Writer
Alex Tizon's front-page Seattle Times story of Sunday, April 28, 2002,
told of what he called a potential disaster: a dirty
bomb exploded in downtown Seattle. I shall show you that his message
and related information carried later by news sources are unscientific
and misleading.
Dirty
bombs (RDDs, radiological dispersal devices) would combine conventional
explosives with strontium,
cesium or some other
highly radioactive
isotope. These substances are used in cancer radiotherapy, the search
for oil deposits, sterilization of food, etc. Sadly, throwaway quantities
have been found. "And the al Quaeda terrorist network is reported
to have a serious interest in developing them."1
That release from The Associated Press
(AP) tells of "a recent
global conference" on dirty bombs. Investigators tested simulated
RDDs in New Mexico's desert and Russia's Ural Mountains.
Tizon had dramatized, "Who will collect the dead bodies?" and
he added, "Workers who enter the radiation zone will be exposed." People
within a mile or two of an attack, the AP report concluded, would have
to be evacuated within five to six minutes, or kept sealed indoors.
The contamination and fear of radiation poisoning "could cause
general panic and shut down sections of cities for years."2
But half a century of genuine scientific research — readily found
in any good university library — contradicts those technical writers' alarmist
conclusions.
On May 11-13, 2003, the US Department of Homeland Security supervised
a dirty-bomb drill in the south, industrial part of Seattle. Thousands
of local and state, as well as federal public-safety, health care,
and emergency personnel took part. Bioterrorist-attack drills that
didn't involve simulated dirty bombs were held in Chicago and
Washington, DC.3
In fact, on the day of an RDD explosion,
yes, rescue workers in the blast area would be exposed to risk, and
the drill exercise suggested
that parents searching for children there could also suffer exposure.
But after the first day, any remaining radiation from such a device
may not be dangerous, and may well be beneficial. See documents cited
below and the diagram. Moreover, main line "science" — as
it calls itself — is deliberately hiding this half-century of research
and lying about it.
The truth will surprise many:
- Some people
went into Hiroshima the first day after dropping of the A-bomb
when much but not all of the radiation contaminants had dissipated
through wind currents. These persons suffered less cancer, had
better
lifetime immunity, and enjoyed longer lives than people who visited
Hiroshima two or more days after the mushroom cloud, when radiation
particles had even further dissipated.4
- Early in 2000,
US government agencies admitted what close observers had already
known. Some individuals who long worked at the Hanford
Nuclear Reservation in Washington (state) and at 13 other sites
scattered around the country were seriously over-exposed, developed cancer,
and died as a result.5 They handled materials in great bulk and
with limited understanding of the risks.6
- Workers at Los Alamos
who worked in factories generating radioactive substances, who followed
appropriate safe-handling practices received,
on average, a three-fold higher exposure to plutonium than
the maximum recommended by the National Council on Radiation Protection.
People
who worked at Los Alamos in factories generating radioactive
substances
have had less cancer and better immunity, and lived extended
lives.7
- The proportion of the total number of such exposed workers
who have died has been 57% lower than in the general population, and
43% lower than among Los Alamos workers who were not exposed.8
- All
this contradicts the "solidly established concept" in
environmental health that the effects of toxic agents climb
on a continuum of biological change from undetectable effects at
the lowest
levels
of exposure to severe health damage at very high doses.
That concept is based on assumption of a straight line from low
risk at very low
dose radiation to extreme risk at very high doses. But
no test that has ever been conducted confirmed its predictions around
the lower
end.9
This linear-no threshold (LNT) theory is a logical consequence of the
widely accepted but never confirmed view that:
A single particle of radiation interacting with a single cell nucleus
can initiate a cancer;
The number of initiating events is then proportional to the number
of particles of radiation, and hence to the dose.
