Opening eyes to the facts Radiation: safe within limits Robert Hargraves
Apr 07, 2016
Opening eyes to the facts
Radiation: safe within limits
Robert Hargraves
Nuclear power can solve global
environmental problems.
• End millions of air pollution deaths.
• Check climate change.
Nuclear power can improve the
global economy.
$$$$$$$$$$ • Help developing world escape poverty.
• Spark industrialized world economies.
Fukushima fear of
radiation killed
people.
Japan evacuated
the black-lined
area.
IAEA would
recommend
evacuating the
red area.
Fukushima radiation was harmless.
"Radiation exposure following the nuclear
accident at Fukushima-Daiichi did not
cause any immediate health effects. It is
unlikely to be able to attribute any health
effects in the future among the general
public and the vast majority of workers”
UNSCEAR
Roentgen won the first Nobel prize, for
discovering X-ray radiation.
Becquerel won the Nobel prize for
radioactivity of uranium.
... and Marie and Pierre Curie for radium.
Radiation dose is the energy
transferred to body tissue.
Example dose
X-ray mammography
2 mSv (millisievert)
= 0.002 Sievert
= 0.002 Gray (for X-rays)
= 0.002 joule per kilogram
= 0.002 watt-second per kg
Dose rates from
natural radiation
are 1-10 mSv/year.
Sources
Radon
Cosmic rays
Food
Granite
Places Ave dose rate
US 3 mSv/y
Denver 4
Finland 7
Hermann Muller discovered X-rays
caused mutations in fruit flies.
Muller received the 1946 Nobel prize for his
1926 discovery of X-ray mutation of fruit flies.
…these principles have been
extended to total doses as
low as 400 r, and rates as low
as 0.01 r per minute, with
gamma rays. They leave, we
believe, no escape from the
conclusion that there is no
threshold dose, and that the
individual mutations result
from individual "hits",
producing genetic effects …”
Muller and the National Academy of
Sciences convened a committee.
Linear No-threshold Theory (LNT) was
proclaimed by that 1956 committee.
No minimum
Cumulative harm
Illustration from NAS
BEIR VII report
In 100 people’s lives
42 cancers are
normally expected.
A 100 mSv dose to
each person causes
1 more cancer
National Academy of Sciences
endorsed LNT, yet again, in 2006.
LNT begat the person-Sieverts fallacy.
100 mSv X 100 persons = 1 cancer
100 mSv X 200 persons = 1 death
1 mSv X 20,000 persons = 1 death
1 mSv X 2,000,000 persons = 100 deaths
# persons
∑ dosej = person-Sieverts j=1
20 person-Sieverts = 1 death
815 billion US passenger airline miles
= 10,000 passenger-Sieverts from cosmic rays
= 500 deaths
2,000 atmospheric nuclear weapons
tests added ~ 1 mSv dose per person.
American Scientist Jan 2006
6 billion people X 1 mSv =
6 million person-Sieverts = 300,000 deaths
Radiation fear led to the 1963 nuclear
test ban treaty.
• for a “Reasonably Maximally Exposed
Individual…hypothetical…future…rural-
residential…subsistence farmer…”
• < 0.15 mSv/y for 10,000 years
• < 3.5 mSv/y for 1,000,000 years
• from “features, events, and processes” with an
annual probability > 1:100,000,000
LNT led to EPA rule at Yucca Mountain.
Nearby Yucca Flat hosted 823 bomb tests.
LNT begat ALARA
As Low As Reasonably Achievable
LNT any radiation can kill you
minimize the risk.
“Achievable” depends on technology,
not health effects.
Country Tritium limit
Canada 0.1 mSv/y World Health Org
US 0.04 mSv/y LWRs can meet
As radiation detection technology
improves, ALARA just increases fear.
CounterPunch complains of Bluefin tuna with
0.0000077 mSv per 7 oz serving
writing…no radiation exposure of any kind is “safe”…
0.6617 MeV Ɣ
radiation energy is
a signature of
cesium-137.
