This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Cumulative Low-Level Doses of Radiation Can Cause Big Problems

George Washington's picture





 

When scientists speak of radiation, they speak not only of single doses but also of cumulative doses.

See for example, this research from the University of Iowa showing that “cumulative radon exposure is a significant risk factor for lung cancer in women".

And see these studies on the health effects cumulative doses of radioactive cesium. (As I noted on March 29th, the radioactive cesium fallout from Japan already rivals Chernobyl. And the amount of radioactive fuel at Fukushima dwarfs Chernobyl).

Admittedly,
the damage from huge single doses may be greater than the same
cumulative dose from many small exposures. But the smaller doses can
still add up.

Many studies have shown that repeated exposures
to low levels of ionizing radiation from CT scans and x-rays can cause
cancer. See this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this.

Remember,
the radiation from CT scans and x-rays are external emitters - the
radiation emanates from outside the body. In contract, internal emitters
keep emitting their radiation inside the body. Therefore, the cumulative effect of multiple small doses of radiation from internal emitters could be even more dramatic, depending on the half life, metabolic pathways and other properties of the particular radioactive particle.

As the European Committee on Radiation Risk notes:

Cumulative
impacts of chronic irradiation in low doses are ... important for the
comprehension, assessment and prognosis of the late effects of
irradiation on human beings ...

And see this.

A military briefing written by the U.S. Army for commanders in Iraq states:

Hazards from low level radiation are long-term, not acute effects... Every exposure increases risk of cancer.

(Military
briefings for commanders often contain less propaganda than literature
aimed at civilians, as the commanders have to know the basic facts to
be able to assess risk to their soldiers.)

The briefing states that doses are cumulative, citing the following military studies and reports:

  • ACE
    Directive 80-63, ACE Policy for Defensive Measures against Low Level
    Radiological Hazards during Military Operations, 2 AUG 96
  • AR 11-9, The Army Radiation Program, 28 MAY 99
  • FM 4-02.283, Treatment of Nuclear and Radiological Casualties, 20 DEC 01
  • JP 3-11, Joint Doctrine for Operations in NBC Environments, 11 JUL 00
  • NATO STANAG 2473, Command Guidance on Low Level Radiation Exposure in Military Operations, 3 MAY 00
  • USACHPPM TG 244, The NBC Battle Book, AUG 02

Why
was the military advising commanders on radiation in Iraq? Presumably
because the American military used depleted uranium in Iraq (see this, this, this, this, this and this).

One of the Giant's of Radiation Exposure Science Warned of Cumulative Low-Dose Exposures

American reporter Dahr Jamail reports today for Al Jazeera:

“The
U.S. Department of Energy has testified that there is no level of
radiation that is so low that it is without health risks,” Jacqueline
Cabasso, the Executive Director of the Western States Legal Foundation,
told Al Jazeera.

Her foundation monitors and analyzes U.S.
nuclear weapons programs and policies and related high technology
energy, with a focus on the national nuclear weapons laboratories.

Cabasso
explained that natural background radiation exists, “But more than
2,000 nuclear tests have enhanced this background radiation level, so we
are already living in an artificially radiated environment due to all
the nuclear tests.”

“Karl Morgan, who worked on the Manhattan
project, later came out against the nuclear industry when he understood
the danger of low levels of ionizing radiation-and he said there is no
safe dose of radiation exposure,” Cabasso continued, “That means all
this talk about what a worker or the public can withstand on a yearly
basis is bogus. There is no safe level of radiation exposure. These
so-called safe levels are coming from within the nuclear establishment.”

Karl
Morgan was an American physicist who was a founder of the field of
radiation health physics. After a long career in the Manhattan Project
and at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, he became a critic of nuclear
power and weapons. Morgan, who died in 1999, began to offer court
testimony for people who said they had been harmed by the nuclear power
industry.

“Nobody is talking about the fact that there is no
safe dose of radiation,” Cabasso added, “One of the reasons Morgan said
this is because doses are cumulative in the body.”

Indeed, Karl Morgan believed
that the officially-defined "permissible levels" of radiation - which
he helped to create on behalf of the government - are much higher than they should be.

As the Guardian wrote in Morgan's obituary in 1999:

Karl
Morgan ... was a pioneer of health physics - the science of the effect
of exposure to radiation on health. He was a member of the research
group which laid the foundations for the Manhattan project and produced
the first atomic bomb. However, after 30 years in the inner cabinet of
the nuclear establishment, Morgan changed sides and testified in key
radiation cases on behalf of those who claimed they had been harmed by
nuclear weapons and the nuclear power industry.

 

The first signs
of his change of view came in 1968, when he became an influential
campaigner in obtaining a US law that required the medical profession
to control excessive doses of radiation during X-rays.

 

After retirement in 1972 he became more active in drawing attention to the limitations of radiation protection measures.

 

***

 

He began his career as a
physics professor but in 1943 was recruited to become a senior
scientist in health physics to the top secret, atomic bomb project
codenamed Manhattan Engineer District.

