July 25, 2016
To: EPA
RE: PAG Letter on Move to Increase Radioactivity in Drinking Water
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Notice: Draft Protective Action Guide for Drinking Water after a Radiological Incident
From: Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar, Longmont, Colorado, http://envinfo.org/
To Whom It May Concern:
I strongly oppose the increase of already too high allowable amounts of radiation in the drinking water or any other water. Everyone in the US is already exposed to way too much radiation from past nuclear accidents, nuclear weapons production, nuclear weapons testing, nuclear accidents, nuclear waste disposal sites and all the accidents in those locations, nuclear experiments such as linear accelerators, cell phone towers, cell phones, high electrical power lines, radar, depleted uranium all over the place, and ionospheric heaters such as HAARP. The ongoing accident at Fukushima is killing the plankton and the entire fuel cycle of nuclear energy and other nuclear technology is causing climate heating and is causing more and more methane to melt and enter the atmosphere. The present China Syndrome at Fukushima has also contributed to depletion of ozone in the upper atmosphere and allowing more and more harmful UV rays to reach people on earth.
The radiation drinking water standards MUST NOT be increased. To increase the levels will cause great loss of life and even further dumbing down of human IQ.(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7) Every nuclear energy plant releases harmful radiation into the atmosphere, land, and water. This is especially true when nuclear fuel is periodically changed and the reactor cap is taken off to allow the old fuel to be removed and the new fuel loaded into the core. All reactors much be shut down, but especially the old reactors. Increasing the radiation levels allowed during a nuclear accident will only encourage reactor owners to falsify safety tests and allow extremely dangerous old reactors to keep running because the reactor owners would not be so responsible for allowing much higher radiation levels in drinking water during a nuclear accident. If there are much higher levels of radiation in drinking water, there are sure to be extreme exposures to the air and land as well. Nuclear power plants are only built to last 20 years. This is an extremely expensive throwaway. But, of course, all the nuclear waste can’t be thrown away, but will plague future generations, if there are even any future generations left after all the irresponsible people have even allowed nuclear technology to exist.
I will now discuss 3 issues. A) There is no such thing as radiation hormesis, B) Internal exposure to radiation (which includes drinking water) is much, much more lethal than exposure to external radiation, C) the extremely huge variation in the specific activity and lethality of various radionuclides and their biological pathway and accumulation in nature and in humans.
A) There is no such thing as radiation hormesis
Radiation has many different harmful effects. The effects happen at the atomic level. One atom of plutonium destroys one cell from which cancer, for example, grows. One tenth of one millionth of a gram of plutonium inhaled is lethal.
“…Here are just some of the Dangers
of low-dose radiation and increasing
exposures could increase these Dangers
• Cancers
• Cell damage
• Gene damage
• DNA damage, single-strand breaks, double-strand breaks, unwinding
• Damage to the mitochondrial function and mitochondrial DNA
• DNA lesions
• DNA genomic instability
• Leukemia
• Cell mutations
• Gene mutations
• Genotoxicity
• Chromosomal aberrations
• Heart disease, diabetes, circulatory disorders, neurological damage
• Stochastic effects
• Somatic effects
• Bystander effects
• Transgenerational effects
• Tissue-reaction
• Cataracts
• Tumors
• Liquid Peroxidation
• Cell Cycle Arrest
• Apoptosis
• Aplastic Anemia and Myelodysplastic
Syndromes
“Please remember that there is so
much damage caused by radiation, and how varied each individual's response to
radiation exposure can be. This is why the best radiation-protection-model
should be to expose people and all life to as little radiation as possible….”
Many studies and many researchers have explained why there
is no nuclear radiation hormesis: Radiologist
Herbert Abrams (8)(9), https://miningawareness.wordpress
(10), Dr. Helen Caldicott (11), Dr. John Gofman
(12)(15)(25)(26)(28), Mitchel Cohen (13), The National Council on Radiation
Protection and The Department of Health and Human
Services (14), Kai Rothkamm and Markus Löbrich (16), WashingtonsBlogBarcinski (18), K. Maruyama (19),
Chris Busby (20)(24)(29), Jay M. Gould (21), Anders P. Møller and Timothy A. Mousseau
(22), Yu. I. Bandazhevsky (23), Richard R. Monson, the panel chairman and a
professor of epidemiology at Harvard's School of Public Health (27), and many,
many other expert researchers.
Dr. John Gofman:
“It is not a
question any more: radiation produces cancer, and the evidence is good all the way down to the lowest doses."
https://www.ratical.org/radiation/inetSeries/nwJWG.html
“Health Effects of Prenatal
Radiation Exposure.” by Pamela M. Williams:
“Ionizing
radiation includes particles and electromagnetic radiation (e.g., gamma rays,
x-rays). In utero exposure to ionizing radiation can
be teratogenic, carcinogenic, or mutagenic. The
effects are directly related to the level of exposure and stage of fetal
development….
