The Health Effects of Radiation

8/10/2019 The Health Effects of Radiation

1/40

1

The True Health Effects of Radiation

Presented by Y. C. Luan

on behalf of 14 authors from :

Nuclear Science and Technology Association

NBC contamination prevention Society

and three Universities

Presented in Moscow/Russia (July 2004)


2/40

2

Abstract

. Health effects of radiation depend on the

circumstances and the dose-rate of radiation

being received.

. Radiation can be classified into acute

radiation and chronic exposure radiation.

. Health effects of acute and chronic exposure

radiation are contradicting each other.

. Acute radiation is mostly harmful to people,

but chronic radiation is always beneficial to

people.


3/40

3

Introduction-1

1. The health effects of radiation depend on the

circumstances or dose rate of radiation being received.

2. Acute radiation is radiation received instantaneously:

a high dose rate in a short period of time.

3. Chronic radiation is the radiation received continuously:

a low dose rate during a long time.

4. Chronic radiation, although it is feared as much as acute

radiation, is actually beneficial to people.

5. Chronic radiation was repetitively observed to be always

beneficial to humans in the incident of Co-60

contaminated apartments in Taiwan.


4/40

4

Introduction-2

6. Health effects of acute and chronic radiation are

entirely different: 86,572 atomic bomb survivors in

Japan had a 5.4% increase in cancer mortality in 40

years; but 10,000 irradiated residents in Taiwan had a97% decrease in cancer mortality.

7. 31 Chernobyl firemen and workers received acute

radiation from fission products and died; workers and

public outside of plant were benefited when fissionproducts diluted and decayed to chronic radiation.


5/40

5

Introduction-3

8. The chronic radiation such as experienced in Taiwan,

might be used in the prevention of cancers and

hereditary diseases.9. Traditional radiation protection should be revised for

promoting the useful health effects of nuclear energy.

10. The fear of chronic radiation should be abolished, and

the spending of billions dollars for radiation protectionagainst chronic radiation should be saved.


6/40

6

The health effects of acute radiation

1. Deterministic effects (short term effects) : acute radiation can

cause radiation sickness and death.

2. Stochastic effects (delayed effects) : acute radiation can

increase cancer mortality as described in ICRP-60.3. The LNT hypothesis is based on the theory that any level of

exposure to radiation is harmful, and that the effects of high

doses of radiation can be extrapolated to low doses of

radiation, based on LNT model.

4. The LNT model of ICRP is simple, logical, and conservative,

making possible calculations for governing radiation

protection.

5. But the LNT model is not appropriate for doses < 100 mSv.


7/407

The health effects of chronic radiation

1. Radiation from natural background is chronic radiation.

2. Radiation received by workers, and occasionally by public

from the nuclear power plants, is also chronic radiation.

3. Chronic radiation with doses received in a short lapse of time

(a few weeks) lower than 100 mSv, is less harmful

physiologically and pathologically than the same dose of

acute radiation.

4. Dr. Sternglass and many other scientists have claimed since

the 1960s that chronic radiation accumulated over time have

similar or even more harmful effects than acute radiation.

5. Chronic radiation is thus often feared by people.


8/408

The controversy of radiation health effects-1

1. LNT model was mainly derived from the leukemia

deaths at high doses of acute radiation: 905 leukemias

observed among 86,572 Hiroshima survivors (1%) :- with dose >1 Sv, leukemia mortality increased 5 times.

- with dose >2 Sv, leukemia mortality increased 14 times;

cohort of 2,819 survivors (3.2% of total 86,572)

- A cohort of 32,915 (44.5% of total 86,572 survivors)

having received a dose in 5 mSv-100 mSv range, had

no excess, and even a decrease, in leukemia mortality.


9/40

9

The controversy of radiation health effects-2

2. The Hiroshima survivors that received doses < 100 mSv, had

no excess cancer deaths. This shows that the LNT model does

not apply to low dose acute radiation < 100 mSv.

3. Preston et al, 2003 RERF report, had more data, but no new

results obtained.

4. Dr Sohei Kondo, professor emeritus of Osaka University,

asserted low acute radiation from atomic explosion could

reduce the cancer mortality, and increase life span.

5. Both ANS and HPS had statements stating that 50 mSv/y or

100 mSv/life should not be taken in consideration to evaluate

the individual radiation risk.


10/40

10

A radiological incident in Taiwan revealed chronic

radiation is always beneficial to humans-1

1. Epidemiological studies of people in the higher natural

background radiation areas in Kerala (India), Yangjing

(China) and Mountain States in USA, had lower cancer

deaths. And higher doses received by nuclear workers in

many countries result in lower cancer deaths. These results

are still not accepted until today by the regulatory

communities as human data proving that chronic radiation

is beneficial to people.

2. The Co-60 contaminated apartments incident, which

occurred 20 years ago in Taiwan, did not show harmful

effects to people, but only showed it was beneficial to them.


11/40

11



3. A Co-60 source was mixed in metal scrap, melted and

drawn into steel bars which were used in the construction

of 1700 apartments for about 10,000 residents in 1982-84.

The first apartment was discovered in 1992, its residents

were irradiated at least for 9 years, the other ones up to 20

years. The annual dose in the first year 1983 was from

about 50 mSv/y, high up to 600 mSv/y. The total averaged

dose was starting at 0.4 Sv, and high up to 6 Sv.


12/40

12



4. The total doses cumulated in 20 years were higher than theaverage doses received by the atomic bomb survivors in Japan,

and the Russian recovery workers in Chernobyl accident. If

LNT model is appropriate for chronic radiation, the excessivedoses could induce at least 35 excess leukemia and 35 solid

cancer deaths in 20 years. Actually no such deaths were

observed. On the contrary, the spontaneous cancer deaths of the

residents should have been about 232 in 20 years based on the

vital statistics in Taiwan, but only 7 were observed (3% of the232 that could be expected), as shown in the following curve

plotted by Luan et al since 1983.


13/40

13




14/40

14

A radiological incident in Taiwan revealed chronicradiation is always beneficial to humans-5

5. It was also observed that radiation could reduce hereditary

malfunctions of the descendants of the residents: 46 based

on LNT and 21 on congenital, but in reality reduced to 3

(6.5% of the general public).

6. No harmful health effects chronic radiation were observed

in cytogenetic analysis.

7. As the doses received from the natural background and the

peaceful uses of nuclear energy are seldom bigger than the

doses received in the Co-60 incident, it means that chronic

radiation is usually always beneficial to humans.


15/40

15

A radiological incident in Taiwan revealed chronicradiation is always beneficial to humans-6

8. The beneficial health effects of radiation observed in the

Taiwan incident was coincidental to the theory of Dr. T.D.

Luckey and his complete Dose-Response Curve: 100

mSv/y is optimum to human health, and 10 Sv/y is still in

the hormetic range if received in a continuous manner.

9. The fact that chronic radiation is always beneficial to

humans was discovered by a group of independent and

knowledgeable scientists their reports were published in

many international conferences and journals.


16/40

16

Most radiation is chronic radiation andbeneficial to humans

1. In nuclear power plants, and related facilities, usually

equipped with safety design and shielding, nuclear

workers and public can receive only chronic radiation.2. The doses of chronic radiation received by nuclear

workers and the public would be never higher than 50

mSv/y, therefore it is always beneficial to them.

3. Populations living in the high natural backgroundradiation areas always have lower cancer mortality.

4. Beneficial effects of chronic radiation should be accepted

by scientists, communities and regulation authorities.


17/40

17

Out of control radioactive source is still risky

1. The health effects of chronic radiation from Co-60 incident

in Taiwan were repetitively observed beneficial to humans,

but incidents during which Co-60, Cs-137 or other isotope

sources come out of control can nevertheless be harmfulby causing acute radiation, and they even could kill people.

2. There were quite a few people killed in out of control

incidents in Mexico, China, Brazil, and in Thailand.

3. A big out of control incident of Co-60 occurred in Mexico1984, but no people were killed and the contaminated steel

bars shipped to USA were shortly identified and recovered.

4. The out of control incident in Taiwan was a unique case to

show the true health effects of radiation.


18/40

18

The health effects of radiation from theChernobyl accident-1

1. The Chernobyl accident was the source of both acute

radiation and chronic radiation,

2. The Chernobyl accident was described to be acatastrophe, and it frightened people everywhere in the

world; but it was also a good opportunity to observe the

health effects of both chronic and acute radiation.

3. The meltdown of highly radioactive fission productsreleased high doses of radioactivity abruptly into the

reactor hall. As a result, 31 firemen and workers received

high doses of acute radiation in a short time, similar to

the acute radiation received by Hiroshima bomb victims.


19/40

19

The health effects of radiation from theChernobyl accident-2

4. The radiation received in Chernobyl accident continued

over a longer period of time than Hiroshima and

consisted of not only gamma, but also beta and alpha.

The dose rate was about 1 Gy/hr on April 26, 1986, highenough to kill people.

5. When fission products dispersed and deposited on large

areas of ground, highly diluted in space and decayed over

time to one tenth every seven-fold time lapses, it woulddecrease to about 1%, 10 mGy/hr, only 49 hours later .

6. So that, within a few days after the accident, the initially

dangerous (on site) acute radiation from fission products

became chronic radiation, and beneficial to the public

(off site) and even to recovery workers (on site).


20/40

20

The chronic radiation from the accident isharmless-1

1. 200,000 Russian workers were engaged in the

decontamination process and received an average dose

of about 100 mSv, followed-up by the International

Chernobyl Project (ICP) under the supervision of theIAEA and WHO.

2. The ICP predicted 150 leukemia deaths in the ten years

after the accident, based on LNT model. But none of

such results were observed and reported in the decadeafter Chernobyl, at the conference co-sponsored by the

EC, IAEA and WHO, held in Vienna in 1996 7

3. There were also no such results described in UNSCEAR

2000 annual report to the General Assembly.


21/40

21

The chronic radiation from the accident isharmless-2

4. These reports meant that emergency workers and the

evacuated public suffer no excess solid cancer deaths,

though they had received quite increased amounts ofradiation.

5. A severe nuclear accident like Chernobyl could only harm

only few workers in the reactor hall. It could not harm

workers and the public outside the power plant.6. Both reports indicated highly increased numbers of

thyroid cancer incidences observed among the children,

but no proper control cohort for exact comparison of

thyroid cancer deaths of the children under the ages of 18.


22/40

22

Most radiation from accident is chronicradiation and beneficial to people-1

1. Russian specialists from the National Science and

Medical Academy followed the health results of the

workers with their own RNMDR system, and thesummary report sent to IAEA as a letter to the IAEA

BULLETIN editor ( IAEA BULLETIN 42/4/2000). They

found that cancer deaths among the emergency workers

were statistically lower than the control group of the

general public: 48 leukose cases verified among the

180.000 emergency workers in 14 years (1986-2000).


23/40

23


2. Assuming Russian workers in working age had the same

spontaneous leukemia mortality of the Japanese of the same

age (the cancer of total population is usually found similar

for males in the ages of 20-50), the spontaneous leukemia

deaths of the workers should have been about 118

(180,000/86,572x162 x14/40 =118). Only 48 were observed.

3. And assuming they had a similar cancer mortality as the

population in Taiwan: 200 persons/100,000 person-years(ages in 34-64), and leukemia in about 2.6% of all cancers,

The Russian workers number of leukemia should be at least

131 (200/100,000 x 180,000 x 0.026 x 14 = 131). But only 48

were observed.


24/40

24


4. Even if all 48 cases of leukoses meant leukemia death, it

would still be lower than expected for Russian workers.

5. The lower cancer death rate described in the Russian

paper was attributed to the healthy worker effect and

better medical care.

6. What do healthy worker effect and better medical

care mean ? If these could be clarified as not dominant,

or the cancer deaths of the workers were statisticallysignificant, it could be concluded that the chronic

radiation from Chernobyl accident is beneficial to the

emergency workers, and to public in the fallout areas in

the world.


25/40

25

Follow-up study of Chernobyl workers revealed

chronic radiation also beneficial-1

1. 65,905 emergency workers with external doses averaged

in 100 mSv were followed by the Russian Academy of

Medical Science and reported in 2001 HPJ.

