nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

‘Low level’ ionizing radiation, and the history of debate about its effects

From Hiroshima to Fukushima to You, Dale Dewar,  4 July 2024

“……………………………………………………………………………………………………. Humans have lived with natural radiation for thousands of years – has it caused damage?

There are two distinct examples of natural radiation causing cancer: radon, largely in basements, and skin cancers from cosmic rays.

Cosmic rays were discovered in 1912 by an Austrian physicist, Victor Hess. He went up in a balloon and measured the ionizing radiation as he ascended and found that it was three times higher at 5300 meters elevation than at ground. Others discovered that cosmic rays were largely made up of protons (89%) and alpha particles (10%).

Alpha particles are stopped by skin, beta particles pass just through the skin and x-rays and gamma rays pass completely through a human body. This would make x-ray and gamma rays seem to be the most dangerous as they leave a trail of ions in their passage but if the particles become internal (by eating or breathing) they are up to 20 times more dangerous. 

When any of these particles or rays interact with anything including biological matter, they cause ions. Sometimes the damage can be repaired, sometimes it cannot, and the cell dies or replicates the damage. Sometimes the damage affects the very process of replication itself.

This is what happens when a tumour is formed. A cell “goes wild” and doesn’t know when to turn off its growth.

If radioactive dust is inspired or eaten, the release of radioactivity occurs in the body. If it is radium dust, for example, the release of radioactivity continues for as long as the tiny bit of radium is present or 16,400 years (the half-life of radium x 10). The skeletal remains of the “radium girls” will still be radioactive for 16 millennia!

In 1927, an American, Hermann Muller was able to show the effect of radiation (he used x-rays) on genetic material. He had no doubt that it produced mutations in succeeding generations and remained a staunch defender of radiation protection measures and was opposed to atmospheric nuclear tests[iv].

To answer the question, how dangerous is the radiation that we call “background” radiation, the radiation that we cannot avoid? Some European researchers compared the incidence of cancers in children who lived in areas with low background radiation (0.70 mSv) to those who lived in areas with higher background radiation (2.3 mSv). Every tumour marker studied was higher in the children with the higher background radiation.[v]

Why do we know so little about radiation’s danger to health?

The nuclear industry has a singular interest in keeping populations ignorant. It continues to market nuclear energy as “safe” when no nuclear power plant can be operated without release of radiation in the form of tritiated hydrogen gas. By the time that Japan has released all its tritiated water (from Fukushima) into the Pacific Ocean, there will be no “unexposed” population with which to compare cancer rates.

In 1962 Dr. John Gofman was recruited by the US Atomic Energy Commission to head a biomedical unit. He was told that “the AEC was on the hot seat because a series [of atmospheric atomic bomb tests] had clobbered the Utah milkshed[vi]with radioiodine. And they have been getting a lot of flak. They think that maybe if we had a biology group working with the weaponeers at Livermore[vii], such things could be averted.”

The recruitment came with a very generous budget – 3 million dollars (almost three trillion dollars in 2020 dollars). John surrounded himself with scientists and technicians along with an outstanding colleague and Nobel laureate, Arthur Tamplin. 

His first task as the chair of the biomedical unit was to squash a research paper[viii] by Dr. Harold Knapp that concluded a one hundred fold increase in the amount of radiation received from fallout by the people who lived in the downwind areas.  Gofman and five other experts reviewed the data, asked technical questions and concluded that the research was scientifically sound and ought to be published.

The Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) balked,” We’ve told these people [in the fallout zone] all along that it’s safe and we can’t change our story now.”

Gofman’s committee remained firm.

It was clear that Gofman was not a lapdog hireling. When his department could not support the “Plowshares Project”[ix], the use of atomic bombs for “good”, they became known as the “enemy within”. Gofman thought that they were being teased and it was all in fun but this was the beginning of his demise as a go-to person for the AEC.

In 1969, Dr. Ernest Sternglass published research papers claiming that up to three hundred thousand children might have died from radioactive fallout from atmospheric bomb testing. It received popular coverage in Esquire under the title “The Death of all Children”. John’s colleague Arthur Tamplin re-calculated the data, and his result was an estimation of four thousand. Unfortunately, the AEC was still deeply displeased. The only answer they wanted was zero, that is, no children affected.