Cesium-137 from Fukushima is detectable, so
Lifetime
cancer
risk %
Radiation dose rate mSv/y
nuclear fuel cycle
living near a coal power plant
annual mammogram
coal mining
human internal P-40, C-14
Smoking 1 ½ packs a day
Grand Central worker
atmospheric nuclear testing
LNT predicts cancer from all radiation,
2.4 mSv/y
natural
background
radiation
42% normal lifetime cancer risk
ignoring adaptive protections.
Adaptive protections
the vaccination effect
James Watson and Francis Crick
unwound the genetic secrets of DNA.
DNA strand breaks occur frequently.
Single strand breaks occur
10,000 times per day per cell.
100 mSv/y radiation adds 12
per day.
Double strand breaks occur
10 times per day per cell.
100 mSv/y radiation adds 1
per year.
Ionized oxygen molecules from metabolism are the
principal causes.
Special enzyme
DNA ligase
encircles the
double helix to
repair a broken
strand of DNA.
DNA is repaired.
DNA repair times are ~ 1 hour.
Adaptive protections occur as cellular
receptors respond to molecular signals.
Ludwig E. Feinendegen, Myron Pollycove, and Ronald D. Neumann Therapeutic Nuclear Medicine Springer 2012
The immune response, peaking at 150 mSv,
protects against many stresses, ~ 1 yr.
LNT fallacies
US President John Kennedy said:
For the great enemy of the truth is very
often not the lie—deliberate, contrived,
and dishonest—but the myth—
persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Too often we hold fast to the clichés of
our forebears. We subject all facts to a
prefabricated set of interpretations. We
enjoy the comfort of opinion without the
discomfort of thought.
Chernobyl
28 emergency workers died from radiation.
15 children died of thyroid cancer, of 8,000 afflicted.
Chernobyl emergency workers died from
acute radiation syndrome.
• Above 4,000 mSv most died.
• Below 2,000 mSv none died. Source: Wade Allison
Radiation and Reason
Surviving Chernobyl emergency
workers have fewer cancers.
Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, MD PhD DSc, former Chairman of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) stated:
“What is really surprising, however, is that data collected by UNSCEAR and the Forum show 15% to 30% fewer cancer deaths among the Chernobyl emergency workers
and about 5% lower solid cancer incidence among the people in the Bryansk district (the most contaminated in Russia) in comparison with the general population. In most irradiated group of these people (mean dose of 40 mSv) the deficit of cancer incidence was 17%.”
National Academy BEIR VII report
relied on Atomic-bomb survivor data.
Long-term Survivor Study followed 86,572
exposed people, of all ages and sexes, for 60
years.
“Because of its many advantages, the LSS
cohort of A-bomb survivors serves as the
single most important source of data for
evaluating risks of low-linear energy transfer
radiation at low and moderate doses.”
National Academy report inferred cancer
risk is proportional to radiation dose.
Zoom in to see: no low-dose effects.
100 mSv
Low
dose
range
Radiation dose (Sv)
Excess r
ela
tive r
isk
Atomic-bomb LSS data is public. http://www.rerf.or.jp/index_e.html
Add it up to get low-dose cancer rates.
Atom bomb survivor exposures of 5 to 40
mSv lowered observed cancer rates.
Cancer rate
Radiation dose (mSv)
5-20 mSv
20-40 mSv
Linear response
The decrease in cancers below 40 mSv
dose is statistically significant…
Cancer rate
Radiation dose (mSv)
5-20 mSv n=2084
20-40 mSv n=891
error bars at ± 1 standard deviation
of 19,369 people exposed
… and more valid than an LNT projection
based on a third as many observations.
Cancer rate
Radiation dose (mSv)
5-20 mSv n=2084
20-40 mSv n=891
of 19,369 people exposed
only 6,411 people exposed to more than 40 mSv
Extrapolating Life Span Study Cancer Risk Estimates to Low-dose Radiation Exposures
Atomic bomb LSS reports do not even
show details of doses < 100 mSv.
100 mSv
Expert toxicologist Edward Calabrese
studies dose-response effects.