The following year,
Morgan went to the newly-formed Oak Ridge national laboratory in
Tennessee, where he became director of health physics from 1944 until
his retirement. When told he would be in the health physics group, he
was shocked and said it was a terrible mistake because he had never
heard of health physics. The leaders of the research project said they
had been in the same position. But they realised that since their
attempts to build the first atomic pile, now known as a reactor, would
create a source of intense radiation, they needed to understand how to
protect people.

 

***

 

He wrote in his autobiography, The
Angry Genie: One Man's Walk Through The Nuclear Age, that he did not
believe they had ever determined that it was safe. "We determined what
we considered was acceptable."

The Townsend Letter for Doctors & Patients wrote in 2002:

One
of the original five ‘health physicists' to set radiation safety
standards was Karl Z. Morgan. Dr. Morgan served on the International
Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), which set up most
radiation standards. He also directed the Health Physics Division at Oak
Ridge from 1944 until his retirement in 1972. In recent years, Dr.
Morgan has publicly criticized the ICRP for failing to protect human
health. In a 1994 article for the American Journal of Industrial
Medicine, Dr. Morgan wrote: "The period of atmospheric testing of
nuclear weapons by the United States, the United Kingdom, France and the
USSR is a sad page in the history of civilized man. Without question,
it was the cause of hundreds of thousands of cancer deaths. Yet there
was complete silence on the part of the ICRP. During these years
(1960-1965), most members of the ICRP either worked directly with the
nuclear weapons industry or indirectly received most of their funding
for their research from this industry.”

The ICRP's alliance with
the nuclear industry includes ties to the International Congress of
Radiology. In his 1999 autobiography, The Angry Genie: One Man's Walk
Through the Nuclear Age (ISBN 0-8061-3122-5), Dr. Morgan related his
concern about the ICRP's refusal to address the danger of excessive
X-ray exposure during diagnostic procedures and dentistry. Until the
passage of the Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act of 1968, some
X-ray equipment used in the 1950s and 1960s delivered 2 to 3 rem per
X-ray. X-ray doses as low as 1.6 rem increase a woman's chance of
developing cancer, according to a 1974 study by Baruch Modan [Lancet
(Feb. 23,1974), pp 277-279]. The Act did not address the cumulative effect of multiple, routine, and often unnecessary X-rays.

We would be wise to heed Karl Morgan's insights.

 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Wed, 04/06/2011 - 20:06 | Link to Comment New_Meat
New_Meat's picture

GW, what part of TID don't you get?  "Total Integrated Dose" is the metric of interest.

like 300 mrem/year for flatlanders.  More for those flying intercontintental (w/significant time > 30k ft/agl) plus medical doses.

- Ned

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 14:37 | Link to Comment gaoptimize
gaoptimize's picture

Everyone should be aware that the nasty chemical soup in the ionization trail of high energy daughter prouducts (electrons, gamma rays, alpha particles) are mostly responsible for the tissue damage caused by radioactivity.  There are things you should be doing as a matter of daily health that can minimize the consequences of exposure to radiation and polutants.

Unless you have an allergy or potential drug interaction, everyone should be taking the best combination of natural anti-oxidants you can afford every day.  Among these are (in rough order of efficacy):

fresh coffee hull

tart cherry

bark of the Canadian maritime pine

pomegranite

resveratrol (grape seed and skin extract)

acai berry

green tea

saw palmeto

vitamine C

fish oil

and many more from fresh fruits and vegatables, new one are being discovered and assessed every year, even a cup of coffee may offer some anti-oxidant protection.  I'm not a doctor or a pharmacist, but the science and experience strongly suggests this is a healthy thing to do, radiation or not.  Big pharma will not do clinical trials or push this as it is not patentable.

 

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 18:48 | Link to Comment psychologicalmess
psychologicalmess's picture

Just one question:  Are you a rep. for Swanson, Nature Made, Nature's Bounty, or some other vitamin co.?

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 14:25 | Link to Comment Rockfish
Rockfish's picture

What is Radon and why is it a risk? Radon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radon low level slow accumulation.

Thu, 04/07/2011 - 13:12 | Link to Comment SheepDog-One
SheepDog-One's picture

I ust hope we dont see Rodan rise up out of the ocean.

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 14:24 | Link to Comment onlooker
onlooker's picture

Good work George.  thanks

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 14:04 | Link to Comment AR15AU
AR15AU's picture

Debunking myth? Or batting down straw men again?

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 14:03 | Link to Comment tomster0126
tomster0126's picture

NOBODY EAT SEAFOOD IN HAWAII! Scary shit, is anybody else stocking up on potassium iodide?

www.forecastfortomorrow.com

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 13:32 | Link to Comment MarketTruth
MarketTruth's picture

Food for thought: Mammograms... do they detect or actually cause breast cancer over time.

www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&q=mammograms+cause+cancer&aq=...