The Atomic Energy Commission had been promoting a “safe threshold” of radiation below which no health effects could be detected. A safe threshold made it possible to expose servicemen to atomic bomb tests, for workers in nuclear power plants to receive yearly doses of radiation and for people living near nuclear power plants to receive regular discharges of radiation. Drs Gofman and Tamplin estimated that the cancer risk from radiation was twenty times as bad as the most pessimistic estimate previously made.[x] Not only did they conclude that the risk was high, they also concluded that there was no safe amount of radiation and that it could be assumed that there was some risk all the way down to zero.” They presented their research at the Institute for Electrical Electronic Engineers (IEEE) meeting in October, 1969. A month later, John was invited to give the same paper to hearings convened by Senator Muskie. 

Their research was picked up by the Washington Press. Their bosses in the AEC made a decision and started rumors. John heard that he “didn’t care about cancer at all and that he was trying to undermine national defense”[xi]. (He had already resigned his directorship of the laboratory but remained as a research associate.) Dr. Tamplin’s research staff was fired.

When John was called before the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, a Congressional committee, he and Arthur reviewed all the data they could find. They concluded that “as a matter of fact, we’d underestimated the hazard of radiation when we’d given the Muskie testimony”. They wrote fourteen more research papers. John’s main research was now into chromosomes and their response to radiation. He applied elsewhere for funding to continue, including the Cancer Society but research funding had dried up. The AEC restructured its biomedical unit; it had discovered that doctors and health researchers were hard to control. 

At the same time, two scientists with the Union of Concerned Scientists revealed that AEC didn’t know if the cooling system for a type of reactor worked. The credibility held by the AEC became questioable. 

The government abolished it and created two new agencies: ERDA (Energy Research and Development Agency) and NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission), the former to oversee research and the latter to regulate the industry.

Drs John Gofman, Arthur Tamblin, and Harold Knapp were harassed, ridiculed, and sidelined because their research showed that radiation affected health. The industry didn’t stop there. Drs. Linus Pauling, Alice Stewart, Ernest Sternglass and Hermann Muller suffered similar fates. The US desire for nuclear arms required nuclear power plants. Nuclear radiation had to be safe…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………  https://ionizingradiationandyou.blogspot.com/

July 21, 2024 Posted by | history, radiation, Reference, secrets,lies and civil liberties | 2 Comments

Overwhelming ICJ Ruling against Israeli Occupation Highlights Need for UN Action

The US government’s use of the veto must be shamed and condemned. The UN General Assembly must assert the will of the world.

SAM HUSSEINI, JUL 19, 2024,  https://husseini.substack.com/p/overwhelming-icj-ruling-against-israel?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=201840&post_id=146793552&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=9zi1x&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

The International Court of Justice ruled today: the State of Israel has the obligation to make reparation for the damage caused to all the natural or legal persons concerned in the Occupied Palestinian Territory;

the State of Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is unlawful;

the State of Israel is under an obligation to bring to an end its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory as rapidly as possible;

the State of Israel is under an obligation to cease immediately all new settlement activities, and to evacuate all settlers from the Occupied Palestinian Territory;


  • all States are under an obligation not to recognize as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of the State of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by the continued presence of the State of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory;
  • international organizations, including the United Nations, are under an obligation not to recognize as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of the State of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory; and
  • the United Nations, and especially the General Assembly, which requested the opinion, and the Security Council, should consider the precise modalities and further action required to bring to an end as rapidly as possible the unlawful presence of the State of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

See video and background via here.

The UN Security Council has been prevented from action by the US (and British) veto.

As I have argued, the General Assembly must act, especially using Uniting for Peace. See my piece: “‘Uniting for Peace’ is Next Step in Invoking Genocide Convention Process to Protect Palestine.”

This is a major organizing challenge to people around the world; to get as many countries as possible to back as strong action as possible against Israel’s crimes.

Some resources are in my piece, above. Another key is action should be in NYC in front of the UN and various missions to the UN.

July 21, 2024 Posted by | Israel, Legal | 1 Comment

Never Forget Julian Assange

https://youtube.com/watch?v=5ZLbFkv7I4k%3Fsi%3DxaWn6P4KAxhG1pM_

SCHEERPOST, JULY 19, 2024

Although Julian Assange is free and home in his native Australia, his story and decade-long suffering at the hands of the U.S. government must never be forgotten for the sake of the survival of the First Amendment. In this episode of the Scheer Intelligence podcast, host Robert Scheer is joined by Kevin Gosztola, who runs The Dissenter newsletter and has been reporting on the Assange case and whistleblowers in the U.S. for more than a decade. Together, they underscore the significance of the Assange case and delve into the details explored in Gosztola’s recent book, “Guilty of Journalism.”