2. The report indicated that the death rate of Chernobylworkers was 0.6-0.9, lower than the general public death

rate of 0.82.

3. The cancer mortality of the workers in 1998 was 110

persons /100,000 person-years, and the total cancerdeaths were 515 observed in 8 years (1991-1998).

4. There was no comparison with Russian public reported.

Assuming the workers had same cancer deaths as the

Japanese, the cancer deaths should be about 1102

(65,905 / 86,572 x 7244 x 8 / 40 = 1102)


26/40

26


chronic radiation might be also beneficial-2

5. Assuming the workers ( in ages of about 36-66) have the

same spontaneous cancer mortality as the general

Taiwan population, i.e. 200 persons/100,000 person-

year, the cancer deaths of the workers should have beenabout 1054 ( 200 /100,000 x 65,905 x8 =1054)

6. 515 cancer deaths among 4995 total deaths in 8 years,

was only 10%, seemed too low, compared with most

countries of about 25 %. It should be over 1000.7. Peter Fong predicated in his paper to the Chernobyl

conference after one decade in 1996: 3,000,000 cancer

deaths might be prevented (not officially disclosed).


27/40

27


chronic radiation might be also beneficial-3

8. The study by the Russian Medical Academy indicated

also the lower mortality might be attributed to

the Healthy worker effects and the incomplete data

collection. If these uncertainty factors could be

clarified as not dominant, the health effects of chronic

radiation from accidents should be globally recognized.

9. A nuclear accident might be only harmful to the workersinside the reactor hall, but beneficial to the workers and

public outside the reactor. The public should therefore

not fear nuclear accidents.


28/40

28

Conclusion and remarks-1

1. Chronic radiation differs from acute radiation and was

always beneficial to humans in the Taiwan observations.

2. The cancer mortality induced to humans by acute

radiation is hard to discern from the spontaneous

cancers, which are often in big number and have long

latent period; but people have a high cancer death rate,

so as the chronic radiation could strongly protect from it,

it could be easily identified in an epidemiological study.3. The incident of the Co-60 contamination has incidentally

indicated that chronic radiation could effectively prevent

against cancers, somewhat like a vaccine.


29/40

29


4. There was no evidence indicating that hereditary defects

could be caused by acute radiation; but chronic exposure

to radiation could prevent the defects.

5. The beneficial health effects of chronic radiation

observed in Taiwan was limited to the low LET gamma

radiation to whole body exposure. High LET radiation

from radioactive material or internal contamination of

Alpha and Beta also have beneficial effects observed inanimal tests.


30/40

30


6. Atomic bomb explosion in Japan produced also big

quantity of radioactive substances (fission products), but

evaporated immediately to the stratosphere, and became

global fallout, then gradually deposited on the ground in

the world, which is also known as chronic radiation, and

beneficial to people.

7. Dr Peter Fong ever studied the fallout from the US

atmosphere nuclear tests which did not increase but

prevent millions of cancer deaths of Americans.


31/40

31


8. Chronic radiation exposure to the workers and the public

from nuclear power plants is similar to the radiation

exposure to the residents in the Co-60 contamination in

Taiwan, only in smaller doses, so that it is surely alsobeneficial to them.

9. People receive the natural background radiation every

day, and people in higher natural background areas often

receive higher doses than the nuclear workers, so thatnatural radiation is essential to human beings.


32/40

32


10. The public in the vicinity of nuclear power plants, should

not fear radiation, but welcome it, even in case of

accident.

11. Governmental radiation protection measures should not

be strictly conducted based on LNT model, and nuclear

energy should be considered as the safest energy.

12. A nuclear accident could occasionally occur, only its

acute radiation could harm a few workers, and theycould be avoided with some reasonable procedure.


33/40

33


13. Cancer deaths and hereditary defects are disastrous and

miserable sicknesses, it is now known that it could be

prevented by chronic radiation in proper doses.

14. Numerous animal tests in many countries indicate that

dose rates > 1mSv/hr were beneficial to the animals. And

authors in our study have purposely tested the health of

mice with dose rates >1 mSv/hr which showed also

healthy results to mice.


