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


Figure 1 Variation of cancer rate with radiation dose


The radiation hormesis theory (i.e low dose radiation is beneficial) gets some indication, a hint only – in some ranges, but over time, over the whole range. that connection evaporated and the results show systematic linear harm.

Advertisement

In 2000 the Foundation published another report with separate dose-response graphs for Hiroshima and Nagasaki .Results from Nagasaki and Hiroshima are slightly different. Hormesis advocates will try to point out a beneficial dose and might point out a single data point in the Nagasaki only cohort. But in Hiroshima with twice as large cohort, such a dip does not exist. The whole curve is far more linear and finds no dose below zero risk. When the two are combined the linear relationship between doses and cancer risk is clear, and with such a large number of people is a reliable result.

Non linearity at lowest dose may indicate that radiation is more harmful at the lowest dose


Figure 2 Radiation risk atomic survivors

Radiation induced genetic damage has been found to be higher at low doses. This further supports the likelihood that lower doses are more harmful. The clear signal supports the accepted linear theory and supports the consensus on risk modelling world wide.

The Goddard analysis concludes with a warning about the dangers of public policy being made on unreliable and flimsy research reports. "Ethical radiation policy experts don't play Russian roulette with public safety."

Two of the atomic bomb survivor scientists with the report said:

In the presence of available data it is neither sound statistical interpretation nor prudent risk evaluation to presume that lower range is safe due to lack of statistical information in that range.

Advertisement

It's a pity that this 14th report of a huge and comprehensive study of radiation risk gets little or no mass media coverage, while those DOE - funded small and flawed projects are publicised and used to justify dangerous public health policy changes. I hope that the genuine scientific community is aware of this, and will respond to this situation.

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