“The risk of
cancer is increased regardless of the dose….”
http://www.aafp.org/afp/2010/0901/p488.html
The following are graphs which show that there is no threshold where radiation is harmless or beneficial: http://envinfo.org/index_files/image006.gif
Section A,
Fig.
14_E
Appendix
I: Dr. John Gofman, Radiation-Induced Cancer from
Low-Dose Exposure
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/RIC/index.html
http://envinfo.org/
http://envinfo.org/index_files/image008.jpg
Figure 14-F
These two graphs are from:
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/RIC/chp14.html#fig14e
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/RIC/chp14.html#fig14f
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/RIC/chp14.html
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/RIC/contents.html
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/RIC/index.html
Another figure: http://envinfo.org/index_files/image009.png
Section A, Appendix I: Aaron Datesman, A Tiny Revolution.
http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/003679.html
Another figure: http://envinfo.org/index_files/image012.jpg
Section A, Appendix III: Prof. Chris Busby: Nuclear Radiation, Kierkegaard, And The Philosophy Of Denial
Another graph can be found here:
20 Years After the Chernobyl Accident: Past, Present and Future, edited by E. B. Burlakova,, p. 71.
B) Internal exposure
to radiation (which includes drinking water) is much, much more lethal than
exposure to external radiation.
“Aspects of DNA
Damage from Internal Radionuclides,” by Chris Busby:
“…The curent radiation risk model
is insecure for internal radionuclide effects.
Massive evidence exists from epidemiology and published studies of the
effects of internal radionuclide exposures that the effects of location,
chemical binding or affinity, temporal decay patterns and transmutation of
internal radionuclides can have much greater or lethal effects on cells than
are predicted by the absorbed dose model.
These data have been published since the 1950s but ignored for the
purpose of radioprotection. Many
critical research issues should have been pursued but have not been. It is recommended that those issues and
studies highlighted in this contribution are seen as a priority.”
See also Christ Busby (30) and Dr. Catherine Euler (31).
C) the extremely huge variation in the specific activity and
lethality of various radionuclides and their
biological pathway and accumulation in nature and in humans.
Discussing the many factors that determine the lethality of a radionuclide requires information from physics, chemistry, and biology (32)(33)(43). In physics, for example, there is a huge variation in specific activities of radionuclides. Is the radionuclide natural or artificial (man-made)?(38) Is its radioactivity alpha, beta, or gamma rays. There are a large number of biological processes which determine how lethal a radionuclide in an individual or how fast the person will die.(40)(42) Radiatiion is bioaccumulative and acts in synergy with other toxins such that altogether the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. The internal pathway of a particular radionuclde will determine which cells of which organs or bones, etc., the radionuclide will damage. How long the radionuclide stays in the body as well as what happens when that radionuclide takes up the space for a nutrient needed for life.
For example, Plutonium-241 has a specific activity of 1.1E2 compared to the specific activity of Potassium-40 (8.54E-10) (34). In addition, Plutonium-241 emits alpha-particles and never leaves the body, following the pathway of iron (35). Potassium-40 has a biological half-life of 30 days. A single particle of Plutonium-241 which weighs one tenth of a millionth of a gram is lethal for everyone.(41) Most actinides (artificial radionuclides) have many times the specific activity of Plutonium-241. Bismuth-212’s specific activity is 1.5E7. Plutonium-241 is 192 billion times more radioactive than Potassium-40. Steven Starr says about Cesium-137 and Strontium-90:
“…Long-lived radionuclides such as
Cesium-137 are something new to us as a species. They did not exist on Earth in
any appreciable quantities during the entire evolution of complex life.
Although they are invisible to our senses they are millions of times more
poisonous than most of the common poisons we are familiar with. They cause
cancer, leukemia, genetic mutations, birth defects, malformations, and
abortions at concentrations almost below human recognition and comprehension. They
are lethal at the atomic or molecular level.
“They emit radiation, invisible forms of matter and energy
that we might compare to fire, because radiation burns and destroys human
tissue. But unlike the fire of fossil fuels, the nuclear fire that issues forth
from radioactive elements cannot be extinguished. It is not a fire that can be
scattered or suffocated because it burns at the atomic level—it comes from the
disintegration of single atoms….
“Highly-radioactive fission products such as Cesium-137 and Strontium-90 emit 10 to 20 million times more radiation per unit volume than does Potassium-40. So which one of these would you rather have in your bananas?...
“2 grams of cesium-137 has more
radioactivity than 20 tons of Potassium-40…” (36)
For
pathways of cesium, see (44) and (45).
