[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Archive Top]
Re: [cdn-nucl-l] Innovative radiobiology at Chalk River
Jeremy,
I agree that LNT is not a theory - it is equivalent to a speed
limit. It is an administrative and regulatory convenience. It
is what it is. I agree we should send out a consistent message
about no observed negative effects of low doses. But I don't
understand your 'kicker' statement. It seems to me that
nuclearphobia has a lot to do with low-dose fears. The fear is
rooted in the bomb --> radiation is bad --> even one gamma can kill
you, etc. If that is not phobia caused by low-dose aversion, then
what is? Low-dose fear is not a root cause in the sense of
chronological sequence but it is the root issue as far as I can
see. What am I missing? I don't know if Helen quotes low dose
research or not but it does not matter - she is relying on the deeply
rooted fear that already exists. She does not have to address its
source; she merely uses the fact that it exists. I agree that
rational discourse cannot counter the negate meme but, more completely, I
would say that it cannot counter it alone. Rational
discourse is a necessary but not sufficient element. Unfortunately,
I have little idea what the other conditions are. Trust, perhaps.
Bill
At 02:29 AM 21/02/2011, Whitlock, Jeremy wrote:
There is no doubt
that a lot of nonsense has been perpetrated on the basis of a
misunderstanding of the LNT hypothesis, but this has nothing to do with
the LNT hypothesis itself, which is completely consistent with the
concept of a low-dose threshold or even hormesis since it only represents
a conservative upper bound. (A mind-boggling amount of brain-power and
electrons continue to be wasted because of a complete misunderstanding of
this fundamental fact.)
We should agree to tell the public a consistent message that there is no
observed negative effect at low doses.
But here's the kicker:
The Port Hope affair, like the Bruce steam generators affair, like the 25
years of Chernobabble, like nuclearphobia in general -- has nothing to do
with what the eggheads say about low-dose effects. People are afraid of
radiation. Helen Caldicott's lies don't reference the real world of
low-dose research; she's defined her own world where all that counts is
people buying her books and flying her to nice places to sell them.
Gordon Edwards isn't invited to peddle his brand of armageddon in town
hall meetings because he has alternative scientific theories on low-dose
radiation to share.
We are wasting our time if we think that rational discourse can counter
the anti-nuclear meme.
regards,
Jeremy Whitlock
Sent from my BlackBerry, an innovative Canadian technology.
From:
cdn-nucl-l-admin@mailman1.CIS.McMaster.CA
<cdn-nucl-l-admin@mailman1.CIS.McMaster.CA>
To: cdn-nucl-l@mailman1.CIS.McMaster.CA
<cdn-nucl-l@mailman1.CIS.McMaster.CA>
Sent: Sun Feb 20 10:17:38 2011
Subject: [cdn-nucl-l] Innovative radiobiology at Chalk River
Just to be clear, I should emphasize that it is unethical to create or
perpetuate a cancer scare about low radiation without any
statistically-valid scientific evidence that supports this notion.
It is not very responsible. It is very irresponsible.
Just two recent articles below debunk the unscientific nonsense that has
been going on, and another paper will be published next month.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2889503/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2939692/
It's not just the steam generator shipment. The residents of Port
Hope are being been bludgeoned by the on-going cancer scare. The
CNSC is debunking the health scare, and CRL is not helping by alluding to
a cancer risk without evidence.
Note that the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl accident is approaching,
and we can expect the usual flood of articles about an enormous number of
cancer deaths (that scientists predicted using the linear no-threshold
assumption). This scare caused enormous suffering. We have to
stop scaring people.
I agree that the CRL news item is important, except for the last remark
in the last sentence. It could and should have been omitted.
Some media people feel it is necessary to be "balanced" by
suggesting negative effects as well, even if there is no evidence.
Scientists should not do this.
Jerry
--- On Sat, 2/19/11, Whitlock, Jeremy
<whitlockj@aecl.ca> wrote:
- From: Whitlock, Jeremy <whitlockj@aecl.ca>
- Subject: Re: [cdn-nucl-l] Innovative radiobiology at Chalk River
- To: cdn-nucl-l@mailman1.CIS.McMaster.CA
- Date: Saturday, February 19, 2011, 11:53 PM
- Hi Jerry,
- I actually thought the article made a pretty strong case for low-dose
beneficial effects.
- The Bruce steam generator case is a different story altogether. The
fear is of radiation, plain and simple, and the public isn't making a
distinction between low-dose or high-dose exposure. Many people think
even those are reactor cores being shipped down the Seaway.
- Jeremy.
- Sent from my BlackBerry, an innovative Canadian technology.