Professor, University of
Massachusetts, Amherst
B.S., Bridgewater State, 1968
M.A., University of Massachusetts
Amherst, 1972
Ph.D., University of Massachusetts
Amherst, 1973
2009 Marie Curie Prize
CV = 145 pages
How the US National Academy of Sciences
misled the world community on cancer risk
assessment: new findings challenge historical
foundations of the linear dose response
Edward J. Callabrese Arch Toxicol 2013
1. Muller’s Nobel lecture promoted LNT, though he
knew of contrary evidence.
2. Colleague Stern covered up Muller’s deceptions.
3. Led to National Academy 1956 adoption of LNT.
Calabrese published the story of
Muller’s deceptions.
Muller’s low doses were really high
-- 4,000 mSv, at 50,000 mSv/year.
“… these principles have
been extended to total
doses as low as 400 r, and
rates as low as 0.01 r per
minute, with gamma rays.
They leave, we believe, no
escape from the conclusion
that there is no threshold
dose, and that the individual
mutations result from
individual "hits", producing
genetic effects ...”
4,000 mSv Muller low dose
2 mSv
mammogram dose
28,000 nuclear shipyard workers exposed
to ~8 mSv had a 24% lower death rate.
• Neutron-activated Co-60 was deposited in pipes and
valves of reactor cooling system.
• Age-matched, job-matched control group eliminated
healthy-worker bias.
• 1991 report excluded 24% lower death rate finding.
- submitted to DOE 3 years after study completion
- not published
National Academy report ignored
data contrary to LNT.
Occupational Radiation Studies
“In most cases, rates for all causes and all
cancer mortality in the workers were
substantially lower than in the reference
populations.”
“Because of the uncertainty in occupational risk
estimates … the committee has concluded that
the occupational studies are currently not
suitable for the projection of population-based
risks.”
State-by-state cancer deaths are not
proportional to background radiation.
7,271 Taiwan apartment dwellers exposed
to ~48 mSv had fewer cancers.
Cancers observed 95
Cancers expected normally 115
…plus 35* LNT-predicted cancers 150
* 7,271 x 48 / 10,000 = 35
LNT discrepancy = (150 - 95) / √150
= 4.5 standard deviations
Probability {LNT is true} ~ 7-in-a-million.
National Academy report ignored
environmental data.
“In summary, most existing published studies of environmental radiation exposure are ecologic in design. Such studies are limited in their usefulness in defining the risk of disease in relation to radiation exposure or dose. … Epidemiologic studies, in general, have limited ability to define the shape of the radiation dose-response curve and to provide quantitative estimates of risk in relation to radiation dose, especially for relatively low doses.”
The US defunded low-dose radiation
studies, which disprove LNT.
100 mSv
Therapeutic radiation doses are high…
Medical diagnostic radiation doses
are low.
Dental X-ray 0.001 mSv
CT Scan 20 mSv
Cancer is treated with focused X-ray
beams.
Tissues around prostate recover
between daily fractionalized X-rays.
…but small risk of second cancers in high dose regions.
Expert nuclear engineer Jerry Cuttler
studies health benefits of low doses. BASc-Eng, Engineering Physics, University
of Toronto, 1964
MSc and DSc, Nuclear Sciences, Israel
Institute Technology, 1971
Design & Engineering Manager for CANDU
reactors at AECL 1974-2000
Professional societies: ANS since 1971;
CNS since 1979, president 1995/6;
American Physical Society; Health Physics
Society; Canadian Radiation Protection
Association; International Dose Response
Society; Professional Engineers Ontario
1958 UNSCEAR leukemia data is
inconsistent with LNT.
UNSCEAR ignored its own finding
“…that a threshold for leukemia induction might occur. In
fact, according to Table VII a dose of 2 rem [20 mSv] is
associated with a decreased leukemia rate.”
In mice, 150 mSv doses minimized lung
cancer metastases, helping cure cancer.
150 mSv
In dogs, lung cancer was reduced with
alpha radiation doses under ~ 500 mSv.
Cuttler cites many more LNT disproofs.
“Discard the politicized science.”
Cuttler concludes
“It is the effect of radiation on an organism’s very powerful
adaptive protection systems that determines the dose-response
characteristic.
• Low radiation up-regulates adaptive protection
systems, while
• high radiation impairs these systems.
New York Times prints radiation scares.
