nuclear-news

Nuclear dose allowances to increase further?

While trawling the web i came upon this message on the RADSAFE comments.. No mention of Japans 100mSv/year dose allowance ..

However, there are moves to increase the dose allowance of gamma, Beta and Alpha energies even further, with no mention of internal dose allowances.. A figure mentioned in the message is O.2 Rontgen a day or 71 mSv/year.

I find it interesting that now the Nuclear Health Physicists are supporting the failed ICRP model so as to not make any bad publicity. At least that is the discussion..  Read on..

Arclight2011

Source of comment ; http://health.phys.iit.edu/archives/2013-December/039276.html

Dear RADSAFERS,

Let me at the very outset wish all of you a happy, healthy and productive New Year.

I thought it is time to discuss some of the developments in radiation risk assessment.
A  review  titled
"Evidence for beneficial low level
radiation effects and
radiation
hormesis"by Dr L E
FEINENDEGEN  published in the British
Medical Journal concluded : 

"Thus, the
linear-no-threshold (LNT) hypothesis for cancer risk is scientifically
unfounded and appears to be invalid in favour of a threshold or hormesis. This
is consistent with data both from animal studies and human epidemiological
observations on low-dose induced cancer. The LNT hypothesis should be abandoned
and be replaced by a hypothesis that is scientifically justified and causes
less unreasonable fear and unnecessary expenditure". (BJR , 78 (2005), 3–7)

Shortly thereafter, The French
Academy of Sciences chaired by Prof.  Tubiana came to similar conclusions. Several
papers appeared since then. Many of them concluded that LNT theory is  not supported by scientific evidence.

The French report concluded that
on the basis of our present knowledge, it is not possible to define the
threshold level (between 5 and 50 mSv?) or to provide evidence for it.

A draft  summary of the DOE funded Low Dose Radiation Research
Programme  over 10 years from
1998-2008  concluded 

"To date, these data have
had major impact on understanding the biological processes triggered by low
doses of radiation but require additional research, development of methods of
using the data, and communication before such data can impact radiation
standards" 

The quest for a scientifically
supported model continues. Every one fervently hopes that the model may provide
evidence for a quantitative value for a threshold dose. 

What is the  way forward.? Fukushima has added another
dimension to the discourse. Evacuation  caused over 1000 deaths

In his article titled "Commentary on Fukushima and Beneficial
Effects of Low Radiation" Dr Jerry Cuttler made a persuasive and
thought provoking  statement and a recommendation

. "The ICRP’s concept of
radiation risk is wrong. It should revert to its 1934 concept, which was a
tolerance dose of 0.2 roentgen (r) per day based on more than 35 years of
medical experience".

I
request  RADSAFERS to please respond to the following:

1) How many radsafers  are willing to accept Dr Cuttler's
recommendation?
2) My take is to keep the current
ICRP recommendations in tact. Fear of radiation arises from the improper and
incorrect use of  concepts. ICRP earlier
and UNSCEAR now  has cleared the air. A
well focused  public information
programme  must be tried to  allay radiation phobia.

We should unambiguously state
thus:

"There is substantial  and convincing evidence for health risks
following high dose exposures. However, below 5–10 rem (which includes
occupational and environmental exposures), risks of health effects are either
too small to be observed or are nonexistent." (Part of the position
statement by the US Health Physics Society)
Do you agree with this proposal?
3) Dose levels at which any emergency
has to be handled   should be decided in advance;  all stake-holders must participate in that
exercise. 

Is that acceptable?

January 3, 2014 - Posted by arclight2011part2 | Uncategorized