RE: [cdn-nucl-l] Low level radiation and cancer: BAD NEWS

["Muckerheide, James" <jimm@WPI.EDU>]

Excellent Andrew!  Click on the article in the middle left: "It’s Time to
Tell the Truth About the Health Benefits
of Radiation" (Summer 2000)  :-)

I also just pub'd there a paper on: "There has NEVER been a Time when the
Health Benefits of Low Dose Radiation were NOT Known."  See, e.g., the second
paper under "Science Papers in the middle at:
http://cnts.wpi.edu/rsh/docs  

See also companion comments to Jaworowski's original comments on NCRP-136
(not ICRP) at:
http://cnts.wpi.edu/rsh/docs/Correspondence/NCRP136/NCRP136Index.htm 

His is the second set, but you should also review the first comments there,
and the others which are more succinct.


Everyone will 'stick with alara,' but do you believe there will be NO review
of the report that nuclear workers are getting cancer by your organization?
by any organization?

Does anyone consider that this fraudulent study now clearly makes nuclear
companies/organizations subject to successful lawsuits for every case of
cancer in their workforce?  

The previous lawsuit defence, that there are adequate dose records to show
that exposures were maintained under the very (exceedingly) low levels
required by regulations, below which there is no likely association with
cancer, is now gone!

They state that 1-2% of all cancers in the nuclear workforce (at far below
occupational dose limits) are caused by their occupational radiation
exposure!?  

Regards, Jim Muckerheide



-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Daley [mailto:andrew_l_daley@yahoo.ca]
Sent: Wed 6/29/2005 6:20 PM
To: Muckerheide, James; Dukelow, James S Jr;
cdn-nucl-l@mailman1.cis.mcmaster.ca
Subject: RE: [cdn-nucl-l] Low level radiation and cancer:  BAD NEWS
 
To combat it try here
 
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/Spring03/radiation.html
 
I found this to be an interesting critique on ICRP and LNT.
 
As for my orgaNIZATION i ASSUME alara will continue 

"Muckerheide, James" <jimm@wpi.edu> wrote:
"Online First" - in the left column.

Does anyone know if your responsible organization (or others) will undertake
a credible review of this?

Regards, Jim Muckerheide

________________________________

From: cdn-nucl-l-admin@mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA on behalf of Dukelow, James S
Jr
Sent: Wed 6/29/2005 4:44 PM
To: Andrew Daley; Cdn-Nucl-LISTSERV (E-mail)
Subject: RE: [cdn-nucl-l] Low level radiation and cancer: BAD NEWS


For the "international" study, go to www.bmj.org and click on Online
Publication (or words to that effect).

Best regards.

Jim Dukelow
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Richland, WA
jim.dukelow@pnl.gov

-----Original Message-----
From: cdn-nucl-l-admin@mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA
[mailto:cdn-nucl-l-admin@mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA] On Behalf Of Andrew Daley
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 1:29 PM
To: Cdn-Nucl-LISTSERV (E-mail)
Subject: [cdn-nucl-l] Low level radiation and cancer: BAD NEWS


Anybody have a link to the French study? Jerry can you comment on the
validity of this study??


Low-dose radiation poses small cancer risk: report

Last Updated Wed, 29 Jun 2005 15:39:56 EDT 
CBC News 

There is likely no such thing as a safe level of exposure to radiation,
although cancer is rarely induced by low doses, a panel of U.S. scientists
said Wednesday. 

"The scientific research base shows that there is no threshold of exposure
below which low levels of ionized radiation can be demonstrated to be
harmless or beneficial," said Richard Monson, the panel's chair and a
professor of epidemiology at Harvard's School of Public Health.

"The health risks - particularly the development of solid cancers in organs -
rise proportionally with exposure."

The panel's report addresses amounts of radiation from medical treatments
such as full-body CT scans. The findings are expected to affect government
safety recommendations in the U.S.

A low dose of 100 millisieverts of radiation - the equivalent of 10 chest
X-rays - is expected to cause solid cancer or leukemia in one out of 100
people over a lifetime, the report said. About half of those cases could be
fatal. 

The panel's report updates research based largely on survivors of the 1945
atomic bomb attacks in Japan. 

While medical radiation is often appropriate, "exposure to any unnecessary
radiation should be avoided," Monson told a news conference. "And what is
unnecessary is up to an individual."

Natural sources of radiation such as gamma rays from space and radon in the
environment account for about 82 per cent of our exposure, the report said.

More research is needed on those who receive frequent doses such as full-body
CT scans, and on children who get X-rays or radiation treatment for cancer,
the panel said. 

Research on more than 400,000 nuclear industry workers found they had a 10
per cent higher risk of death from cancer, according to a related report
released Wednesday by the International Agency for Research on Cancer in
France.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


_______________________________________________
cdn-nucl-l mailing list
cdn-nucl-l@mailman.McMaster.CA
http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/cdn-nucl-l

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com