Gosztola makes clear one of the main points of the whole ordeal, which is the inconsistency in the U.S.’s interpretation of its own laws. “The First Amendment and the Espionage Act are in conflict in this country. You can’t reconcile the two, at least the way that the Justice Department wants to use the Espionage Act against people who aren’t even just U.S. citizens. They’re trying to apply U.S. law to international journalists,” Gosztola told Scheer.

The U.S. response to the internet age and the powerful journalistic revelations of Assange and WikiLeaks was to criminalize such actions, sending a clear message: anyone attempting to blow the whistle or expose the U.S. government’s crimes would face severe punishment, including the use of the Espionage Act, which could imprison someone for life.

“Unlike Daniel Ellsberg, [Chelsea] Manning didn’t have to sit there at a Xerox machine making copies. [She] just sent the copies of the documents to WikiLeaks, and then WikiLeaks had all these files that they could share with the world,” Gosztola said.

Despite the online journalism revolution, many in the media space still remained quiet throughout the  Assange debacle both because of their ties to government officials and their lack of professional rigor. Gosztola posed several questions to them:

“Where were you? Why weren’t you doing the investigations to uncover these details? Why did this WikiLeaks organization come along and reveal these details about Afghanistan, the Iraq War, the nature of US foreign policy? Why do you accept that all of this information that was classified should be classified?”

TRANSCRIPT – ……………………………………………………………………………. ,  https://scheerpost.com/2024/07/19/never-forget-julian-assange/

July 21, 2024 Posted by | civil liberties | Leave a comment

Shiny New MP’s Fizzingly Push For More Nuclear Waste – Hotter the better! And a Complaint to Advertising Standards – Standards? What Standards!

  BY MARIANNEWILDART,  https://mariannewildart.wordpress.com/2024/07/18/shiny-new-mps-fizzingly-push-for-more-nuclear-waste-hotter-the-better-and-a-complaint-to-advertising-standards-standards-what-standards/

Well we are now awash with new shiny MPs pushing the “clean” “green” nuclear myth and falling over themselves to write fizzingly enthusiastic letters “urging” the new Labour government to “deliver” new unlicensed untested nuclear crapola which the public would be paying for before during and well after any electricity production. Meanwhile Sellafield is bursting at the seams with nuclear wastes which keep on coming – nuclear wastes whose only “solution” is to “decommission” ie disperse, dump, incinerate and forget, make room for more.

How have we come to this – it has taken a lot of effort on the part of the industry and pro nuclear governments from Thatcher to Blair and now Starmer and a lot of forgetting on the part of mainstream environmental NGOs who were the ‘green’ conscience of the people and started out with fierce unequivocal opposition to nuclear but somehow got inveigled into demanding “climate jobs’ with no anti-nuclear caveats giving the now “climate friendly” nuclear industry exactly what it wants.

I wonder how the following adverts [on original] which were in local press over June will be viewed by humanity in future years, or by aliens?

Westinghouse the front end of the industry with its “clean” “climate friendly” uranium fuel and Sellafield, the arse end of the industry with its sponsorship of the “Pride of Cumbria Awards” the Shame of Cumbria is palpable with every radioactive particle that washes back from Sellafied’s radioactive sewers with the tide.

Full Page adverts over consecutive weeks in local press

Anyway more in hope than in expectation of Advertising Standards actually doing its job and making a ruling against breathtaking greenwashing by the most dangerous industry, here is a complaint – also sent to the Westmorland Gazette and Westinghouse on July 8th (no reply from either).

I would like to make a complaint about the advert run in the Westmorland Gazette (and Whitehaven News?) for Westinghouse.

The advert was produced on the same page (on consecutive weeks) with an advert for Sellafield “Proud to be sponsoring the Pride of Cumbria Awards 2024″”.The Westinghouse advert claims that its products: Nuclear Fuel, AP1000 reactors and assisting Sellafield in decommissioning, are “clean” and “carbon free.”

This can be easily refuted as falsehood.

The nuclear fuel produced by Westinghouse at the Springfields site has been burned in nuclear reactors across the UK (and abroad) since the mid-1940s.

Clifton Marsh Landfill

Some of the many waste streams from the manufacture of nuclear fuel are dispersed to the River Ribble and Clifton Marsh Landfill although in January 2022 “the Clifton Marsh low level waste landfill site, operated by Suez, stopped accepting consignments of radioactive waste for disposal. As most of the solid radioactive waste from Springfields is disposed at Clifton Marsh, this has significantly affected routine waste management operations on site. Together with ONR we have discussed and reviewed SFL’s contingency plans to manage waste in the short term, which includes temporary accumulation of radioactive waste on site, improvements to waste characterisation and alternative disposal options. It was anticipated that Clifton Marsh would become available for disposals during the second half of 2022, although this has not yet occurred,” Environment Agency report . Decommissioning Plans Include Incineration of Radioactive Wastes Three Miles from Preston by “Clean” Westinghouse are proposing an incineration plant on their Springfields site just 3 miles from Preston for ” a large, refractory lined oven designed to treat a wide range of low and intermediate-level radioactive materials.” The feed into the incinerator would include European radioactive wastes of up to 3 tonnes a day. Countries such as Germany have now rejected new nuclear on health, safety, climate and financial grounds but still have wastes to dispose of would be keen to use Westinghouse’s new incineration plant.https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/New-UK-waste-treatment-facility-planned#:~:text=Plans% 20to%20jointly%20develop%20a,for%20the%20European%20nuclear%20market.

River Ribble

“The Ribble estuary near Preston receives radioactive substances from liquid effluent, discharged directly from the nearby Springfields Fuels Ltd site, and also transported down the coast from the Sellafield Ltd site via the Irish Sea. Estuaries are complex environments, influenced by both the marine tidal processes and the freshwater input from rivers. Some of the radioactive substances eventually become deposited in sediment in the estuary and on the nearby salt marsh.” …”The amount of shielding provided by boat hulls varied from almost none in a small pleasure boat, to 50 percent in a medium sized houseboat. Thick, dense clothing materials like rubber boots reduced the dose received from beta radiation by around 80 percent, wax jacket by 20 to 40 percent, while thin, less dense materials like woollen jumpers did not provide any protection” Environment Agencyhttps://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7c323240f0b674ed20f75e/scho0211btkg-e-e.pdf

“Carbon Free”

The latest carbon emissions report for the Preston Springfields site by Westinghouse is 38,617 tonnes for 2019. This is the equivalent of 20,000 cars on the road. https://westinghousenuclear.com/media/5kulvl03/springfields-carbon-reduction-plan.pdf?ver=d5dd1Fr giH03Wqky98f_fA%3D%3D

The uranium fuel rod wastes from Westinghouse end up at Sellafield in Cumbria. The carbon footprint for looking after Westinghouse’s burnt uranium fuel rods last year was, according to Sellafield, 600,000 tonnes of CO2. This is far higher than all the emissions generated by all vehicles using the M6 through Cumbria every year according to Cumbria Action for Sustainability’s figures (CaFS give nuclear a free ride excluding figures despite their gargantuan C02 footprint)

AP1000 reactors – Bankruptcy, Crime and Failed Reactor Coolant Pumps

The advert states “Our AP1000 plant is setting operational records in its global fleet and is ready for deployment in the UK.” Yes it is setting operational records in being the most expensive, and fault ridden reactor to date causing Westinghouse to go into bankruptcy. “By 2016 Westinghouse began to grasp the scope of its dilemma, according to a document filed in its bankruptcy: Finishing the two projects would require Westinghouse to spend billions of dollars on labor, abandoning them would mean billions in penalties. Westinghouse determined it could not afford either option.” It chose Chapter 11 Bankruptcy. https://www.reuters.com/article/world/how-two-cutting-edge-us-nuclear-projects-bankrupted-westingho use-idUSKBN17Y0C7/ Alongside this were charges of Westinghouse executive with dozens of crimes including ” felony counts including conspiracy, wire fraud, securities fraud, and causing a publicly-traded company to keep a false record.”https://thebulletin.org/2021/08/us-attorney-details-illegal-acts-at-construction-projects-sealing-t he-fate-of-the-nuclear-renaissance/

Westinghouse’s “global fleet” is largely in China where AP1000 reactor coolant pumps have failed forcing shut down of the reactors. https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/latest-news/electric-power/031419-us -designed-chinese-nuclear-reactor-forced-to-shut-by-pump-defect

Scientists in China are concerned enough to have provided “environmental radiation impacts assessment for the hypothetical accident in Haiyang nuclear power plant” saying that “the impact of east wind in August will mainly affect the west area of HYNPP, but it also has an impact on Northeast China, the Korean Peninsula region and Kyushu, Japan. The research results are aimed at supporting emergency decision-making of nuclear accidents and improving nuclear emergency response capabilities in surrounding areas.” https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0149197020301153?via%3Dihub Former US nuclear regulator Arnie Gunderson has suggested that the AP1000 deployed in the UK could cause a catastrophe that would be “like Chernobyl on steroids.” https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/nuclear-expert-arnie-gundersen-warns-of-cherno byl-on-steroids-risk-in-uk-from-proposed-cumbria-plant-10109930.html

