A recent review of radiation studies should lead NRC to examine the amount of radiation it claims is safe

The roots of the trilobite ancestory extend back to the Pre-Cambrian periodA few years ago, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission raised the average dose Americans receive from “background” radiation, to 620 millirem (mrem), up from 310 mrem (3.1 millisieverts or mSv) per year. This dose includes radon, terrestrial and cosmic radiation, and medical and industrial exposures, including bomb and civilian reactor radioactivity. But, as with all averages, a lot of important detail is lost, so let’s examine the 620 mrem a little closer.

Radon, accounting for approximately 200 mrem of the 620 varies greatly depending on location, therefore, not everyone gets the “average” dose. The NRC also assumes that nearly half of the 620 dose (about 310 mrem) comes from medical exams. But if you don’t get these exams, your dose is significantly lower. Add to this the reality that most medical exposures to radiation are relatively short lived, and you have exposures that are not necessarily comparable to chronic exposure to radiation.

The NRC claims “a yearly dose of 620 millirem from all radiation sources has not been shown to cause humans any harm…” and it uses this “background” dose to justify exposing us to 100 millirem per year MORE from nuclear facility operations if it wants. All nuclear power reactors release radioacitivity routinely and without this allowable limit, reactors would be forced to capture their radioactive releases at great expense. Some radioactive waste products, like tritium, they can’t capture. But radionuclides released from reactors, unlike medical exposures, can subject people and the environment to a longer-term, even permanent increase of radioactivity, either because these radionuclides have long hazardous lives (in which case they can build up in our environment) or because they continue to be released, introducing a never-ending stream of radioactive pollution.

Also consider that levels of background radiation peaked at about 7 milligray (mGy) during the Pre-Cambrian period. Since life first originated this dose has decreased by a factor of ten (Moller & Mousseau referencing Karam & Leslie 2005). (7 mGy is roughly equal to about 700 millirem for external exposure to gamma, but this conversion can become tricky when considering naturally occurring, internal doses of alpha and beta radiation) While we must be cautious about a direct comparison, it is thought that radiation levels had to decrease substantially for creatures as complex and differentiated as mammals to be viable.

The more radiation we release to our environment, the more we may be reverting to levels that were too high for us to evolve in the first place. In fact, the NRC average of 620 mrem plus an additional 100 mrem per year allowed, is perilously close to this Pre-Cambrian PEAK, even if a millirem-to-millirem comparison is not exactly equivalent.

A recent study calls into question the NRC assumption that 620 mrem/year is safe, especially over the long term. The research reviewed by Moller and Mousseau demonstrates that in areas of increased natural radiation, human populations suffer an increase in “significant negative effects on immunology, mutation and disease frequency”, including reduced levels of antioxidants.  The existence of hormesis, a theory that, stated simply, claims “a little radiation is good for you”, is not supported by these studies: “…these negative effects of radiation on mutations, immunology and life history are inconsistent with a general role of hormetic positive effects of radiation on living organisms.”

Of the 46 studies reviewed, approximately 15 of them measured natural background radiation levels between 0.67 to 6.4 millisieverts (67 to 640 mrem) per year. The remaining studies had higher natural radiation. Even at the lower levels of natural background radiation, health impacts included cancer incidence and death, all manner of chromatid and chromosome aberrations (deletions, dicentrics and rings, translocation and inversions) some of which have cross-generational (inheritable) implications, congenital malformations, and Down’s syndrome.

Obviously a direct comparison between the NRC’s calculated average background exposure of 620 mrem and the Moller/Mousseau study is problematic. There is a good possibility that the NRC’s assumption of 620 mrem/year is not correct and that the amount Americans are exposed to is actually much lower.  This means that the 100 mrem/year extra they want to expose us to is a greater fraction of our dose than they assume. But increasing background dose leads to increases in diseases and immunity problems, and a comparison between this increase and the NRC’s background exposure estimate IS warranted. It is time for NRC to revisit its “background” radiation dose assumptions and account for the data found in studies like the ones reviewed by Moller/Mousseau.

Researchers plan to study effects of Navajo Reservation uranium exposure on pregnancy and child birth

Three decades after the end of uranium mining on the Navajo Nation, researchers plan to conduct a study in response to community concerns about the effects of exposure to uranium waste on pregnancies and child development on the Navajo Nation.

The Navajo Birth Cohort Study is a three-year study on the Navajo reservation. It will provide early assessment and education on environmental and prenatal risks from exposure to environmental contaminants.

In 2009, Congress mandated and awarded money for the Navajo Birth Cohort Study. The money will support the University of New Mexico Community Environmental Health Program as it designs and conducts the study in collaboration with the Navajo Area Indian Health Services, the Navajo Division of Health, Southwest Research and Information Center and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

Johnnye Lewis, Ph.D., director of the Community Environmental Health Program, Health Sciences Center, at the University of New Mexico, is the principal investigator in the project. She coordinates the professional research team drawn from the five agencies responsible for implementing the project.

"This particular set of funding is for Navajo, but this is not just a Navajo problem," said Lewis. "There are 10,400 abandoned uranium mine waste sites in the western U.S., many of those on tribal lands. So I think the information we gain from this study will have impacts much further reaching than just Navajo."

More information on the Navajo Birth Cohort Study is available by calling toll-free (877) 545-6775 or contacting a Clinical Liaison at the nearest IHS facility. Navaho-Hopi Observer

Foreign doctors on Fukushima trip “very surprised” at condition of patients

Ms. Kazuko Kawai, Founder of Voices for Lively Spring (a Japan-based human rights organization and a grass-root organization): The radiation problem, health problem is spreading all over Japan now through burning debris Iwate and Miyagi, and also contaminated food.

Both foreign doctors participated in the IPPW World Conference and the field trip in Fukushima, which was organized by Peace Boat and Green Action and other organizations.

And they thought that they had sufficient information, but then they observed the health consultations on the tour and were very surprised to find out that actual patients were in even worse condition than they had anticipated.

The symptoms are always the same […] Nose bleeds, skin disease, diarrhea, respiratory diseases, pains at the rear of the ears, stomatitis, and so on, and so on – as well as thyroid disorders.

UN special report on Fukushima criticizes handling of radiation catastrophe, suggests positive steps forward

Anand Grover, the United Nations Special Rapporteur reports on Fukushima, some highlights:

-potassium iodine was not handled properly.

-government did not evacuate properly or communicate radiation doses and implications to the public.

-government neglected hotspots and used 20msv/year limit implying this was safe which is not.

-radiation monitoring stations did not adequately reflect exposure data. Therefore all validated data, alot being collected by private individuals, should be made public.

-provide holistic and comprehensive treatment for ALL radiation effected zones and include wider health consequences than the current health survey.

-err on side of caution and monitor health outcomes for an extensive period of time.

-allow individuals access to their health data and that of their children.

-initiate long-term monitoring of sub-contract workers at the ruined plants.

-evacuation centers did not provide adequate facilities for women with children and the disabled and elderly. Separation of families due to inadequate evacuation procedures has caused unnecessary anguish.

-government needs to strengthened food contamination monitoring.

-adopt an action plan with clear timeline to reduce contamination to 1msv per year.

-restore subsidies to all evacuees so they can make proper decisions about whether to return or leave.

-government ensure that TEPCO is held financially accountable and that taxpayers are not.

-ensure participation of effected people, particularly vulnerable groups during all parts of decision-making process, including health services and decontamination. This is not currently being done.

-implement the “act on protection and support for children, and other victims of the Tepco disaster” which was enacted in June, 2012. This act provides a framework for those affected by the disaster and provides opportunity to enlist affected people in decision-making. video

Update on November 28, 2012 by admin

The position of UN Special Rapporteur on the right to health was created in this century. This interim report on the Fukushima disaster appears to represent the first time an investigation has linked health impacts of industrial radiation from a nuclear catastrophe to human rights -- in this case the right to health for both children and adults. A final report will be issued in June of 2013. Stay tuned to Beyond Nuclear for updates. See the UN press release. NECN.com

Even Low-Level Radioactivity Is Damaging, Scientists Conclude

Even the very lowest levels of radiation are harmful to life, scientists have concluded in the Cambridge Philosophical Society's journal Biological Reviews...

The review is a meta-analysis of studies of locations around the globe that have very high natural background radiation as a result of the minerals in the ground there...

The scientists reported significant negative effects in a range of categories, including immunology, physiology, mutation and disease occurrence. The frequency of negative effects was beyond that of random chance.

"There's been a sentiment in the community that because we don't see obvious effects in some of these places, or that what we see tends to be small and localized, that maybe there aren't any negative effects from low levels of radiation," said Mousseau. "But when you do the meta-analysis, you do see significant negative effects."

"It also provides evidence that there is no threshold below which there are no effects of radiation," he added...

"With the levels of contamination that we have seen as a result of nuclear power plants, especially in the past, and even as a result of Chernobyl and Fukushima and related accidents, there's an attempt in the industry to downplay the doses that the populations are getting, because maybe it's only one or two times beyond what is thought to be the natural background level," he said. "But they're assuming the natural background levels are fine."

"And the truth is, if we see effects at these low levels, then we have to be thinking differently about how we develop regulations for exposures, and especially intentional exposures to populations, like the emissions from nuclear power plants, medical procedures, and even some x-ray machines at airports." Science Daily