Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

All Levels of Radiation Confirmed to Cause (Some) Cancer.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 06:23 AM
Original message
All Levels of Radiation Confirmed to Cause (Some) Cancer.
Washington, DC July 30, 2005 The National Academies of Science released an over 700-page report yesterday on the risks from ionizing radiation. The BEIR VII or seventh Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation report on "Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation" reconfirmed the previous knowledge that there is no safe level of exposure to radiation—that even very low doses can cause cancer. Risks from low dose radiation are equal or greater than previously thought. The committee reviewed some additional ways that radiation causes damage to cells.

Among the reports conclusions are:

There is no safe level or threshold of ionizing radiation exposure.

Even exposure to background radiation causes some cancers. Additional exposures cause additional risks.

Radiation causes other health effects such as heart disease and stroke, and further study is needed to predict the doses that result in these non-cancer health effects.

It is possible that children born to parents that have been exposed to radiation could be affected by those exposures.

The "bystander effect" is an additional, newly recognized method by which radiation injures cells that were not directly hit but are in the vicinity of those that were. "Genomic instability" can be caused by exposure to low doses of radiation and according to the report "might contribute significantly to radiation cancer risk." These new mechanisms for radiation damage were not included in the risk estimates reported by the BEIR VII report, but were recommended for further study.

The Linear-No-Threshold model (LNT) for predicting health effects from radiation (dose-response) is retained, meaning that every exposure causes some risk and that risks are generally proportional to dose. The Dose and Dose-Rate Effectiveness Factor or DDREF which had been suggested in the 1990 BEIR V report to be applied at low doses, has been reduced from 2 to 1.5. That means the projected number of health effects at low doses are greater than previously thought.

RADIATION RISKIER THAN THOUGHT-- RISKS TO PUBLIC and NUCLEAR WORKERS

The BEIR VII risk numbers indicate that about 1 in 100 members of the public would get cancer if exposed to 100 millirads (1milliGray) per year for a 70-year lifetime. <1> This is essentially the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission's allowable radiation dose for members of the public.

In addition, 1 in about 5 workers <2> would get cancer if exposed to the legally allowable occupational doses <3> over their 50 years in the workforce. These risks are much higher than permitted for other carcinogens.

Specifically, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission allows members of the public to get 100 millirems or mr (1 milliSievert or mSv) per year of radiation in addition to background. The BEIR VII report (page 500, Table 12-9) estimates that this level will result in approximately 1 (1.142) cancer in every 100 people exposed at 100 mr/yr which includes 1 fatal cancer in every 175 people so exposed (5.7 in 1000).<4>

The risk of getting cancer from radiation (in BEIR VII) is increased by about a third from current government risk figures (FGR13): BEIR VII estimates that 11.42 people will get cancer if 10,000 are each exposed to a rem (1,000 millirems or 10 mSv). The US Environmental Protection Agency Federal Guidance Report 13 estimates that 8.46 people will get cancer if 10,000 are each exposed to a rem.

The Nuclear Information and Resource Service interprets this as further evidence that unnecessary radiation exposures should be avoided.

"This means that the government is not justified in deregulating nuclear power and weapons waste—releasing it to regular trash or "recycling" it into everyday household items as proposed by 5 US federal agencies at the behest of nuclear waste generators hoping to save money," stated Diane D'Arrigo, Radioactive Waste Project Director at Nuclear Information and Resource Service Radioactive (NIRS). "This also means that remediation of radioactive sites should be done to cleaner levels and that nuclear transport standards should be strengthened."

Cindy Folkers, NIRS Energy and Health Project Director stated "These findings confirm that all levels of radiation are harmful. Since nuclear power routinely releases long-lasting radiation into the air, water and soil, we must avoid a new generation of nuclear power to prevent unnecessary exposures."

http://www.nirs.org/press/06-30-2005/1



Thought I'd post this as I'm reading over and over in the Corporate Media things like:

....

It is unclear what background levels would have been this far away from the plant before the tsunami struck, but a reading of 110 microsieverts is roughly 3,000 times Tokyo's normal pre-disaster background level.

Exposure to 100,000 microsieverts a year is the lowest level at which any increase in cancer risk is clearly evident.

....

Edano said there were no health risks, even at the highest cesium readings.

....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42206728/ns/world_news-asiapacific
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Mnemosyne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 06:50 AM
Response to Original message
1. Spring 2002 - 80,000 U.S. Cancers Caused by Bomb Test Fallout - 15,000 of Them Fatal
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 07:14 AM
Response to Original message
2. Hope your house isn't brick... (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-28-11 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #2
14. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 07:51 AM
Response to Original message
3. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Yo_Mama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 08:01 AM
Response to Original message
4. It's not clear at all that this is true
Natural background levels of radiation vary hugely around the world, and we don't seem to be picking up the signals we should if this were true.

It appears that it is dose-level dependent - that you have to get to certain levels of exposure before you see the uptick. Further, population predictions of cancer rates done on the basis you describe have not worked out in practice.

For example, pilots have markedly higher radiation exposure levels than the average population due to flying a great deal in rarefied atmospheres, which increases their exposure to ionizing radiation from the sun (one of the largest sources of natural exposure).

The nordic study of pilots showed a very small effect, if any:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12862322

Here's another study that showed similar results on cabin crew:
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/4/825.full.pdf

The rates of cancer in these two studies (which are very high quality because they use a long-established cancer registry) are surprisingly low because by definition, these two occupational groups are shift workers, and the statistical relationship between shift work and increased cancer rates is increasingly supported:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-11-29-night-shift-cancer_N.htm

Not that it is proven:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-11-29-night-shift-cancer_N.htm

But nurses work shifts and studies done on Danish nurses do show the association:
http://healthandenvironmentonline.com/2009/11/14/danish-nurses-found-to-have-higher-cancer-rates/

Some attribute that to chemical exposures, but that seems increasingly unlikely.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-23-11 08:55 PM
Response to Original message
5. Kick
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-27-11 10:26 AM
Response to Original message
6. Kick
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-27-11 10:27 AM
Response to Original message
7. Thank You... this Needs to go VIRAL!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-27-11 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. Again, here's a link to the BEIR VII report...
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11340&page=R3

The Corporate Media have been ignoring the consensus on the effects of ionizing radiation. It would be like ONLY publishing the climate deniers pseudoscience and ignoring the consensus on man made global warming.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-27-11 10:29 AM
Response to Original message
8. NIRS is not a believable source
any more than nuke companies themselves are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-27-11 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. They simply cite the The National Academies of Science 700 page BEIR VII Report....
Edited on Sun Mar-27-11 10:34 AM by Junkdrawer
Got a problem with that?

Direct link to report:

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11340&page=R3

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-27-11 06:24 PM
Response to Original message
11. Kick
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-28-11 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. Kick
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hayu_lol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-28-11 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. Despite all the risks, life itself is a risk, we collectively are not only...
living longer than ever before, but we have increased as a species to over 7 billion specimens worldwide.

I realize it is far more fun to go into full panic when emergencies crop up from time to time, but do realize that we have never had such long lifespans before. That in itself would tend to put individuals at risk for a multitude of problems that come with old and very old age.

As to radiation, I remember having a great time watching my bare bones wiggle inside new shoes at the shoe store when I was a kid. My feet are still firmly attached the last time I checked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RegieRocker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-28-11 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. Living longer than ever before? Tell me what the collective lifespan
was 50, 000 years ago? So we are living longer and shouldn't care about radiation exposure?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 10th 2024, 10:16 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC