Opening eyes to the facts

Radiation: safe within limits

Robert Hargraves

Nuclear power can solve global

environmental problems.

• End millions of air pollution deaths.

• Check climate change.

Nuclear power can improve the

global economy.

$$$$$$$$$$ • Help developing world escape poverty.

• Spark industrialized world economies.

Fukushima fear of

radiation killed

people.

Japan evacuated

the black-lined

area.

IAEA would

recommend

evacuating the

red area.

Fukushima radiation was harmless.

"Radiation exposure following the nuclear

accident at Fukushima-Daiichi did not

cause any immediate health effects. It is

unlikely to be able to attribute any health

effects in the future among the general

public and the vast majority of workers”

UNSCEAR

Roentgen won the first Nobel prize, for

discovering X-ray radiation.

Becquerel won the Nobel prize for

radioactivity of uranium.

... and Marie and Pierre Curie for radium.

Radiation dose is the energy

transferred to body tissue.

Example dose

X-ray mammography

2 mSv (millisievert)

= 0.002 Sievert

= 0.002 Gray (for X-rays)

= 0.002 joule per kilogram

= 0.002 watt-second per kg

Dose rates from

natural radiation

are 1-10 mSv/year.

Sources

Radon

Cosmic rays

Food

Granite

Places Ave dose rate

US 3 mSv/y

Denver 4

Finland 7

Hermann Muller discovered X-rays

caused mutations in fruit flies.

Muller received the 1946 Nobel prize for his

1926 discovery of X-ray mutation of fruit flies.

…these principles have been

extended to total doses as

low as 400 r, and rates as low

as 0.01 r per minute, with

gamma rays. They leave, we

believe, no escape from the

conclusion that there is no

threshold dose, and that the

individual mutations result

from individual "hits",

producing genetic effects …”

Muller and the National Academy of

Sciences convened a committee.

Linear No-threshold Theory (LNT) was

proclaimed by that 1956 committee.

No minimum

Cumulative harm

Illustration from NAS

BEIR VII report

In 100 people’s lives

42 cancers are

normally expected.

A 100 mSv dose to

each person causes

1 more cancer

National Academy of Sciences

endorsed LNT, yet again, in 2006.

LNT begat the person-Sieverts fallacy.

100 mSv X 100 persons = 1 cancer

100 mSv X 200 persons = 1 death

1 mSv X 20,000 persons = 1 death

1 mSv X 2,000,000 persons = 100 deaths

# persons

∑ dosej = person-Sieverts j=1

20 person-Sieverts = 1 death

815 billion US passenger airline miles

= 10,000 passenger-Sieverts from cosmic rays

= 500 deaths

2,000 atmospheric nuclear weapons

tests added ~ 1 mSv dose per person.

American Scientist Jan 2006

6 billion people X 1 mSv =

6 million person-Sieverts = 300,000 deaths

Radiation fear led to the 1963 nuclear

test ban treaty.

• for a “Reasonably Maximally Exposed

Individual…hypothetical…future…rural-

residential…subsistence farmer…”

• < 0.15 mSv/y for 10,000 years

• < 3.5 mSv/y for 1,000,000 years

• from “features, events, and processes” with an

annual probability > 1:100,000,000

LNT led to EPA rule at Yucca Mountain.

Nearby Yucca Flat hosted 823 bomb tests.

LNT begat ALARA

As Low As Reasonably Achievable

LNT any radiation can kill you

minimize the risk.

“Achievable” depends on technology,

not health effects.

Country Tritium limit

Canada 0.1 mSv/y World Health Org

US 0.04 mSv/y LWRs can meet

As radiation detection technology

improves, ALARA just increases fear.

CounterPunch complains of Bluefin tuna with

0.0000077 mSv per 7 oz serving

writing…no radiation exposure of any kind is “safe”…

0.6617 MeV Ɣ

radiation energy is

a signature of

cesium-137.

Cesium-137 from Fukushima is detectable, so

Lifetime

cancer

risk %

Radiation dose rate mSv/y

nuclear fuel cycle

living near a coal power plant

annual mammogram

coal mining

human internal P-40, C-14

Smoking 1 ½ packs a day

Grand Central worker

atmospheric nuclear testing

LNT predicts cancer from all radiation,

2.4 mSv/y

natural

background

radiation

42% normal lifetime cancer risk

ignoring adaptive protections.

