ahead of the EPA.
And even reporting the presence of isotopes when the govt. agencies
report nothing was detected (California Dept. of Public Health in
particular).

Please keep up the good work and keep us informed over the long
haul.

Thanks

I agree, I would be a lot

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 2011-04-23 14:37.

I agree, I would be a lot more anxious without BRAWN's data. Keep up the great work!