However, that line of reasoning ignores the role of biological
defense mechanisms that prevent the billions of potential
initiating events
we all experience from developing into a fatal cancer. "And
a substantial body of evidence now indicates that low level radiation
stimulates such biological defense mechanisms. The natural intrinsic
mutation rate is so high that we need extensive biochemical machinery
to cope with it. That machinery works better in the presence of low-level
damage from extrinsic factors, and that damage improves our health."10
Among those who choose to be aware of the past half-century's
research, this concept is revolutionizing health physics.11,12
1. "Fruit flies exposed to high levels of radiation experience
many mutations. But if first exposed to low-level radiation, fruit
flies experience far fewer mutations when later hit by high radiation."13
2. "Human lymphocyte cells previously exposed to low level radiation
suffer fewer chromatid breaks when later exposed to large radiation
doses. And this effect has been traced to production of repair enzymes
stimulated by the low level radiation."14
3. Dr. Bernard Cohen provides many further examples that demonstrate
the strong healing response stimulated by low-dose radiation.15
4. Researchers were surprised to find an inverse correlation of lung
cancer to second-hand smoking, inhaling smoke of others. More smoke,
less lung cancer.16 The nearest I have seen to confirmation of this
politically incorrect discovery: A study in BMJ by
epidemiologist James Enstrom and Geoffrey C. Kabat of SUNY
reported no significant increase
among nonsmokers who lived for decades with smoking spouses,
in coronary heart disease, lung cancer and chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease.
Other studies have disagreed.17
5. Some animal data indicate that pre-exposure to low fluorine
concentrations may provide some resistance to the lethal
effects of fluorine in fluoridated
drinking water.18
6. Giving Beagle dogs ten parts per million of DDT in their
diet improved their health.19-21
7. On April 26, 1986, the No. 4 reactor at the Chernobyl
power station exploded. About 4,400 people in Ukraine "succumbed to radiation-related
diseases contracted after taking part in the cleanup effort." High
levels of radiation constantly spewed out of the disintegrating
plant, exposing all who worked outdoors nearby.22 What
happened at Chernobyl
was not at all a contradiction of hormesis. Remember Hanford.
Hormesis proceeds from low radiation exposure, not high.
The term HORMESIS
describes such findings
A chart line relating risk of cancer to the level of radon gas in the
home, we propose, is J-shaped rather than U-shaped as others suggest.23
Unlike many a U-shaped glacial canyon, the left slope of the curve
descends much less from its peak than the one on the right, which drops
from extreme concentrations of the test substance. Radon is a radioactive
gas formed by natural breakdown of radium; it seeps up from soil and
accumulates, especially in tightly enclosed buildings.24
At "very low" concentrations of radon in the home, the
cancer risk is worse than at higher concentrations up to approximately
230 Bq per cubic meter of air, which is as far as the data extend.25
Bq per cubic meter is the standard unit of measure. At very high radon
concentrations such as in deep underground mines — the steeply
rising arm of the "J" — the risk rises into the danger
zone.26-28
The National Institutes of Health and the EPA — flouting the past
50 years' health physics research — conducted a long scare-mongering
campaign to lower household radon. Now they want to mandate "safety
standards" for radon in drinking water, as well.29
1. In this campaign, if put into effect practice and backed with huge
federal expenditures, the EPA and NIH would increase risk of fevers.30
In that way they would boost risk of crib death (SIDS). The weakened
immune systems of young mothers resulting from purposely lowering radon
exposure in the air they breathe and the water they drink, and excessively
lowering toxin exposure in the food will increase the risk of giving
birth to a SIDS-susceptible baby.
2. "Ubiquitous, ordinarily harmless household fungi and certain
microorganisms cohabit with baby in the crib [or, e.g., on sheepskin].
Consuming legally required fire retardant and other chemicals in mattress
and bedding [or chemicals ingested by sheep grazing on soils of volcanic
origin and excreted into their wool] and whipped into greater activity
by remnants of detergents and similar chemicals, these organisms generate
neurotoxic gases about 1,000 times more poisonous than carbon monoxide.