- From:
cdn-nucl-l-admin@mailman1.CIS.McMaster.CA
<cdn-nucl-l-admin@mailman1.CIS.McMaster.CA>
- To: Canadian Nuclear Discussion List
<cdn-nucl-l@mailman1.CIS.McMaster.CA>
- Sent: Fri Feb 18 22:18:16 2011
- Subject: [cdn-nucl-l] Innovative radiobiology at Chalk River
- Yes it's very responsible to ignore the large amount of low dose
evidence that indicates less cancer while alluding to the possibility of
increased cancer risk for which there is no evidence at low dose.
-
- This is why everyone is so afraid of nuclear technology. We
just keep linking it to an increased risk of cancer for which there is no
evidence. No wonder we have such great difficulty shipping used
steam generators to Sweden.
-
- We can't blame the media. They just write and say what we are
telling them.
- Jerry
- --- On Fri, 2/18/11, Whitlock, Jeremy
<whitlockj@aecl.ca> wrote:
- From: Whitlock, Jeremy <whitlockj@aecl.ca>
- Subject: RE: [cdn-nucl-l] Innovative radiobiology at Chalk River
- To: "Canadian Nuclear Discussion List"
<cdn-nucl-l@mailman1.CIS.McMaster.CA>
- Date: Friday, February 18, 2011, 5:55 PM
- UNRESTRICTED | ILLIMITÉ
-
- Just to be clear, I should emphasize that Chalk River has never
refrained from publicizing the ground-breaking work it does on low-level
effects, whether good or bad, in the 35 years that I’ve been following
it. (And yes there are cases where the heath effect of low-level
radiation is worse for some individuals than for others good scientists
of course don’t just go lookiing for the good effects).
-
- But yes, as an industry we’ve never been particularly good at
publicizing anything, including the health-related R&D.
-
- The statement at the end of the piece, namely that this new effect
“may more than counter any shortened life expectancy from a small
increased risk of cancer”, is actually a very responsible and
appropriately circumspect (i.e. scientific) statement of the
situation. No evidence of an effect is not evidence of no effect.
-
- Jeremy.
-
- From: cdn-nucl-l-admin@mailman1.CIS.McMaster.CA
[
mailto:cdn-nucl-l-admin@mailman1.CIS.McMaster.CA] On Behalf Of
JERRY CUTTLER
- Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 1:21 AM
- To: Canadian Nuclear Discussion List
- Subject: [cdn-nucl-l] Innovative radiobiology at Chalk
River
-
- Bill
-
- I'm delighted that AECL is starting to publicize positive information
about low dose rate radiation. It's actually happening in my
lifetime!
-
- Unfortunately, the last sentence spoils the positive message by
alluding to a small increased cancer risk (for which there is no
evidence). Some bad habits are just very hard to shake.
- Jerry
- --- On Thu, 2/17/11, Bill Garland
<garlandw@mcmaster.ca> wrote:
- From: Bill Garland <garlandw@mcmaster.ca>
- Subject: Re: [cdn-nucl-l] Innovative radiobiology at Chalk River
- To: cdn-nucl-l@mailman1.CIS.McMaster.CA
- Date: Thursday, February 17, 2011, 5:05 PM
- Jeremy,
- Thanks for posting. This prompts me to observe (not for the
first time) that we need a web site that addresses the issue of low doses
- or at least is a convenient pointer to the various sources of info out
there (like
http://www.magma.ca/~mitchel/
). I started the wiki
www.nucearcanada.ca to be a
portal for such nuclear information. I invite people to
contribute.
- Bill
- At 10:03 AM 17/02/2011, Whitlock, Jeremy wrote:
- UNRESTRICTED | ILLIMITÃ
- FYI, this article was recently prepared by our biological research
group at Chalk River Laboratories. It’s a good example of the
cutting-edge R&D that takes place here, with benefits for all
Canadians.
- Jeremy Whitlock
-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- In the Hearts of Mice and Men
- The Biological Research Facility (BRF) at Chalk River Laboratories is
a globally unique facility. Within the BRF, animal (rodent) and animal
tissue-based research is undertaken to study the biological effects of
radiation.
- One project is a major, ongoing collaborative study that began in
2006 and is supported by the research program of the Commission of the
European Union. AECL is one of many partners in this project, which
includes 16 European universities and laboratories, McMaster University,
Health Canada and the Ottawa Heart Institute.
- One of the main objectives of our research is to determine the
effects of low dose, gamma-radiation on the development and progression
of cardiovascular disease (atherosclerosis) in mice. The mice used for
heart research are genetically modified so that they will develop heart
disease. Understanding what is happening in mice will increase our
understanding of the consequences of exposure to low radiation doses in
humans - such as doses commonly employed in diagnostic radiography and
those incurred by radiation workers.