Adaptive protections

the vaccination effect

James Watson and Francis Crick

unwound the genetic secrets of DNA.

DNA strand breaks occur frequently.

Single strand breaks occur

10,000 times per day per cell.

100 mSv/y radiation adds 12

per day.

Double strand breaks occur

10 times per day per cell.

100 mSv/y radiation adds 1

per year.

Ionized oxygen molecules from metabolism are the

principal causes.

Special enzyme

DNA ligase

encircles the

double helix to

repair a broken

strand of DNA.

DNA is repaired.

DNA repair times are ~ 1 hour.

Adaptive protections occur as cellular

receptors respond to molecular signals.

Ludwig E. Feinendegen, Myron Pollycove, and Ronald D. Neumann Therapeutic Nuclear Medicine Springer 2012

The immune response, peaking at 150 mSv,

protects against many stresses, ~ 1 yr.

LNT fallacies

US President John Kennedy said:

For the great enemy of the truth is very

often not the lie—deliberate, contrived,

and dishonest—but the myth—

persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.

Too often we hold fast to the clichés of

our forebears. We subject all facts to a

prefabricated set of interpretations. We

enjoy the comfort of opinion without the

discomfort of thought.

Chernobyl

28 emergency workers died from radiation.

15 children died of thyroid cancer, of 8,000 afflicted.

Chernobyl emergency workers died from

acute radiation syndrome.

• Above 4,000 mSv most died.

• Below 2,000 mSv none died. Source: Wade Allison

Radiation and Reason

Surviving Chernobyl emergency

workers have fewer cancers.

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, MD PhD DSc, former Chairman of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) stated:

“What is really surprising, however, is that data collected by UNSCEAR and the Forum show 15% to 30% fewer cancer deaths among the Chernobyl emergency workers

and about 5% lower solid cancer incidence among the people in the Bryansk district (the most contaminated in Russia) in comparison with the general population. In most irradiated group of these people (mean dose of 40 mSv) the deficit of cancer incidence was 17%.”

National Academy BEIR VII report

relied on Atomic-bomb survivor data.

Long-term Survivor Study followed 86,572

exposed people, of all ages and sexes, for 60

years.

“Because of its many advantages, the LSS

cohort of A-bomb survivors serves as the

single most important source of data for

evaluating risks of low-linear energy transfer

radiation at low and moderate doses.”

National Academy report inferred cancer

risk is proportional to radiation dose.

Zoom in to see: no low-dose effects.

100 mSv

Low

dose

range

Radiation dose (Sv)

Excess r

ela

tive r

isk

Atomic-bomb LSS data is public. http://www.rerf.or.jp/index_e.html

Add it up to get low-dose cancer rates.

Atom bomb survivor exposures of 5 to 40

mSv lowered observed cancer rates.

Cancer rate

Radiation dose (mSv)

5-20 mSv

20-40 mSv

Linear response

The decrease in cancers below 40 mSv

dose is statistically significant…

Cancer rate

Radiation dose (mSv)

5-20 mSv n=2084

20-40 mSv n=891

error bars at ± 1 standard deviation

of 19,369 people exposed

… and more valid than an LNT projection

based on a third as many observations.

Cancer rate

Radiation dose (mSv)

5-20 mSv n=2084

20-40 mSv n=891

of 19,369 people exposed

only 6,411 people exposed to more than 40 mSv

Extrapolating Life Span Study Cancer Risk Estimates to Low-dose Radiation Exposures

Atomic bomb LSS reports do not even

show details of doses < 100 mSv.

100 mSv

Expert toxicologist Edward Calabrese

studies dose-response effects.

Professor, University of

Massachusetts, Amherst

B.S., Bridgewater State, 1968

M.A., University of Massachusetts

Amherst, 1972

Ph.D., University of Massachusetts

Amherst, 1973

2009 Marie Curie Prize

CV = 145 pages

How the US National Academy of Sciences

misled the world community on cancer risk

assessment: new findings challenge historical

foundations of the linear dose response

Edward J. Callabrese Arch Toxicol 2013

1. Muller’s Nobel lecture promoted LNT, though he

knew of contrary evidence.