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 13:25 | Link to Comment tamboo
tamboo's picture

ironically rife used discarded xray tubes to create a cancer curing device. a few of those might come in real handy right about now.

http://www.rifeenergymedicine.com/appbh.html

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 14:03 | Link to Comment chunga
chunga's picture

Royal Rife was an amazing, brilliant man. All he ever wanted to do was find a cure for cancer...and I believe he did...and delivered it to the world free of charge. "Coordinative Resonance". Similar to an opera singer hitting a frequency that cracks a glass -- but nothing else.

Sadly, he died, a penniless drunk.

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 13:20 | Link to Comment tim73
tim73's picture

So when the nuclear armageddon did not materialize, you guys try the juice up your stories with "even low dosage is dangerous"-crap.

The maximum exposure level allowed for nuclear plant workers would increase the risk of cancers mere ONE PERCENT during their lifetime! After which they cannot work near radiation anymore. Those limits are already strict enough but don't let the facts to ruin a good story, right?

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 14:12 | Link to Comment Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

"So when the nuclear armageddon did not materialize"

It is materializing.  Go eat some sushi and check back in a couple of years.

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 12:20 | Link to Comment Dulcinea
Dulcinea's picture

But given that radiation continues to be released, what is the fix?

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 12:48 | Link to Comment Diogenes
Diogenes's picture

The radiation will be around for 25000 years. The people, not so long.

It is possible to have safe nuclear power IF the people in charge want it. For example the Thorium reactor is far safer, more efficient, and cheaper than anything in use today. Thorium reactors can actually burn up radioactive waste and make it harmless. In the process producing millions of watts of power.

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 13:10 | Link to Comment umop episdn
umop episdn's picture

Plus, the stuff for the big war toys is harder to make with thorium. U-233 is easiest, but U-235 and plutonium take extra effort. I hope India can make it work (they are the only country I know of that is attempting thorium reactors).

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 15:43 | Link to Comment Diogenes
Diogenes's picture

Canada is working on using thorium in their very safe CANDU reactor.

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 20:57 | Link to Comment destiny
destiny's picture

China is goind Thorium as well, read from a previous ZH article

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 12:14 | Link to Comment InconvenientCou...
InconvenientCounterParty's picture

I read somewhere there were an estimated 1 million additional deaths worldwide post-Chernobyl.

Adding a single "0" to that looks reasonable. Any further f-ups could get us to "00".

I fear Japan is in a fight for the very survival of nation and culture. Their demographic trends sucked well before this tragic disaster. This event will only accelerate the endpoint.

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 13:35 | Link to Comment FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

One extensive study of the Chernobyl event suggests that the worldwide increase in deaths from 1987 to 2004 as a result that catastrophe was about 824,000 and will continue to increase for several generations.

Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment By Alexey V. Yablokov, Vassily B. Nesterenko, Alexey V. Nesterenko

http://books.google.com/books?id=g34tNlYOB3AC&pg=PA312&lpg=PA312&dq=CS+1...
s=O15TfV0Xe8&sig=ApZoZ-VQ36XvLcmykiRRNMHKxUo&hl=en&ei=OLmDTenZB4eFtgfy4-DPBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=
result&resnum=10&ved=0CF8Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=CS 137 degradation&f=false

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 12:19 | Link to Comment dexter_morgan
dexter_morgan's picture

I read somewhere, and have heard in several places, that certain elites speculate that the earth can only sustain 500-600 million people comfortably........by that I assume comfortably for them. But, with all the crap going on maybe we're headed for that number.......

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 13:27 | Link to Comment Ruffcut
Ruffcut's picture

 Look up this georgia guidestones. It states to maintain 500 mill pop, and it might mean this, or it could mean that or one way or another.

(sorry GW, good post but can't help this and this and a few other disorders)

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 12:10 | Link to Comment dexter_morgan
dexter_morgan's picture

You had me at    "See this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this."

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 12:10 | Link to Comment vast-dom
vast-dom's picture

AS per military:

"Every exposure increases risk of cancer."

That is ALL one needs to know. Period.


Wed, 04/06/2011 - 15:39 | Link to Comment idle muesli
idle muesli's picture

The questions are whether this is really the case, and whether the increase in cancer risk is more than negligble.

 

Some scientists claim that higher levels of radiation can (within limits) activate repair processes and make people healthier.  This definitely is the case with some poisons.

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 12:11 | Link to Comment AN0NYM0US
AN0NYM0US's picture

GW this is one big and very entrenched business it would be interesting to see stats comparing Canada where there are waiting lists for CT scans and the US where you can get one at your local 7-11.  CT's,  especially the atomic ones have huge amounts of radition (hundreds of times a normal xray)

WHY GET A SCAN?

64 SLICE CT SCAN

THE EXECUTIVE PACKAGE

SCAN DIRECTORY BLOG

FIND A BODY SCAN CENTER

CT Scan Safety: What You Need to Know

and behind it all, Mr. Immelt's company

GE

coincidence they're the same company behind Fuku

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!