Birth
defects are also varied by different biological processes. The birth defect of the cyclop child in Chris Busby’s video was caused by an
enriched uranium nanoparticle internal exposure in
the mother traveling through her body through the lymphatic system and the
placenta to the fetus late in the pregnancy causing a teratogenic
birth defect. (37)(38)
Here is a photo of a baby whose life has been destroyed by nuclear radiation: http://envinfo.org/index_files/image010.jpg
This photo is
from:
On human health on exposure to radiation
http://health-radiation.blogspot.com/
Here is another photo of a deformed baby: http://envinfo.org/index_files/image003.jpg
This photo is from
This photo is from the
website:
Iraqi Birth Defects Are Much
Worse Than Hiroshima
https://authenticenlightenment.com/2013/04/10/iraqi-birth-defects-worse-than-hiroshima/
Another photo: http://envinfo.org/index_files/image005.jpg
https://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/p/3/005/096/0a0/234b769.jpg
This
photo is from the website:
American
Tragedy - Part 3 - US Kills Soldiers, Civilians and Veterans Slowly Through
Depleted Uranium Contamination!
Please cry for all those whose lives have been and who are currently destroyed by nuclear radiation and LOWER the amount of radiation allowed in drinking water both before and after a nuclear emergency. Protect our land, water, and air. It is all we have. And we must leave the world a better place than we found for future generations. Say NO to all increases.
Sincerely,
Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar, http://envinfo.org/
(1) “…IQ DECLINE IN EUROPE - HUMAN COST OF
DEPLETED URANIUM POISON DUST FROM WARS IN IRAQ, YUGOSLAVIA, AND AFGHAN: In Ukraine few people are aware
that nuclear weapons are not just indiscriminate killers (WMD) of the targeted
ethnic Russians, but also all Ukrainians, non-citizens, Christians, Jews,
Muslims, and all living things on and off the battlefield throughout Ukraine
and across all borders. Radiation
respects no borders [FIG. 5(a)], no socio-economic class, and no religion. It is an equal opportunity killer. For example, [FIG. 5(b)] presents UK govt.
data on uranium levels detected in the British atmosphere from 1998-2003, from
depleted uranium, 4th generation nuclear weapons, and other lethal weapons used
by US and UK forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
P FIG. 5(a): RADIATION-CAUSED DECLINE IN IQ BY COUNTRY: FROM BOMB TESTING, AND IN NUCLEAR CONTAMINATED WAR ZONES: Bomb testing contamination lowered IQ in Ireland and Portugal. NATO attacks on Yugoslavia with DU caused the greatest decline in IQ in areas of heaviest fighting (darkest red areas Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, and Albania). Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan contaminated the eastern Mediterranean and US [FIG. 8]. And Chernobyl had a large effect on Eastern Europe. The U.S. has the highest rate of mental illness in the world (26% of the population) due to 1300 nuclear bomb tests the US govt. conducted in Nevada [FIG. 13].
Source: MAP: http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?70485-Interesting-Map-about-Europe-s-IQ; “Intelligence: A Unifying Construct for
the Social Sciences, R. Lynn and T. Vanhanen (2012). https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/intelligence-a-unifying-construct-for-the-social-sciences-richard-lynn-and-tatu-vanhanen.pdf
(2) Chernobyl's Subclinical Legacy: Prenatal Exposure to Radioactive Fallout and School Outcomes in Sweden, by Douglas Almond, Lena Edlund, Mårten Palme
NBER Working Paper No. 13347 (August 2007)
“Japanese atomic bomb survivors irradiated 8-25 weeks after ovulation
subsequently suffered reduced IQ [Otake and Schull, 1998]. Whether these
findings generalize to low doses (less than 10 mGy) has not been established.
This paper exploits the natural experiment generated by the Chernobyl nuclear
accident in April 1986, which caused a spike in radiation levels in Sweden. In
a comprehensive data set of 562,637 Swedes born 1983-1988, we find that the
cohort in utero during the Chernobyl accident had worse school outcomes than
adjacent birth cohorts, and this deterioration was largest for those exposed
approximately 8-25 weeks post conception. Moreover, we find larger damage among
students born in regions that received more fallout: students from the eight
most affected municipalities were 3.6 percentage points less likely to qualify
to high school as a result of the fallout. Our findings suggest that fetal
exposure to ionizing radiation damages cognitive ability at radiation levels
previously considered safe.”
http://www.nber.org/papers/w13347
(3) “…I think that it is by now beyond doubt that ionizing radiations at all levels involve serious risks to health, causing increased chances of cancers, leukemia and genetic effects. There is no threshold: a little, however little, causes some increased risk, and more causes more risk. There is no level that fails to be potentially harmful. From that point of view the existence of an official so-called "permissible level" is misleading. A "permissible level" of radiation only has meaning in cost benefit accounting; and that would mean more if the costs and benefits involved the same parties. Unfortunately they usually do not: one group -- workers, general public -- commonly bear the costs; and another, quite different group -- ownership, management, government -- shares the benefits. Having to deal with a lot of official talk about "permissible levels" of radiation at the time of Three Mile Island, I took to saying, "Every dose is an overdose." I believe that to be true as a statement, not necessarily of overt effect, but of risk.”
George Wald, “Introduction,” Secret Fallout.
https://www.ratical.org/radiation/SecretFallout/Intro.html
(4) “…By 1953, it was already known that many of the radioactive elements (called isotopes) created by an atomic explosion, once they entered the atmosphere in the form of tiny fallout particles, would contaminate food, water, and air and thus find their way into the human body. What was not widely known, however, was the extent to which these isotopes became concentrated in various body organs. Inside the body, they behaved just like their nonradioactive natural counterparts. The isotope strontium, for instance, which is similar to calcium, settled in bones and teeth. Radioactive iodine behaved like regular iodine, seeking out and concentrating in the thyroid gland, an organ which is vital in regulating the growth and functioning of the human body.
“It was in the case of iodine that some of the most alarming discoveries were made. In the early 1950s researchers found that iodine became concentrated in the milk of cows that grazed on pasture contaminated with fallout. When people drank the milk, the iodine began building up rapidly in their thyroid glands. Since the thyroid gland is small in size, the concentration was very heavy. Measurements revealed that in any given situation the radiation dose to the adult thyroid would be as much as a hundred times the external dose from the fallout in the outside environment. But far more important were the results of extensive studies conducted at the University of Michigan and published in 1960. These showed that the radiation dose to the thyroids of unborn children and infants was ten to one hundred times higher than that to the adult because of the greater concentration in the smaller thyroids. This discovery held serious implications for the health of the children of Troy. It meant that the doses to their thyroids might have been as much as a hundred to a thousand times higher than those estimated by Dr. Clark and the AEC scientists, who had only considered the overall dose from the fallout in the external environment.“ Sternglass, Ernst. Secret Fallout.
https://www.ratical.org/radiation/SecretFallout/SFchp2.html
(5) “A researcher says a drop in Scholastic Aptitude Test scores among teens in seven states is attributatlb to radioactive fallout from nuclear tests that entered their milk when they were infants.
“Ernest Sternglass, professor of radiological physics at the University of
Pittsburgh, Monday said SAT scores had dropped as muck as 18 percent in Utah,
North and South Dakota, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Colorado and Iowa….”
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=860&dat=19841030&id=n4VUAAAAIBAJ&sjid=LI8DAAAAIBAJ&pg=5401,3850540
(6) Fallout
and SAT Scores: Evidence for Cognitive Damage during Early Infancy
Ernest J. Sternglass and Steven Bell
The Phi Delta Kappan
Vol. 64, No. 8 (Apr., 1983), pp. 539-545
Published by: Phi Delta Kappa International
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20386800
http://www.sole-jole.org/13365.pdf
(7) This Is Only a Test? Long-Run
Impacts of Prenatal Exposure to Radioactive Fallout, by Sandra E. Blac.
http://www.sole-jole.org/13365.pdf
8)
“…Even low exposure to X-rays, gamma rays increases cancer risk, study
finds
Radiologist Herbert Abrams was among 16 international experts on the National
Research Council committee…”
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2005/october26/abrams-102605.html
(9) “No Safe Dose: Any radiation exposure, no matter how little, can cause
cancer”
“There is no safe level of exposure
to radiation , only legally ‘allowable’ or ‘permissible’ doses. Every federal agency that regulates
industrial releases and medical uses of ionizing radiation warns that any and
all exposure to external or
internal radiation doses, no matter
how small, increases one’s risk of cancer….
“As committee
member Herbert L. Abrams of Harvard said, ‘There appears to be no threshold
below which exposure can be viewed as harmless.’ Current
evidence suggests that any exposure to radiation poses some risk, i.e. there is
no level below which we can say an exposure poses no risk.’
National Council on Radiation
Protection
“... ‘every increment of radiation
exposure produces an incremental increase in the
risk of cancer’….
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
“’[T]he radiation protection
community conservatively assumes that any amount of
radiation may pose some risk for
causing cancer and hereditary effect, and that the
risk is higher for higher radiation exposures.
A linear no-threshold dose-response
relationship is used to describe the
relationship between radiation dose a
nd the occurrence of cancer. ... any
increase in dose, no matter how small, results in an
incremental increase in risk.’…”
http://www.nukewatchinfo.org/resources/Fact%20Sheets/NO%20DOSE%20TOO%20LOW%20-%20half%20page.pdf
10) Nuclear
Worker Study Affirms that Low Doses of Radiation are Deadly: Increased Cancer
Risk Much Worse Than Previously Believed
“…A former USNRC Counsel has commented that this 100 mSv proposal will make the
US the laughing-stock of the world. As the 100 mSv would mean extermination of
the US population …
“The new study appears to show that the risk is much, much higher, as high as
10%! After 10 years of 100 mSv this would be 100%!…
“Most nuclear workers were men, whereas radiation risk for non-leukemia cancers
is higher for women. Children and the unborn are at higher risk, as well. …
“Furthermore, the nuclear effluent “standard” excludes consideration of
accumulation in the environment and within the body!,,,
“This ignores build up in the environment; it excludes greater impacts on women
and children; it excludes internal doses. This is excess cancer deaths and not
excess cancer rates. Excess cancer rates (incidence) will be higher – probably
double.]…
“There is no threshold and no safe dose. Even by removing outliers showing more
risk (e.g. Canada), and apparently keeping ones which show less risk, the proof
remains overwhelming – there is no safe dose of ionizing radiation and increase
dose is increased risk.]…
“It is about cancer and not about other diseases induced by radiation.
“A BELIEF IN HORMESIS (aka some radiation is good for you) IS WISHFUL THINKING.
HORMESIS IS DEADLY BS. …”
(11) “…All radiation is dangerous, whether it is
natural or man-made. There is no “safe” amount of radioactive material or
radiation. ‘The U.S. Department of Energy has testified that there is no level
of radiation that is so low that it is without health risks’, reports
Jacqueline Cabasso, the Executive Director of the Western States Legal
Foundation. (full article)
Why?
“It takes only one radioactive atom, one cell, and one gene to initiate the
cancer or cell mutation cycle.” (Helen Caldicott, Nuclear madness: what you can
do). Hence, any exposure increases risk of cancer or genetic damage….”
http://www.radiationtruth.org/the-myth-of-low-level-radiation/
(12) “…The call to permit higher levels of
radiation exposure only makes sense if there is unmistakable proof that a
threshold dose must exist for the onset of irreversible radiation injury. This
means that the damage produced by doses below this threshold are flawlessly
repaired. One hidden assumption in this conjecture is that all people in the
population have equivalent immune systems and that there is not a range in
immune response between people. If such a range is admitted, then radiation
protection standards must address the most vulnerable among the population or
the value judgment must be made explicit that these people should be put at
heightened risk of radiation induced illness so that the rest of the population
can benefit. But there is a deeper problem with the conjecture of perfect
repair. Evidence exists that the immune system makes mistakes when repairing
DNA lesions. In chapter 18 of his book Radiation-Induced Cancer from Low-Dose
Exposure, Gofman presents a powerful argument for why irreversible genetic
damage, and thus cancer induction, can occur at even the lowest levels of
exposure. His argument is based on the fact that the cellular mechanisms for
repairing carcinogenic injuries do not operate flawlessly. Thus, “repair” is at
the heart of the threshold issue:…
“’The radiation-induced cancers arising from
the unrepaired lesions at low doses do not wear a little flag identifying them
as any different from cancers induced by higher doses of radiation, or induced
by causes entirely unrelated to radiation. Therefore, threshold proponents
cannot argue that the cancers arising from the lowest conceivable doses of
radiation will somehow be eliminated by the immune system or any other bodily
defenses against cancer. Such an argument would require the elimination of
cancer in general by such defenses. Instead, we observe that cancer is a major
killer (roughly 15-20% of many populations). So the proposition would lead to a
non-credible consequence, and must be rejected. This means that repair is the
key’ {6}.
“Gofman’s analysis proceeds by first
reviewing nine reputable low-dose studies: the Nova Scotia Fluoroscopy Study,
the Israeli Scalp-Irradiation Study, the Massachusetts Fluoroscopy study, the
Canadian Fluoroscopy Study, the Stewart In-Utero Series, the MacMahon In-Utero
Series, the British Luminizer Study, the Harvey Twins In-Utero Series, and the
Israeli Breast-Cancer in Scalp-Irradiation Study. These studies involved a
range of exposures from 9.0 rads down to 0.1 rad which Gofman translates into
12 tracks per nucleus per exposure down to 0.29 tracks per nucleus. His argument is that if flawless repair
exists at some threshold dose, every carcinogenic lesion will be successfully
undone below that dose and no excess cancers will be induced. However, in every
study an excess of cancers was in evidence. Gofman summarizes the conclusion of
this line of reasoning as follows:
“’1. One
primary ionization track is the least possible disturbance which can occur at
the cellular level from ionizing radiation. Without a track, there is no dose
at all.
2. Every primary ionization track has a chance of inducing cancer by inducing
carcinogenic injuries; it needs no help from any other track.
3. This means that there is no conceivable dose or dose-rate which can be safe,
unless (A) the repair system always successfully undoes every carcinogenic
lesion, when the dose or dose-rate is sufficiently low, or (B) every failure of
the repair system, at low doses, is always successfully eliminated by some
post-repair defense system.
4. Human epidemiological evidence shows that the repair system for radiation-induced
carcinogenic lesions has a failure rate even under minimal strain.
5. Observation and logic show that the post-repair defense systems (for
instance, the immune system) cannot possibly be perfect with respect to
providing a safe dose or dose-rate of ionizing radiation.
“’It
follows that there is no safe dose or dose-rate of ionizing radiation, with
respect to induction of human cancer. The risk is related to dose, right down
to zero dose..’…”
“Bibliography…
“[6]
Gofman J.W. Radiation-Induced Cancer from Low-Dose Exposure: An Independent
Analysis. San Francisco: Committee for Nuclear Responsibility; 1990. http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/RIC.
http://du-deceptions.blogspot.com/2010/06/trial-of-cult-of-nuclearists-scam_17.html
Dr. John
Gofman, CHAPTER 15
Radiation Risk by Age and Sex, from the Cancer-Rate Ratio Method
https://ratical.org/radiation/CNR/RIC/chp15F.html
13) NUCLEAR RADIATION & THE DESTRUCTION OF THE IMMUNE SYSTEM
March 12, 2011
“…This minute amount – one
trillionth of a Curie – is much less than the present reporting limit used by
the EPA of 15 picocuries per liter of milk – even though, as we have shown,
such small amounts, far below the government’s reporting requirements, have
drastic health ramifications. In fact, concentrations of one to 10 picocuries
per liter of milk occur routinely during normal operation of commercial nuclear
reactors under existing radiation standards. It therefore appears that the
existing standards for allowable radiation – based on observing the effects of
short exposures to high doses of external X-rays and gamma rays that occur in
medical uses and the direct flash of bomb-radiation – have vastly
underestimated the risk of low-level, chronic exposures. [See Figure 7]
“Figure 7. Dose-response curve:
Percent increase in mortality as a function of Iodine-131 levels.
Thus, the rapid rise of serious biological effects at very small doses followed
by a levelling-off at higher doses explains the present underestimate of
low-dose effects, which are based on a linear extrapolation from studies done
at high doses. The new studies following Chernobyl and Three Mile Island not
only point to the dangers from nuclear accidents but explain the unexpectedly
large increases of infant and total mortality rates in areas near nuclear
reactors observed in recent years.
“These results imply that the effects of
releases of radioactivity into the environment are thousands of times more
serious than presently calculated on the basis of cancer risk to adults from
short external X-rays and gamma radiation exposures….”
http://www.mitchelcohen.com/?page_id=329
(14) “Radiation Is a Carcinogen: Any Exposure Can Cause Cancer”
“There is
no safe level of exposure to ionizing radiation, only legally
"allowable" doses. Types of ionizing radiation include gamma rays,
beta and alpha particles, and X-rays emitted by radioactive elements — like the
iodine-131, cesium-137, strontium-90 and even plutonium-239 — that have been
spewed into the air and the sea in huge quantities by the triple reactor
meltdowns that began in Japan last year, and that are dispersed to the air,
water and to dump sites in smaller amounts by the everyday operation of nuclear
power and medicine.
“Legally permitted releases of radiation — from landfills, power reactors,
research reactors, production reactors and accidents — increase the so-called
"background" level of radiation to which the public is exposed. This
is allowed in spite of the fact that every federal agency that regulates commercial
or industrial releases and medical uses of radiation warns that any and all
exposure to either external or internal doses, no matter how small, increases
one's risk of cancer. The
National Council on Radiation Protection says, "every increment of
radiation exposure produces an incremental increase in the risk of
cancer."
“The Department of Health and Human
Services warns that ‘Ionizing radiation is invisible, high-frequency radiation
that can damage the DNA or genes inside the body….
Some patients who receive radiation
to treat cancer or other conditions may be at increased cancer risk.’…"
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/9901-radiation-is-a-carcinogen-any-exposure-can-cause-cancer
(15) “What
Is Factually Wrong with This Belief: ‘Harm from Low-Dose Radiation Is Just
Hypothetical — Not Proven’”, by John W.
Gofman, M.D., Ph.D.
Fall 1995
“…c.
The menace to health involves the genetic damage which is unrepaired,
unrepairable, or misrepaired. The "troublesome trio."
“d.
When the damage is complex — for example, when the opposite strands of the
double helix have been broken — pieces of the DNA double-helix sometimes end up
in the wrong place, or become permanently lost. These failures of repair are not
in dispute. …
“i. The explanation for residual,
post-repair damage is not a lack of repair-capacity or time, but rather an
inherent inability of the repair-system to fix certain complex injuries to
genetic molecules….
“o…In Gofman 1990, we developed the
method and the evidence in detail. Full presentation takes 70 pages
[http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/RIC/contentsF.html#section5]
— not suitable for a journal. We wanted to know if the threshold issue, for
ionizing radiation, could be settled. Our analysis proves, by any reasonable
standard of scientific proof, that there is no safe dose or dose-rate of
ionizing radiation.“ f. Ionizing radiation has demonstrated beyond any doubt
its ability to break both strands of the DNA double helix at the same time.
This ability has made it "famous" among toxic agents as a
chromosome-breaker. (If only one DNA strand breaks, the other strand holds the
chromosome together.)…”
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/NoSafeThresh.html
(16) “Evidence for a lack of DNA double-strand break repair in
human cells exposed to very low x-ray doses,” Kai Rothkamm and Markus Löbrich*
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
PNAS, vol. 100 no. 9 (2002) 5057–5062.
http://www.pnas.org/content/100/9/5057.long
(17)
Low-Level Doses of Radiation Can Cause Big Problems
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/04/low-level-doses-of-radiation-can-cause-big-problems.html
(18) Barcinski 1975.
M.A. Barcinski et al, "Cytogenetic Investigation in a Brazilian Population
Living in an Area of High Natural Radioactivity," Amer. J. of Human
Genetics 27: 02-806. 1975.
(19)
Maruyama 1976.
K. Maruyama et al, "Down's Syndrome and Related Abnormalities in an Area
of High Background Radiation in Coastal Kerala [India]," Nature 262: 60-61.
1976.
(20) BNES, 2002
High Risks at Low Doses
Chris Busby, Green Audit, Aberystwyth, UK
http://www.nukefreetexas.org/downloads/high_risks_at_low_doses_busby.pdf
(21)
Deadly Deceit: Low-Level Radiation High-Level Cover-Up Paperback –
April, 1991
by Jay M. Gould (Author), Benjamin A. Goldman (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Deadly-Deceit-Low-Level-Radiation-High-Level/dp/0941423565
(22 ) Anders P. Møller, Timothy A. Mousseau. The effects of natural variation in background radioactivity on humans, animals and other organisms. Biological Reviews, 2012; DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-185X.2012.00249.x
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121113134224.htm
Cited by:: http://majiasblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/on-internal-emitters.html
(23)
Radioactive Cesium and the Heart: Pathophysiological Aspects, by Yu.
I. Bandazhevsky
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/radioactivity/RadCsAndHeart2013.pdf
H/T http://www.ratical.org/radiation/Fukushima/StevenStarr.html
(24) Christopher Busby (2013).
Aspects of DNA Damage from Internal Radionuclides, New Research Directions in
DNA Repair, Prof . Clark Chen (Ed.), ISBN: 978-953-51-1114-6, inTech, DOI:
0.5772/53942. Available from: http://www.intechopen.com/books/new-research-directions-in-dna-repair/aspects-of-dna-damage-from-internal-radionuclides
(25) Radiation-Induced
Cancer From Low-Dose Exposure
John W. Gofman, M.D., Ph.D. 1990.
https://ratical.org/radiation/CNR/RIC/contentsF.html
(26)
Dr. John Gofman, A Nuclear Researcher
Who Refuses To Lie About Radiation Dangers
“…In 1970 they were concerned that there was no threshold level below which
doses of ionizing radiation to the human body were safe. By 1990 Dr. Gofman had
proved this beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, there is no safe dose.
Even one track of ionizing radiation passing through the chromosomes in a
cell's nucleus can cause damage, leading to cancer, leukemia or genetic
defects.
“Gofman and Tamplin concluded that the 'permissible' extra dose from proposed
nuclear power plants in the United States, if reached, would cause
approximately 32,000 extra cases of fatal cancer each year. (Subsequent
evidence indicates that this estimate is too low.) Though they had not opposed
nuclear power at the beginning of the research, they now proposed a five year
moratorium in constructing any new plants to allow for public debate and some
serious thinking.
“The AEC regarded these findings as heretical: such results would jeopardize
the nuclear industry. Unlike some scientists, who, to protect their careers and
programs, compromised their professional integrity, Gofman refused to dismiss
his research results. In 1972 the AEC stopped his funding and the research
project was ended. He returned to his original office at the University of
California at Berkeley and to research work on cancer and chromosomes. He also
took time to assist in lawsuits; for example, he was a lead witness in the
Karen Silkwood case and in the trial of the Downwinders in Utah in 1982-84 .
“He became increasingly unhappy that what he did not do on the health effects
of radiation did not get done. Only a small coterie was doing research, Rosalie
Bertell, Ernest Sternglass, Alice Stewart, and all had difficulty getting
funded. Since 1985 he has devoted his time to research and writing, and in
reply to the many trial-related requests from lawyers, activists and others,
Gofman says "When enough people wake up so that a lot of people are doing
research and writing on the health effects of radiation, then I'll be available
to do lawsuits." Meanwhile his papers did not get published in
professional journals, while researchers whose papers supported safe dose
levels appeared extensively. So Gofman decided to publish his own books and
papers on the subject through the Committee for Nuclear Responsibility (CNR).
Among these are his elaboration of the Law of Concentrated Benefit Over Diffuse
Injury (that diffuse injury processes get ignored when industries look at costs
versus benefits) and his specification of essential Rules for Research. …”
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/NGP/DrJohnGofman.html
(27)
Study: No Radiation Level Safe
June 29, 2005
"…’The scientific research base shows that there is no threshold of
exposure below which low levels of ionized radiation can be demonstrated to be
harmless or beneficial," said Richard R. Monson, the panel chairman and a
professor of epidemiology at Harvard's School of Public Health….”
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-no-radiation-level-safe/
(28) Section A, Appendix I: Dr.
John Gofman, Radiation-Induced Cancer from Low-Dose
Exposure http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/RIC/index.html
(29) Professor Busby's presentation -
European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR) Radiation Risk:
the New Era Begins.
http://www.euradcom.org/images/rigapresentation.pdf
(30) Chris Busby
http://www.amfir.com/AmFirstInst/Symposia/Fukushima/Experts/Busby/Chris_Busby_index.html.
(31) Dr. Catherine Euler, Document: NRC-2015-0057-DRAFT-0140
Comment on Fr Doc # 2015-15441
http://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1523/ML15239A858.pdf
with attachment ECRR 210 Recommendations of the European Committee on Radiation Risk
(32) Toxicological Profile for Radon, APPENDIX DOVERVIEW OF BASIC RADIATION PHYSICS, CHEMISTRY, AND BIOLOGY
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK158792/
(33) Breakthrough
Cancer-Killing Treatment Has No Side-Effects, Says MU Researcher
New chemistry
could cure human cancers when funding is secured, April 03, 2013
http://munews.missouri.edu/news-releases/2013/0403-breakthrough-cancer-killing-treatment-has-no-side-effects-says-mu-researcher/
(34) Specific Activities
http://www.iem-inc.com/information/tools/specific-activities
(35) Cellular contamination pathway for plutonium,
other heavy elements, identified, August 26, 2015 by Julie Chao
“…Research
led by Berkeley Lab's Rebecca Abergel, working with
the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, has found that
plutonium, americium, and other actinides can be transported into cells by an
antibacterial protein called siderocalin,
which is normally involved in sequestering iron….”
http://phys.org/news/2015-08-cellular-contamination-pathway-plutonium-heavy.html
(36) https://ratical.org/radiation/Fukushima/StevenStarr.html
(37) Chris Busby: Cyclop child and the cause of congenital anomaly and cancer
in Iraq
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_KW9ntBU_8&feature=player_embedded
|
|
http://www.thecbdf.org/en/cbdf-news/34-press-releases/96
(39) 3. How can different types of ultraviolet radiation affect health?
- “3.1 Do natural and
artificial UV radiation present different health risks?
- “3.2
What are the health risks of UVA, UVB and UVC radiation?”
http://copublications.greenfacts.org/en/sunbeds/l-3/3-health-effects-uva-uvb-uvc.htm
(39)
[Measurement and evaluation of natural and artificial UV radiation]
(40)
The Interaction of Nuclear Radiation with Matter
(41) More Dangerous than Uranium?
http://www.livescience.com/33127-plutonium-more-dangerous-uranium.html
(42) Cell Damage Expressed as a Health Problem
https://ratical.org/radiation/NRBE/NRBE8.html
reprinted with permission from
No Immediate Danger, Prognosis for a Radioactive Earth, by Dr Rosalie Bertell
(43)
Hazardous isotopes
http://www.geigercounter.org/radioactivity/isotopes.htm
(44) Direct accumulation pathway of radioactive
cesium to fruit-bodies of edible mushroom from contaminated wood logs
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep29866
(45)
Excretion of Cesium Through Potassium Transport
Pathway in the Gills of a Marine
Teleost