The risks of nuclear energy are not exaggerated
Most scientists in this field agree that there is danger even in small doses of radiation
by Ian Fairlie
The Guardian (January 20 2010)
You reported the view that radiation risks are exaggerated, but left out vital information on radiation protection {1}. The article relied upon and extensively cited a retired professor of particle physics, Wade Allison, who is neither a radiation biologist nor an epidemiologist, and is not in my view an expert in radiation risks. Indeed, the other three scientists quoted in the article pointedly refrained from supporting Allison. His sole contribution to the literature is a self-published book.
An article alongside {2} states that "a single dose below 100 millisieverts (mSv) is usually considered safe", and later gives Allison's claim that "there is a threshold of about 200 millisieverts, below which the body can repair all DNA damage caused and, therefore, which is safe". But there is no safe dose of radiation: no matter how low it is, a small risk remains.
The linear no-threshold (LNT) theory is used by all the world's radiation authorities - the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation {3}, the International Commission on Radiological Protection {4}, the Health Protection Agency {5}, et cetera - to estimate risks at low doses. It presumes that risks decline proportionately as you lower the dose all the way down to zero, and that the only dose with no effect is zero millisieverts.
And, yes, there is evidence that exposures to residents near nuclear facilities cause them harm. For example, a recent German government study found large increases in leukaemia (220%) and embryonal cancer (160%) among children living near all German nuclear reactors. Its results are supported by many other worldwide studies into child leukaemias near nuclear reactors.
Current radiation risks are based on an unsatisfactory dataset - the Japanese survivors of the US atomic bombs in 1945. Though relevant for estimating the risks of sudden blasts of powerful types of radiation, this data is irrelevant for slow, long-term exposures or for weaker types of radiation which are more common. And many studies point to the risks being higher than this data suggests.
Then there are the unusual non-targeted effects of radiation. These cause changes in cells temporally and spatially distant from the cells hit by radiation. These effects challenge the present explanation of radiation's effects but are unknown by the public. They are hotly discussed by radiation biologists throughout the world, and are the subject of thousands of scientific articles. The older explanation had given considerable support to current estimates of radiation risks. The new effects strikingly do not do this, as they occur after very low doses of radiation. In other words, these new effects raise serious questions about whether existing dose limits should be tightened.
I do not think current radiation risks are overrated, and neither do most scientists in this field.
Links:
{1} http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/10/nuclear-power-irrational-fears
{2} http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/11/nuclear-power-radiation
{3} http://www.unscear.org/
{4} http://www.icrp.org/
{5} http://www.hpa.org.uk
_____
Dr Ian Fairlie is an independent consultant on radiation risks and a former scientific secretary to the government's Committee Examining Radiation Risks from Internal Emitters. He is writing a book, Radiation Risks Revisited, commissioned by an independent environmental trust.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/20/evidence-nuclear-risks-not-overrated
Bill Totten http://www.ashisuto.co.jp/english/index.html
by Ian Fairlie
The Guardian (January 20 2010)
You reported the view that radiation risks are exaggerated, but left out vital information on radiation protection {1}. The article relied upon and extensively cited a retired professor of particle physics, Wade Allison, who is neither a radiation biologist nor an epidemiologist, and is not in my view an expert in radiation risks. Indeed, the other three scientists quoted in the article pointedly refrained from supporting Allison. His sole contribution to the literature is a self-published book.
An article alongside {2} states that "a single dose below 100 millisieverts (mSv) is usually considered safe", and later gives Allison's claim that "there is a threshold of about 200 millisieverts, below which the body can repair all DNA damage caused and, therefore, which is safe". But there is no safe dose of radiation: no matter how low it is, a small risk remains.
The linear no-threshold (LNT) theory is used by all the world's radiation authorities - the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation {3}, the International Commission on Radiological Protection {4}, the Health Protection Agency {5}, et cetera - to estimate risks at low doses. It presumes that risks decline proportionately as you lower the dose all the way down to zero, and that the only dose with no effect is zero millisieverts.
And, yes, there is evidence that exposures to residents near nuclear facilities cause them harm. For example, a recent German government study found large increases in leukaemia (220%) and embryonal cancer (160%) among children living near all German nuclear reactors. Its results are supported by many other worldwide studies into child leukaemias near nuclear reactors.
Current radiation risks are based on an unsatisfactory dataset - the Japanese survivors of the US atomic bombs in 1945. Though relevant for estimating the risks of sudden blasts of powerful types of radiation, this data is irrelevant for slow, long-term exposures or for weaker types of radiation which are more common. And many studies point to the risks being higher than this data suggests.
Then there are the unusual non-targeted effects of radiation. These cause changes in cells temporally and spatially distant from the cells hit by radiation. These effects challenge the present explanation of radiation's effects but are unknown by the public. They are hotly discussed by radiation biologists throughout the world, and are the subject of thousands of scientific articles. The older explanation had given considerable support to current estimates of radiation risks. The new effects strikingly do not do this, as they occur after very low doses of radiation. In other words, these new effects raise serious questions about whether existing dose limits should be tightened.
I do not think current radiation risks are overrated, and neither do most scientists in this field.
Links:
{1} http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/10/nuclear-power-irrational-fears
{2} http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/11/nuclear-power-radiation
{3} http://www.unscear.org/
{4} http://www.icrp.org/
{5} http://www.hpa.org.uk
_____
Dr Ian Fairlie is an independent consultant on radiation risks and a former scientific secretary to the government's Committee Examining Radiation Risks from Internal Emitters. He is writing a book, Radiation Risks Revisited, commissioned by an independent environmental trust.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/20/evidence-nuclear-risks-not-overrated
Bill Totten http://www.ashisuto.co.jp/english/index.html
posted by Bill Totten at
8:17 AM
1 Comments:
A more false statement could hardly be imagined. In fact, most radiation professionals deny the LNT hypothesis. For example, the Health Physics Society says,
"There is substantial and convincing scientific evidence for health risks following high-dose exposures. However, below 5–10 rem (which includes occupational and environmental exposures), risks of health effects are either too small to be observed or are nonexistent."
"In view of the above, the Society has concluded that estimates of risk should be limited to individuals receiving a dose of 5 rem in one year or a lifetime dose of 10 rem in addition to natural background." (http://hps.org/documents/risk_ps010-1.pdf).
The US National Institutes of Health says this:
"It is very difficult to detect biologic effects in animals or people who are exposed to small doses of radiation. Based on studies in animals and in people exposed to large doses of radiation such as the atomic bomb survivors, scientists have made conservative estimates of what might be the largest doses that would be reasonably safe for a person over a lifetime. But these calculations are estimates only, based on mathematical models. Low-level exposures received by the general public have shown no link to cancer induction." (http://www.nih.gov/health/chip/od/radiation/#xfive)
The United Nations Environmental Programme doesn't even mention radiation as an environmental concern. (http://www.grida.no/geo/geo3/english/pdf.htm).
Who is Ian Fairlie? A union activist with connections to Greenpeace. (http://www.cerrie.org/people/fairlie.php) Please consider finding better sources of information.
By
Red Craig, at 4:56 AM, January 24, 2010
Post a Comment
<< Home