“a 2009 study from the National Cancer Institute estimates that CT scans conducted in 2007 will cause a projected 29,000 excess cancer cases and 14,500 excess deaths over the lifetime of those exposed.”
Who gains from radiation scares?
If it bleeds it leads
Oil, gas, coal industries
Regulatory bureaucracies
Radiation protection industry
Wind turbine companies
Researchers seeking grants
Renewables advocates
Non-proliferation institutions
Hiroshima, Nagasaki guilt assuagers
Greenpeace, UCS, NRDC …
Dirty bombers
Nuclear power meets global needs.
• End millions of air pollution deaths.
• Check climate change.
• Escape developing world poverty.
• Spark industrialized world economies.
ENVIRONMENTAL
ECONOMIC
$$$$$$$
France decarbonized electric power
rapidly.
Nuclear power
10 years
So could the world. Why not?
Is bad science the root cause of our global
environmental and economic crises?
So could the world. Why not?
• Muller’s deception
• Hiding low-dose A-bomb LSS data
• Ignoring occupational data
• Ignoring environmental data
• Reluctance of NAS to confront Kennedy’s
“great enemy of the truth”
LNT is wrong.
1. DNA damage and repair occur naturally at 1000x the
rate from background radiation.
2. Adaptive protections guard against future damage
from many stresses, including cancer.
3. Environmental studies (eg Taiwan apartments) show
fewer cancers from low dose radiation.
4. Occupational studies (eg shipyard) show lower death
rates for workers exposed to low dose radiation.
5. Atom bomb LSS was not about low dose rate.
6. Yet LSS showed fewer cancers at 5-40 mSv doses.
7. Experiments with dogs and mice show that low dose
radiation suppressed cancers.
Radiation is safe within limits.
• LNT and ALARA are regulation policies, not
scientific facts. Replace them.
• An evidence-based radiation safety limit would
be 100 mSv/y.
• Rational regulation is all that is needed
to let nuclear power thrive and solve our global
environmental and economic crises.
Radiation is safe within limits.
Robert Hargraves © 2014 for other permissions: [email protected] with thanks to Rod Adams, Meredith Angwin, Sylvain Costes, Jack Devanney, Mohan Doss, Andy Kadak, Ralph Moir, Howard Shaffer, Allison Wade and acknowledging data from Radiation Effects Research Foundation
Brochure, references, more at
http//radiation-safety-limits.info
Scientists for Accurate Radiation
Information, http://radiationeffects.org
Radiation and Health,
Thormod Henriksen
• superb
• readable
• Free
http://www.mn.uio.no/fy
sikk/tjenester/kunnskap/
straling/radiation-and-
health-2013.pdf
Radiation and Reason,
Wade Allison
The impact of science on
a culture of fear
Wade Allison is a Fellow of Keble College and a Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford where he has studied and taught for over 40 years. www.radiationandreason.com
Extra slides
This report makes use of data obtained from the Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF), Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. RERF is a private, non-profit foundation funded by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare and the U.S. Department of Energy, the latter through the National Academy of Sciences. The conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the scientific judgment of RERF or its funding agencies. Please send a copy of any reprints that make use of these data to: Archives Unit, Library and Archives Section Department of Information Technology Radiation Effects Research Foundation 5-2 Hijiyama Park Minami-ku Hiroshima, 732-0815 JAPAN
Acknowledgement of RERF data
Lung cancer does not result from
external doses below 100 mSv.
1958 UNSCEAR leukemia data is
inconsistent with LNT.
1958 UNSCEAR leukemia data is
inconsistent with LNT.
Bars show statistical significance. (±1 SD)
Cancer rate
Radiation dose (mSv)
5-20 mSv n=2084
20-40 mSv n=891
Linear response
Fukushima
evacuation
area limit was
20 mSv/y.
IAEA published this recommendation.
IAEA: 220 mSv/y is safe for everyone.
220 mSv/year = 25 µSv/h
IAEA would
recommend
evacuation in
the red area
[> 166 mSv/y].
Japan government
- resettlement allowed:
< 20 mSv/y
- remediation goal:
+1 mSv/y.
more confusion,
fear
0.000
0.050
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.250
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
LSS07 Cancer rate ±2SD
Cancer rate