34/40

34


15. The incident of Co-60 contamination in Taiwan showed

that many residents living in 1 mSv/hr apartments in

1983 are still healthy.

16. This paper tentatively suggests


35/40

35


18. Many studies indicated beneficial health effects of

chronic radiation could be useful in cancer therapies,

enhancement of immune system, activation of gene p53,

against diabetes, AIDS, for pain relief, etc. Such studiesare valuable to human beings, should be further studied.


36/40

36

Recommendation-1

1. The findings in the Co-60 incident could be regarded as

more important than the findings obtained in the atomic

bomb explosion in Japan, but they need more studies by

the international scientists and communities, especiallyon the mechanism of the beneficial effects, and

communicate the entire world of the results to the

medical and nuclear energy applications.

2. From the experiences obtained from the incident of Co-60 contamination, and the beneficial effects observed in

the Chernobyl accident, the conventional radiation

protection should be revised for elevating application of

nuclear energy.


37/40

37

Recommendation-2

3. This paper tentatively recommended the 1mSv/hr and

1 Sv/y as the acceptable hourly and annual dose rate limit

for the nuclear energy workers and the public. The 50

mSv as the optimum annual doses to people,

4. The emergency plans for the nuclear reactor accidents

and for out of control of radioactive sources of course

should be also revised.

5. As cancers and hereditary defects are miserable sicknesses,the medical scientists and communities should design

appropriate radiation irradiators, and use the optimized

doses in preventing these miserable sicknesses


38/40

38

Profile of the authors (I)

W.L. Chen

Ph. D.

Director, Department of Medical Radiation Technology,National Yang-ming University; Head, RadiationProtection Department of AEC, and former Head, HealthPhysics Division of INER

Y.C. LuanSenior Scientist and Manager of Radiation Protection,NUSTA; consultant to NBC Society, and former Manager,Radioactive Waste Management Plant and Manager,Cobalt-60 Irradiation Plant of INER, AEC

M.C. Shieh

Ph. D.

General Secretary, NUSTA; Professor of National Chung-Kung University, and former Manager, UraniumConversion Project of INER, AEC

S.T. Chen

MS

Senior Scientist and Head, Nuclear Reactor Engineering,NUSTA, and former Director, Nuclear EngineeringDivision of INER, AEC

H.T. Kung

MS

Senior Scientist and Nuclear Material Manager, NUSTA,and former Manager, Nuclear Fuel Fabrication Plant ofINER, AEC


39/40

39

Profile of the authors (II)

K.L. Soong

Ph. D.

Senior Scientist, NUSTA, and former Senior Scientist andLeading Scientist, Geology and Mineralogy ResearchProject of INER, AEC

Y. C. Yeh

Ph. D.

Secretary General, Chinese Nuclear Society; Senior

Scientist, NUSTA, and former Director, Analysis Center ofINER, AEC

T.S. Chou

Ph. D.

Head, Radiation Research Group, NBC Society; Professorof Feng Chia University, and former Head, ChemicalEngineering Division of INER, AEC

S. H. MongMS

Head, Protection Research Group, NBC Society; former

NBC consultant to Saudi Arabia, and Commandant, ArmyNBC School, Taiwan

J.T. Wu

M.D.

Biology Consultant, NBC Protection Society, Taiwan;Professor of Pathology, School of Medicine, University ofUtah, USA, and Medical Director, Special Chemistry andReagent Development Laboratory at ARUP


40/40

Profile of the authors (III)

C.P. Sun

Ph. D.

Board member of NBC Protection Society, and AssociatedProfessor of Social Risk Analysis, National Chiao-TungUniversity.

W.P. Deng

Ph. D.

Associated Professor, Biological Material Institute, Taipei

Medical University. And former Associated Professor,Graduate Institute of Biological Material, HarvardUniversity, USA.

F.M. Wu

Ph. D.

Professor of Pathology and Director of Animal TestingCenter, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University,Taipei

M.L. ShenPh. D

Professor, Biometry Division, Department of Agronomy,National Taiwan University, Taipei

The Health Effects of Radiation

Documents

Transcript of The Health Effects of Radiation