3. "Any increase in temperature of baby, mattress and bedding
makes these fungi more active; they then generate gases faster. Warming
mattress and bedding, in contact with the baby, from 98.6°F to
104°F can increase toxic gas generation tenfold or more."31,32
In its campaign to get America to spend hundreds of billions of dollars
to reduce household radon the EPA unknowingly, we believe, promotes
unnecessary illness and premature death.33
All this merits elaboration. Except in a few areas of high radon radiation,
as in certain mining areas, up to the highest levels of radon ordinarily
found in homes, higher levels of this radiation yield lower incidence
of lung cancer, less of other cancers, better immune systems, and longer
life. That was confirmed by a statistically careful study of 1,760
US counties that include 90% of the US population.34
Low-level radiation is healthful, not harmful as is generally assumed
by unknowledgeable observers.35 There is a correlation between lung
cancer and radon exposure; but the correlation is negative. Less radon,
more lung cancer. And "p" is well under .001.36,37 That
is, the probability that result could have happened by chance is less
than one in one thousand.38,39
The diagram below is from Muckerheide, James. It's time to tell
the truth about the health benefits of low-dose radiation. 21st
Century Science & Technology 2000; Summer: 43-55. Used with permission
of the publisher.
This diagram and accompanying brief summary, "Survival rates
of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma patients with and without total- or
half-body low-dose radiation," illustrate widely demonstrated
truths. It is clear that such evidence should be extensively publicized,
not ignored and hidden. And the research should be expanded, not concealed.
Survival rates of non-Hodgkin's
lymphoma patients with and without total- or half-body
low-dose radiation
_________ With total body or
half-body low-dose irradiation
_ _ _ _ _ _ Without low-dose
radiation
This is the 9-year survival
data reported by Sakamoto et al. of 23 low-dose radiation
patients and 94 control patients with similar histological
tumor grades. The survival rate of the low-dose radiation
patients is 84 percent, compared with 50 percent survival
of the control patients. The 12-year survival rate of
the low-dose patients remains at 84 percent. (Adapted
from Sakamoto et al., 1997, J.
Jpn. Soc. Ther. Radiol. Oncol., Vol. 9, pp 161-175.)
The source of much of the above, including references,
is: Radiation Facts (audio cassette), available from
Access to Energy, Arthur B.
Robinson, PhD. Dr. Robinson is President and Research Professor, Oregon
Institute of Science & Medicine. P.O. Box 1250, Cave Junction,
Oregon 97523.40 Dr. Robinson worked extensively with the late Nobel
laureate Linus Pauling, at times strongly disagreeing with him, and
has published his own pioneering research in mainline scientific and
medical literature.
· "The linear no-threshold
(LNT) concept holds that radiation at any level above zero is deleterious.
The known damaging
effects of high-dose radiation are linearly extrapolated down the dose
scale. But solid scientific evidence shows that below a radiation threshold
there is no harm and, in fact — as shown in the diagram above — health
is benefited. This relationship is known as hormesis.
· In 1963, the US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) repeatedly found lower
mortality in guinea pigs, rats, and mice irradiated at low dose. In
the 1960s-1970s, about 40 articles/year confirmed hormesis.41
· Dr. Kenneth Bogen at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory independently
compared lung cancer mortality by country from 1950-1954 for women
of ages 40 to 80 and 60 to 80 who had smoked little. He used US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) country environmental (not residential) radon
data. His study confirmed the inverse correlation between lung cancer
and radon. Applying cellular response data, Dr. Bogen's biological
model shows that the inverse relationship is consistent with known
biological responses.42
Dr. Arthur Robinson declares, "At least 20,000 people are dying
of lung cancer each year in the US who could have been saved by raising
the radon concentration of the air in their homes."43 He adds, "The
most sensible use of low-level radioactive waste is as a concrete and
insulation additive in residential homes — especially in areas
where there is insufficient natural radiation for optimum health."44
One could pay a qualified contractor to measure radon to see if the
level in the house is high enough to protect its occupants. Millions
go to Germany and Russia every year to "radon spas" for
their arthritis and asthma. Evidence suggests that after exposing themselves
to low-level radiation, about three-quarters benefit; many benefit
substantially.45
And a reliable source tells me that she and others, as tourists, sometimes
visit abandoned mines such as the Merry Widow in Basin, Montana, to
gain similar anecdotal benefits. Among other mines nearby is one known
as the Enterprise. The proprietors warn visitors to stay in a high-radiation
area of the mine only for a short time; longer could be dangerous.
This friend adds, "These American mines are very low key and
not expensive like the European mines. I think it cost $3 a day and
they have a simple campground which is also inexpensive — I liked
the feel of the place." She comments, "I think the FDA
(US Food and Drug Administration) tolerates it as a harmless populist
place as long as they don't try to get too well known or successful." But
to my knowledge, no research on such radon spas has seen the light
of day.
Why do some disagree?
· No experimental evidence of damage at low doses existed; yet, self-serving
extrapolations from high-dose data have dominated health physics.46
· Criticisms of Dr. Bernard Cohen's cited studies are totally
unfounded. There is no documented basis for scientific criticism of
his results, only general rationalizations of highly unlikely reasons
why a single study might not be valid.
· In fact, Dr. Cohen has produced not one but dozens of separate studies
that are consistent with hormesis (see his cited summary document).
Nevertheless, radiation protection interests use unfounded statements
to misrepresent to the public that Dr. Cohen's data have been
refuted.47
· "In defiance of the massive evidence, radiation-protection policy
relies on falsification of the actual science research and reporting.
Such malfeasance warrants investigation of scientific misconduct."48
Those guilty of such falsification, including the EPA in its reduce-radon
program, are promoting unnecessary suffering and premature death.
·
The people making such misstatements may regard themselves as "scientists," but
it seems they stay away from research libraries. The actual results
showing hormesis are readily available in any good university library.
True scientists seek the truth, whether it confirms their previously
formed beliefs or not.
An excellent source of further background
information for the reader. Low-Dose Irradiation and Biological Defense
Mechanisms, by T Sugahara,
L. Sagan, T. Aoyama. NY: Excerpta Medica, 1992. ISBN# 0-444-89409-8.
References
1. Hanley CJ. US and Russia measure threat from 'dirty bombs.' Seattle
Post-Intelligencer 2003; March 15,
page A6. From Associated Press.
2. Hanley CJ. U.S. and Russia measure threat from "dirty bombs." Op.
cit.
3. Eskenazi S. This week's 'terrorist attack' is
only a drill. Seattle Times 2003;
May 11; B1, B7.
4. Voelz GL, Lawrence JNP, Johnson ER. Fifty years of plutonium exposure
to the Manhattan Project plutonium workers: An update. Health
Physics 1997;73;4:611-618.
5. Wald MW. Hanford exposure admitted. Seattle Post-Intelligencer 2000;
Jan. 29: A1, A8. From The New York Times.
6. Gerber M. On the Homefront.
1992.
7. Kendall GM et al. Mortality and occupational exposure to radiation;
First analysis of the National Registry for Radiation Workers. Brit
Med Jour 1992; 304: 220.
8. Voelz GL, Lawrence JNP, Johnson ER. Fifty years of plutonium
exposure.
Op. cit.
9. Hileman B. Fluoridation of water. Chemical & Engineering
News 1988; Aug 1: 26-42.
10. Robinson AB. Intrinsic mutations. Access to Energy 1997;24;5:3-4.
11. Sugahara T, Sagan LA, Aoyama T. Low Dose Irradiation and Biological
Defense Mechanisms. Amsterdam: Excerpta Medica,
1992.
12. Calabrese EJ. Biological Effects of Low Level Exposures
to Chemicals and Radiation. Boca Raton,
FL: Lewis Publishers, 1994.
13. Muckerheide J. It's time to tell the truth about the health
benefits of low-dose radiation. 21st
Century Science & Technology 2000;
summer: 43-55.
14. Wolff S. Low dose exposures and induction of adaptation. In: Sugahara
T, Sagan LA, Aoyama T. Low Dose Irradiation and Biological Defense
Mechanisms. Op. cit.
15. Cohen BL. Test of the linear-no threshold theory of radiation carcinogenesis
for inhaled radon decay products. Health Physics 1997;
68: 157-174.
16. London Telegraph 1998; March 8. Reported in Douglass WC, Second
Opinion 1998; Aug: 7.
