COMMENTARY ON THE APPROPRIATE RADIATION LEVEL FOR EVACUATIONS

This commentary reviews the international radiation protection policy that resulted in the evacuation of more than 90,000 residents from areas near the Fukushima Daiichi NPS and the enormous expenditures to protect them against a hypothetical risk of cancer. The basis for the precautionary measures is shown to be invalid; the radiation level chosen for evacuation is not conservative. The actions caused unnecessary fear and suffering. An appropriate level for evacuation is recommended. Radical changes to the ICRP recommendations are long overdue

COMMENTARY ON FUKUSHIMA AND BENEFICIAL EFFECTS OF LOW RADIATION1

Approximately 160,000 people evacuated the area around the Fukushima Dai-ichi NPP shortly after it was damage by the earthquake and tsunami. The evacuation order applied to 70,000 of them, while the other 90,000 left voluntarily and returned soon afterward. After more than two years, most of the 70,000 are still not allowed to return to their homes. The 1100 disaster-related deaths caused by the evacuation order show that this pre- cautionary action, taken to minimize cancer risks, was not “conservative.” In this paper, recent studies are reviewed on the consequences of the radioactive releases and on the benefits of many medical treatments with low doses of radiation that were carried out until the 1950s, before the radiation scare was created. Recent research has shed light on the high rate of spontaneous double-strand breaks in DNA and the adaptive protections in cells, tissues and humans that are up-regulated by low radiation. These defences prevent, repair, remove and replace damage, from all causes including external agents. Cancer mortality is reduced. The ICRP’s concept of radiation risk is wrong. It should revert to its 1934 concept, which was a tolerance dose of 0.2 roentgen (r) per day based on more than 35 years of medical experience

Producing Molybdenum-99 in CANDU Reactors

Abstract This paper discusses the recent problems with Canadian supply of molybdenum-99 for medical diagnostic scanning. It proposes an alternate method that exploits the on-power refueling capability of CANDU reactors to produce large amounts of Mo-99. An extraction and refining plant near the used fuel bay of a multi-reactor station could process one standard fuel bundle per day (after irradiation for 5 days). This method avoids using enriched uranium. The plant might cost less than 50 million dollars and be constructed within several years. The radioactive residue would be managed in conjunction with the existing methods of used fuel management

Health effects of low level radiation: when will we acknowledge the reality? Dose Response

Summary The 1986 April 26 th Chernobyl event was the worst nuclear power accident-it killed 31 people. Its significance was exaggerated immensely because of the pervasive fear of ionizing radiation that has been indoctrinated in all of humanity. In reality, our environment includes radiation from natural sources, varying widely in intensity, to which all living things have adapted. The effect of radiation on organisms is primarily on their damage control biosystem, which prevents, repairs and removes cell damage. Low doses stimulate this system, while high doses inhibit it. So low doses decrease the incidences of cancer and congenital malformations; high doses have the opposite effect. Efforts by radiation protection organizations to lower exposures to (humanmade) radiation to as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) provide no benefit. They only create inappropriate fear-barriers to very important applications of nuclear technology in energy production and medicine. Keywords: Chernobyl, radiation hormesis, LNT hypothesis At the 20 th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, the media commemorated the event with many stories designed to draw attention to its causes and consequences. The most important element was our fear of radiation. Did the media expose the fraud of the linear-no-threshold (LNT) hypothesis of radiation carcinogenesis (and congenital malformations)-the principal cause of this fear? The fear stems from the common belief that any dose of radiation increases the likelihood of the dreaded diseases: cancer and congenital malformations. No one questions the fact that any dose (1 Gray = 1 joule of ionizing radiation energy per kilogram of tissue) damages cells, and that large doses of radiation are harmful. Cancer and congenital malformations are diseases of living organisms, so it is essential to study the biology of organisms to understand how these diseases arise and determine whether this fear is based on myth or reality. In plain language, the LNT hypothesis-the linear extrapolation of the incidences of these diseases from the high dose range to the low dose range-is contradicted by a very large amount of evidence that has been accumulated since the discovery of ionizing radiation, more than a century ago. Some of this evidence appears in the references listed in this paper, and it is very important that the reader examine the evidence. The scientific method requires that a hypothesis be rejected or modified if just one fact contradicts the hypothesis. Scientific fraud occurs when this hypothesis is retained and employed, against the advice of technical societies, to predict the number of excess cancer deaths that will occur following a population exposure to radiation in the low dose range specifically the prediction of 4000 excess cancer fatalities following the Chernobyl accident

Evidence of a Dose Threshold for Radiation-Induced Leukemia

In 1958, Neil Wald presented data on the incidence of leukemia among the Hiroshima atomic bomb survivors. These data, which suggested a dose–response threshold for radiation-induced leukemia, were included in the first UNSCEAR report (1958). However, this evidence of a threshold was not recognized. It was obfuscated and concealed. In 2010, Zbigniew Jaworowski identified these data as evidence of radiation hormesis. A letter to the editor in 2014 and 2 articles in 2014 and 2015 presented a graph of these UNSCEAR 1958 data, which revealed a threshold at about 500 mSv. Since the blood-forming stem cells of bone marrow are more radiosensitive than most other cell types, it is reasonable to expect thresholds for inducing other types of cancer by ionizing radiation—their thresholds are likely higher than 500 mSv. A careful examination of the Wald data reveals the suprisingly low incidence of radiogenic leukemia, only 0.5% of the survivors who were in the high radiation zone. Many articles on radiation risk have been published since 2015 by other authors, but none makes reference to this evidence of a threshold, either to challenge or endorse it. In this commentary, the author addresses the comments from a colleague

Threshold for Radon-Induced Lung Cancer From Inhaled Plutonium Data

Cohen’s lung cancer mortality data, from his test of the LNT theory, do not extend to the no observed adverse effects level (NOAEL) above which inhaled radon decay products begin to induce excess lung cancer mortality. Since there is concern about the level of radon in homes, it is important to set the radon limit near the NOAEL to avoid the risk of losing a health benefit. Assuming that dogs model humans, data from a study on inhaled plutonium dioxide particulates in dogs were assessed, and the NOAEL for radon-induced lung tumors was estimated to be about 2100 Bq/m 3 . The US Environmental Protection Agency should consider raising its radon action level from 150 to at least 1000 Bq/m 3