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 cancerâ€, 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 | ILLIMITÉ
- 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 PRIVILÉGIÉE
- 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.
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. |