17. Mestel R. Secondhand smoke's risks downplayed in controversial
new study. The Olympian, Olympia,
WA. May 16, 2003. From Los
Angeles Times.
18. USPHS Toxicological Profiles on Fluorides Sec.
2. Health effects. Death. Keplinger 1969.
19. Hazeltine W. Lancet 1969;
2: 4-6.
20. Kendall GM et al. Mortality and occupational exposure to radiation;
First analysis of the National Registry for Radiation Workers. Brit
Med Jour 1992; 304:220.
21. Robinson AB. Cancer postponement with radon. Access to Energy 1997;
24; 6:1-3.
22. Seattle Post-Intelligencer 2003;
April 26. From P-I News Service.
23. Smith Lendon H, M.D., with Hattersley Joseph. The Infant
Survival Guide. Petaluma, CA., Smart
Publications, 2000. Chapter 9.
24. Hunter DJ, Hankinson SE et al. Plasma organochlorine levels and
the risk of breast cancer. New Eng J Med 1997;
337; 18:1253-1258.
25. Discarding the truth. Access to Energy.
2000 (Jan); 17; 5:3-5.
26. Kendall GM et al. Mortality and occupational exposure to radiation;
First analysis of the National Registry for Radiation Workers. Brit
Med Jour 1992; 304: 220.
27. Robinson AB. Cancer postponement with radon. Access to Energy 1997;
24; 6:1-3.
28. Bogen KT. Op. cit.
29. Discarding the truth. Access to Energy 2000
(Jan); 27; 5: 3-4.
30. Robinson AB. Access to Energy.
1999; Mar: 3-4.
31. Hattersley JG, MA and T. James Sprott, PhD. Cause and prevention
of cot death (SIDS). British Med Jour fast-reply
section, February 2003.
32. Smith LH with Hattersley JG. Victory over crib death. TLfDP 2000;
Aug/Sept 50-54, 126-131.
33. Robinson AB. Access to Energy.
1999; Mar: 3-4.
34. Bogen KT. A cytodynamic two stage model that predicts radon hormesis
(decreased, then increased lung-cancer risk vs. exposure). Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory, Univ of California, Preprint UCRL-TC-123219.
Based on data of Cohen BL. Test of the linear-no threshold theory of
radiation carcinogenesis for inhaled radon decay products. Health
Physics 1997; 68: 157-174.
35. Sugahara T, Sagan L, Aoyama T. Low-Dose Irradiation and Biological
Defense Mechanisms. NY: Excerpta Medica,
1992. ISBN# 0-444-89409-8.
36. Bogen KT. Op. cit.
37. Cohen BL. Test of the linear-no threshold theory of radiation carcinogenesis
for inhaled radon decay products. Health Physics 1991;
68: 157-174.
38. Bogen KT. A cytodynamic two stage model that predicts radon hormesis
(decreased, then increased lung-cancer risk vs. exposure). Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory, Univ. of California, Preprint UCRL-TC-123219.
(150 references).
39. Cohen BL. Test of the linear-no threshold theory of radiation carcinogenesis
for inhaled radon decay products. Health Physics 1991;
68: 157-174.
40. Radiation Facts, from Access to Energy,
PO Box 1250, Cave Junction, OR 97523: Audio cassette.
41. Muckerheide J. Op. cit.
42. Bogen K. A cytodynamic two-stage model that predicts radon hormesis
(decreased, then increased lung-cancer risk vs. exposure). Op. cit.
43. Cancer postponement with radon. Access to Energy 1997;
24; 6 (Feb.): 1-3.
44. Global Liars. Access to Energy.
1997; Dec; 25; 4: 1-4.
45. Robinson AB. Radiation Facts (audio
cassette), from Access
to Energy,
PO Box 1250, Cave Junction, OR 97523.
46. Brucer M. A Chronology of Nuclear Medicine.
St. Louis: Heritage Publications, 1990.
47. Muckerheide J. It's time to tell the truth about the health
benefits of low-dose radiation. Op. cit, page 47.
48. Muckerheide J. Op. cit.
|
