Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Low dose ionising radiation is harmful to health

By Noel Wauchope - posted Tuesday, 19 June 2012


Radiation hormesis holds that at a low level radiation is not only harmless, but actually good for human health.

Adaptive radiation holds that people exposed to low level radiation over time, become resistant to its cancer-causing effects.

It's easy to see how well this fits in with a relaxing of the rules for safety around nuclear facilities, and a public complacency about Fukushima , Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, etc.

Advertisement

I don't want to spend too much time on the array of reports publicising these DOE-funded research efforts. The latest one comes from MIT, reporting on a study that suggests that at low dose-rate, radiation poses little risk to DNA - ( A new look at prolonged radiation exposure)This study was a five week one, done on mice - and coming out with the conclusion that the USA's nuclear emergency procedures might be too conservative, - i.e. paying too much attention to radiation risks. The study ignores "internal emitters" – i.e. the effects of a speck of radioactive material that might enter the body and lodge in the lung, or the gut. It ignores other research studies, such as on wildlife near Chernobyl. A very small number of mice were used in this experiment Total: 112 test subjects and 112 control

In quite a bewildering array of research studies funded by DOE the same reassuring results come up - complete with the same omissions and flaws. Prominent among these are:

The work of Bobby Scott of Lovelace Institute, New Mexico, and a DOE Low Dose contractor (ie the part of DOE called Low Dose Research, which promotes hormesis . He has written material which states that the Myak workers were protected by their radiation exposure. It is pure hormesis.

Australia's own Pamela Sykes, whose Adelaide research on mice, (showing low level radiation is OK) is funded by DOE. Sykes and Scott give talks on Hormesis at Los Alamos. and published papers together. They started the journal "Dose Response"

Now – to the new report on Low Dose Radiation - Studies of the Mortality of Atomic Bomb Survivors, 2012 Report 14.

In contrast to the MIT 5 week study on 224 mice, this study has covered 86,611 humans Japanese atomic bomb survivors, over a period of 62 years, carried out by a number of scientists in joint USA-Japan research. This Low-Dose Radiation NEW A-Bomb Study is the 14th report in a series of periodic general reports on mortality in the Life Span Study (LSS) cohort of atomic bomb survivors followed by the Radiation Effects Research Foundation to investigate the late health effects of the radiation from the atomic bombs.

Advertisement

A review of the study comments:

This landmark study of the survivors of the atomic bombings of Japan presents the strongest evidence to date that cancer risk not only exists at low levels of radiation, but may have greater risk per unit of dose than at higher doses. The study also shows that ionising radiation is associated with non cancerous diseases. Involving circulatory respiratory and digestive systems

Ian Goddard's analysis of the report includes these points : The study examines linearity and non linearity in the response to low dose radiation, that is whether or not the accepted scientific consensus of linearity holds good  that there is no safe low dose of radiation, and that the risk of cancer increases with increased dose. It confirms that there is no threshold below which radiation doses are harmless, and continues to affirm the linear dose response.

For all cancer and non cancer diseases linearity shows the dominant explanation

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

53 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Noel Wauchope taught science before switching to nursing. She has several post-graduate qualifications, in health informatics, medical terminology and clinical coding. She is a long time anti-nuclear activist.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Noel Wauchope

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 53 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy