Radiation Induced Cancer From Low-Dose Exposure
Why is the idea that there are no low-dose radiation studies so prevelant at this forum?
Here is a link to one of the published works by John Gofman, M.D., Ph.D.; who was a former associate director of the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. He codiscovered uranium 233 and isolated the first milligram of plutonium for J. Robert Oppenheimer during the Manhattan Project. He has written definitive works on the effects of exposure to radiation, including Radiation and Human Health and Radiation-Induced Cancer from Low-Dose Exposure.
Cancer Risk at Low Rem Dose More Severe than High Dose
"The evidence in Table 13-B is that cancer-risk per rem of exposure is more severe at low doses than at high doses. This very important finding will be explored and validated in quantitative detail in Chapter 14..."
Comparing Low-Dose Radiation-induced cancer-rate 61.22 = 5.92
Low-Dose ----------------------------- = ------
with Ref. Difference in dose 10.335
Comparing Mid-Dose Radiation-induced cancer-rate 120.80 = 2.42
Mid-Dose ----------------------------- = ------
with Ref. Difference in dose 49.99
Comparing High-Dose Radiation-induced cancer-rate 258.78 = 2.13
High-Dose ----------------------------- = ------
with Ref. Difference in dose 121.40
We are continualy hearing that the fallout reaching the US was all low dose and therefore we shouldn't concerns ourselves. However this distinguished nuclear researcher appears to be saying that low dose exposure is more damaging than high dose.
BRAWM members; please comment
For Gofman low dose is
For Gofman low dose is anything under 10 Rads, and his charts start at 1 Rad (Which corresponds to 6-8 extra cancers every 10,000 people, I think). That's still a humongous dose compared to the average annual dose of 0.24 Rads from natural background excluding medical procedures, and what BRAWM has found in air and food is minuscule compared to that annual dose, say it increases the annual dose to a total of 0.3 Rads (even using ECRR coefficients).
I hesitate to comment or stir the pot BUT...
The fact is that MANY reliable scientific authorities and studies show that the risks and harm is far more dangerous than many in industry, government or academia will admit. In fact I would argue that the industry has so much influence in government and academia that there is a long term effort to bury, denigrate, deny, ridicule, and even harass and intimidate anyone who suggests that these dangers of a substantial and significant on-going deadly global crisis exists.
Cancer, new mutations of viruses and bacteria and diseases we have evolved no resistance to, new metabolic and thyroid diseases (which can cause death or early death), heart damage, birth defects, spontaneous abortions (miscarriages and stillbirths) and on and on...
THIS European study in 2003 makes the following summary of its conclusions about GLOBAL man made nuclear pollution (and low level exposure) since the beginning of the nuclear age:
"10. The committee concludes that the present cancer epidemic is a consequence of exposures to global atmospheric weapons fallout in the period 1959-63 and that more recent releases of radioisotopes to the environment from the operation of the nuclear fuel cycle will result in significant increases in cancer and other types of ill health.
"11. Using both the ECRR's new model and that of the ICRP the committee calculates the total number of deaths resulting from the nuclear project since 1945. The ICRP calculation, based on figures for doses to populations up to 1989 given by the United Nations, results in 1,173,600 deaths from cancer. The ECRR model predicts 61,600,000 deaths from cancer, 1,600,000 infant deaths and 1,900,000 foetal deaths. In addition, the ECRR predict a 10% loss of life quality integrated over all diseases and conditions in those who were exposed over the period of global weapons fallout.
"12. The committee lists its recommendations. The total maximum permissible dose to members of the public arising from all human practices should not be more than 0.1mSv..."
http://www.euradcom.org/2003/execsumm.htm
BRAWM has discounted this study and it has many critics from industry. But no one has been able to establish that the estimates are wrong, in my opinion. I honestly believe no one WANTS to accept this number even if true but certainly industry has TRILLIONS of dollars in profits at risk if its true.
I must underscore that this SIXTY FIVE MILLION DEAD globally is from ALL sources of man made radiation: both nuclear testing and nuclear power accidents and "routine" emissions and effluents into our atmosphere and water.
Read the report. Read the critiques. But KNOW that the EVIDENCE is here. Whether you deny it or not is up to you.
Fukushima may be far more deadly in Japan and in the US than we have even imagined. Time and science will tell. For now only G-d, if there is one, knows.
Wait, is he talking about
Wait, is he talking about single time exposure or chronic ultra low dose accumulation along a year for example? Since he is using the Hiroshima Nagasaki victims I assume he is using single time exposure?
Low dose exposure
"In 1987, the U.S. Department of Energy or DOE released its report on the estimated health effects from the Chernobyl accident. The report, detailed in Chapter 24, asserts at every occasion that fallout from the ident may cause no extra cancers at all beyond the immediate vicinity -- which is the same as asserting that there may be a safe dose and dose-rate. The authors (one of whom is on the 1988 UNSCEAR Committee) call this the "zero risk model" (Doe87, p.J.8) and elsewhere, they state that, "There are no direct data that confirm that a few random ionizations in tissue cause fatal cancers" (Doe87, p.7.5).
This book provides those data."
"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."
"Over time, it could mean
"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."
So in combination with countless other industrial carcinogens, it would seem this is a relatively humane adjunct to slowing population growth?
Population 1950: 2,555,982,611
Population 2011: 6,916,178,298
Doesn't really answer my
Doesn't really answer my question, is he talking about single time exposure or chronic ultra low dose accumulation over a year for example?
I know that for low dose he understands anything under 100 mSv, but I need the time unit.
dose rate irrelevant for low dosage
He's saying: For low dose; get it all now or spread it out over the year, it will have the same effect.
The author states: "Chapter 23, the low-dose Cancer-Yields apply to low doses which are slowly delivered, as well as to low doses which are acutely delivered... Therefore, the low-dose Cancer-Yields in Section 4 of this book are definitely valid for slow delivery as well as for acute delivery."
"In Chapters 22 and 23, we show that there is no basis in logic or in human evidence for thinking that the Minimum Fatal Cancer-Yields for low-dose exposure in Table 13-B would be lower, if the exposures had been slowly delivered instead of acutely delivered."
The author sets the minimum fatal cancer rate at 11 rems: "The radiation-induction of fatal cancer from mean internal organ-doses as low as 11 rems was evident, the supra-linear shape of dose-response for cancer-mortality became unmistakable"
interesting...
He does say, "Of the five key findings in this book, the first three are directly related to the on-going Lifespan Study of 91,231 atomic-bomb survivors. Contrary to common assumption, the A-Bomb Study is primarily a low-dose study; very few of the survivors at Hiroshima and Nagasaki received high doses."
I guess these people were getting irradiated over time (from bioaccumulation, residues in soil/food/water etc) but the actual release was a one-off.
Interesting quote from the book:
Serious disagreement exists between this book and the radiation committees about the cancer-risk from low-dose exposure, either acutely or slowly received -- and acute-low and slow-low doses are the ones which occur in the overwhelming share of human exposures.
This book, using human evidence exclusively, arrives at risk-estimates for acute-low and slow-low exposures which are up to 30-fold higher than the wide range of values provided by UNSCEAR and BEIR. Chapters 22, 23, and 25 show that there is no mystery about the source of disagreement. The record shows that the radiation committees reach approximately the same conclusions as we do with respect to the relevant human evidence, but then the committees recommend use of what we call more "optimistic" (less disturbing) findings based on other species.
We wish our own risk-estimates were lower -- for no one welcomes potency in a carcinogen -- but we cannot ignore the direct human evidence.