2. Colleague Stern covered up Muller’s deceptions.

3. Led to National Academy 1956 adoption of LNT.

Calabrese published the story of

Muller’s deceptions.

Muller’s low doses were really high

-- 4,000 mSv, at 50,000 mSv/year.

“… these principles have

been extended to total

doses as low as 400 r, and

rates as low as 0.01 r per

minute, with gamma rays.

They leave, we believe, no

escape from the conclusion

that there is no threshold

dose, and that the individual

mutations result from

individual "hits", producing

genetic effects ...”

4,000 mSv Muller low dose

2 mSv

mammogram dose

28,000 nuclear shipyard workers exposed

to ~8 mSv had a 24% lower death rate.

• Neutron-activated Co-60 was deposited in pipes and

valves of reactor cooling system.

• Age-matched, job-matched control group eliminated

healthy-worker bias.

• 1991 report excluded 24% lower death rate finding.

- submitted to DOE 3 years after study completion

- not published

National Academy report ignored

data contrary to LNT.

Occupational Radiation Studies

“In most cases, rates for all causes and all

cancer mortality in the workers were

substantially lower than in the reference

populations.”

“Because of the uncertainty in occupational risk

estimates … the committee has concluded that

the occupational studies are currently not

suitable for the projection of population-based

risks.”

State-by-state cancer deaths are not

proportional to background radiation.

7,271 Taiwan apartment dwellers exposed

to ~48 mSv had fewer cancers.

Cancers observed 95

Cancers expected normally 115

…plus 35* LNT-predicted cancers 150

* 7,271 x 48 / 10,000 = 35

LNT discrepancy = (150 - 95) / √150

= 4.5 standard deviations

Probability {LNT is true} ~ 7-in-a-million.

National Academy report ignored

environmental data.

“In summary, most existing published studies of environmental radiation exposure are ecologic in design. Such studies are limited in their usefulness in defining the risk of disease in relation to radiation exposure or dose. … Epidemiologic studies, in general, have limited ability to define the shape of the radiation dose-response curve and to provide quantitative estimates of risk in relation to radiation dose, especially for relatively low doses.”

The US defunded low-dose radiation

studies, which disprove LNT.

100 mSv

Therapeutic radiation doses are high…

Medical diagnostic radiation doses

are low.

Dental X-ray 0.001 mSv

CT Scan 20 mSv

Cancer is treated with focused X-ray

beams.

Tissues around prostate recover

between daily fractionalized X-rays.

…but small risk of second cancers in high dose regions.

Expert nuclear engineer Jerry Cuttler

studies health benefits of low doses. BASc-Eng, Engineering Physics, University

of Toronto, 1964

MSc and DSc, Nuclear Sciences, Israel

Institute Technology, 1971

Design & Engineering Manager for CANDU

reactors at AECL 1974-2000

Professional societies: ANS since 1971;

CNS since 1979, president 1995/6;

American Physical Society; Health Physics

Society; Canadian Radiation Protection

Association; International Dose Response

Society; Professional Engineers Ontario

1958 UNSCEAR leukemia data is

inconsistent with LNT.

UNSCEAR ignored its own finding

“…that a threshold for leukemia induction might occur. In

fact, according to Table VII a dose of 2 rem [20 mSv] is

associated with a decreased leukemia rate.”

In mice, 150 mSv doses minimized lung

cancer metastases, helping cure cancer.

150 mSv

In dogs, lung cancer was reduced with

alpha radiation doses under ~ 500 mSv.

Cuttler cites many more LNT disproofs.

“Discard the politicized science.”

Cuttler concludes

“It is the effect of radiation on an organism’s very powerful

adaptive protection systems that determines the dose-response

characteristic.

• Low radiation up-regulates adaptive protection

systems, while

• high radiation impairs these systems.

New York Times prints radiation scares.

“a 2009 study from the National Cancer Institute estimates that CT scans conducted in 2007 will cause a projected 29,000 excess cancer cases and 14,500 excess deaths over the lifetime of those exposed.”