- Atherosclerosis is a disease that is caused by the deposition of
“fatty plaques” within arteries, including those in and around the
heart. These plaques cause decreased blood flow to organs in the body,
and angina in the heart. Also, they may block arteries causing heart
attacks and strokes.
- Mice were exposed either at early stages of the disease or at late
stages of the disease to low doses of radiation. Different dose rates
were used to reproduce both acute (short) and chronic (prolonged)
irradiations.
- At three months or six months post-exposure, the hearts and aortas of
the mice were examined to determine the severity of the atherosclerotic
lesions. Blood samples were also collected and tested for cholesterol
levels. The atherosclerotic lesions were analyzed for size, severity and
number.
- While there were some differences between the effects produced by low
and high dose rate exposures, and by exposures given at early and late
stages of the disease, the effects seen were found to be generally
protective, rather than damaging. Low doses of gamma-radiation resulted
in fewer, smaller and less severe plaques.
- When higher doses of radiation were used these apparently beneficial
effects disappeared and it is generally recognised that high radiation
doses harm the heart and its arteries. How low dose radiation slows down
cardiovascular disease is not yet clear, but it’s likely to be related
to its anti-inflammatory effects.
- An interesting consequence of this work is that the beneficial
effects of low dose radiation on arteries, if confirmed in humans (and
there is some evidence to suggest this may be so), may more than counter
any shortened life expectancy from a small increased risk of
cancer.
- Nick Priest
- Manager, Radiation Protection Research &
Instrumentation Michelle Bugden
- BRF Technologist
- CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION NOTICE
- This e-mail, and any attachments, may contain information that
- is confidential, subject to copyright, or exempt from
disclosure.
- Any unauthorized review, disclosure, retransmission,
- dissemination or other use of or reliance on this information
- may be unlawful and is strictly prohibited.
- AVIS D'INFORMATION CONFIDENTIELLE ET PRIVILÃGIÃE
- Le présensent courriel, et toute pièce jointe, peut contenir de
- l'information qui est confidentielle, régie par les droits
- d'auteur, ou interdite de divulgation. Tout examen,
- divulgation, retransmission, diffusion ou autres utilisations
- non autorisées de l'information ou dépendance non autorisée
- envers celle-ci peut être illégale et est strictement
interdite.
- _______________________________________________ cdn-nucl-l mailing
list cdn-nucl-l@mailman.McMaster.CA
http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/cdn-nucl-l
-
- CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION NOTICE
- This e-mail, and any attachments, may contain information that
- is confidential, subject to copyright, or exempt from
disclosure.
- Any unauthorized review, disclosure, retransmission,
- dissemination or other use of or reliance on this information
- may be unlawful and is strictly prohibited.
- AVIS D'INFORMATION CONFIDENTIELLE ET PRIVILÉGIÉE
- Le présent courriel, et toute pièce jointe, peut contenir de
- l'information qui est confidentielle, régie par les droits
- d'auteur, ou interdite de divulgation. Tout examen ,
- divulgation, retransmission, diffusion ou autres utilisations
- non autorisées de l'information ou dépendance non autorisée
- envers celle-ci peut être illégale et est strictement
interdite.
- CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION NOTICE
- This e-mail, and any attachments, may contain information that
- is confidential, subject to copyright, or exempt from
disclosure.
- Any unauthorized review, disclosure, retransmission,
- dissemination or other use of or reliance on this information
- may be unlawful and is strictly prohibited.
- AVIS D'INFORMATION CONFIDENTIELLE ET PRIVILÉGIÉE
- Le présent courriel, et toute pièce jointe, peut contenir de
- l'information qui est confidentielle, régie par les droits
- d'auteur, ou interdite de divulgation. Tout examen ,
- divulgation, retransmission, diffusion ou autres utilisations
- non autorisées de l'information ou dépendance non autorisée
- envers celle-ci peut être illégale et est strictement
interdite.
CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION NOTICE
This e-mail, and any attachments, may contain information that
is confidential, subject to copyright, or exempt from disclosure.
Any unauthorized review, disclosure, retransmission,
dissemination or other use of or reliance on this information
may be unlawful and is strictly prohibited.
AVIS D'INFORMATION CONFIDENTIELLE ET PRIVILÉGIÉE
Le présent courriel, et toute pièce jointe, peut contenir de
l'information qui est confidentielle, régie par les droits
d'auteur, ou interdite de divulgation. Tout examen,
divulgation, retransmission, diffusion ou autres utilisations
non autorisées de l'information ou dépendance non autorisée
envers celle-ci peut être illégale et est strictement
interdite.