Who gains from radiation scares?

If it bleeds it leads

Oil, gas, coal industries

Regulatory bureaucracies

Radiation protection industry

Wind turbine companies

Researchers seeking grants

Renewables advocates

Non-proliferation institutions

Hiroshima, Nagasaki guilt assuagers

Greenpeace, UCS, NRDC …

Dirty bombers

Nuclear power meets global needs.

• End millions of air pollution deaths.

• Check climate change.

• Escape developing world poverty.

• Spark industrialized world economies.

ENVIRONMENTAL

ECONOMIC

$$$$$$$

France decarbonized electric power

rapidly.

Nuclear power

10 years

So could the world. Why not?

Is bad science the root cause of our global

environmental and economic crises?

So could the world. Why not?

• Muller’s deception

• Hiding low-dose A-bomb LSS data

• Ignoring occupational data

• Ignoring environmental data

• Reluctance of NAS to confront Kennedy’s

“great enemy of the truth”

LNT is wrong.

1. DNA damage and repair occur naturally at 1000x the

rate from background radiation.

2. Adaptive protections guard against future damage

from many stresses, including cancer.

3. Environmental studies (eg Taiwan apartments) show

fewer cancers from low dose radiation.

4. Occupational studies (eg shipyard) show lower death

rates for workers exposed to low dose radiation.

5. Atom bomb LSS was not about low dose rate.

6. Yet LSS showed fewer cancers at 5-40 mSv doses.

7. Experiments with dogs and mice show that low dose

radiation suppressed cancers.

Radiation is safe within limits.

• LNT and ALARA are regulation policies, not

scientific facts. Replace them.

• An evidence-based radiation safety limit would

be 100 mSv/y.

• Rational regulation is all that is needed

to let nuclear power thrive and solve our global

environmental and economic crises.

Radiation is safe within limits.

Robert Hargraves © 2014 for other permissions: robert.hargraves@gmail.com with thanks to Rod Adams, Meredith Angwin, Sylvain Costes, Jack Devanney, Mohan Doss, Andy Kadak, Ralph Moir, Howard Shaffer, Allison Wade and acknowledging data from Radiation Effects Research Foundation

Brochure, references, more at

http//radiation-safety-limits.info

Scientists for Accurate Radiation

Information, http://radiationeffects.org

Radiation and Health,

Thormod Henriksen

• superb

• readable

• Free

http://www.mn.uio.no/fy

sikk/tjenester/kunnskap/

straling/radiation-and-

health-2013.pdf

Radiation and Reason,

Wade Allison

The impact of science on

a culture of fear

Wade Allison is a Fellow of Keble College and a Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford where he has studied and taught for over 40 years. www.radiationandreason.com

Extra slides

This report makes use of data obtained from the Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF), Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. RERF is a private, non-profit foundation funded by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare and the U.S. Department of Energy, the latter through the National Academy of Sciences. The conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the scientific judgment of RERF or its funding agencies. Please send a copy of any reprints that make use of these data to: Archives Unit, Library and Archives Section Department of Information Technology Radiation Effects Research Foundation 5-2 Hijiyama Park Minami-ku Hiroshima, 732-0815 JAPAN

Acknowledgement of RERF data

Lung cancer does not result from

external doses below 100 mSv.

1958 UNSCEAR leukemia data is

inconsistent with LNT.

1958 UNSCEAR leukemia data is

inconsistent with LNT.

Bars show statistical significance. (±1 SD)

Cancer rate

Radiation dose (mSv)

5-20 mSv n=2084

20-40 mSv n=891

Linear response

Fukushima

evacuation

area limit was

20 mSv/y.

IAEA published this recommendation.

IAEA: 220 mSv/y is safe for everyone.

220 mSv/year = 25 µSv/h

IAEA would

recommend

evacuation in

the red area

[> 166 mSv/y].

Japan government

- resettlement allowed:

< 20 mSv/y

- remediation goal:

+1 mSv/y.

more confusion,

fear

0.000

0.050

0.100

0.150

0.200

0.250

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

LSS07 Cancer rate ±2SD

Cancer rate