Clearly Westinghouse’s claim to be “clean” and “carbon free” is false.

yours sincerely

Marianne Birkby

on behalf of Lakes Against Nuclear Dump

July 21, 2024 Posted by | spinbuster, UK | Leave a comment

Absent but not missed: No mention of nuclear in King’s Speech

 https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/absent-but-not-missed-no-mention-of-the-n-word-in-kings-speech/ 18th July 2024

The UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities could not help but notice that the first speech made by King Charles III at the State Opening of Parliament (17 July) was nuclear free as His Majesty was spared having to utter the word.

By tradition, the Sovereign reads the speech, written for him by Whitehall officials and signed off by Ministers, to a combined gathering of Lords and MPs. This sets out the legislative programme for the coming Parliament. Clearly with the return of a new Labour Government, elected with a huge majority, Ministers are keen to get on and exercise their mandate and the speech was brimming with forty proposals for new legislation[i].

On energy there was an emphasis on meeting the urgent 

On energy there was an emphasis on meeting the urgent challenge of climate change whilst reducing customers’ bills through a ‘clean energy transition’, but His Majestry was notably not called upon to extole nuclear energy as a means to do so so; instead the speech referenced the need to ‘accelerate investment in renewable energy, such as offshore wind’ by creating a new vehicle Great Britain Energy which will be publicly owned and headquartered in Scotland. Nuclear was thankfully nowhere to be seen, seemingly stll on its summer holidays[ii].

Interestingly, the Background Briefing Notes issued to accompany the publication of the speech by Number 10 also makes no reference to nuclear.[iii]

Also interestingly, Ed Miliband shortly after his arrival at the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero issued a statement as Secretary of State to his staff – this too makes zero reference to nuclear as a component in the fight to achieve Net Zero.[iv]

Nuclear then appears late for the party, as per usual, or may even have been excluded from the invite list.

For it is notable that whilst Labour’s energy manifesto makes much of getting new nuclear projects at Hinkley and Sizewell ‘over the line’, extending the lifetime of existing plants, and backing new nuclear including Small Modular Reactors by the end of the government’s first term in 2030, mention of any of this has been noticably absent in the government’s recent pronouncements

The NFLAs hope that Ministers on being appraised of the huge costs and massive challenges of delivering a new nuclear programme has quietly opted to go for the common sense approach of choosing cheaper, practicable and achieveable renewables to deliver truly green energy, energy security, lower bills and Net Zero. Fingers crossed.

July 21, 2024 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

80 CANADIAN ORGANIZATIONS CALL ON FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO RESCIND APPOINTMENT OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY AGENCY PRESIDENT.

Ottawa, 17 July 2024 .-  www.nuclearwastewatch.ca 

Over 80 civil society organizations from across Canada are speaking out and calling on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Governor General Mary Simon to rescind their recent appointment of Mr. Pierre Tremblay, a long time senior nuclear industry executive, as President of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC).

In a joint letter citing conflict of interest and failure to adhere to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) guidelines, the groups -a range of organizations that include in their ranks scientists and retired nuclear officials- also call on the Federal Government for an urgent reform of the CNSC and nuclear governance in Canada.

Mr. Tremblay has been a long-time senior business executive at Ontario Power Generation (Canada’s largest nuclear operator and contractor of nuclear businesses), reported co-owner of a private nuclear business involved in the Plutonium trade, and most recently president of AECOM Canada Nuclear Services -a key contractor for two questionable projects expected to report billions of dollars to the nuclear businesses involved, and impact populations for centuries: a nuclear waste dump (“Near Surface Disposal Facility”) by the Ottawa river and a project to abandon high-level nuclear waste underground in Northern Ontario, both of them expecting CNSC licenses.

The groups also call on the Federal Government to take the opportunity to initiate a long-needed reform of the CNSC, which has often been described by observers as an “industry-captured regulator”.

The request notes that the CNSC has a communications branch with 60-plus staff but no dedicated human health and environmental protection branch, and has not turned down a single nuclear industry application in more than a decade. It has also actively lobbied to weaken impact assessment legislation to exclude a range of nuclear reactors and processing facilities.

Mr. Tremblay’s appointment follows other appointments to the Commission of industry insiders, and two troubling assessments of the CNSC’s performance by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) -a June 2024 follow-up to an initial 2019 IAEA mission highlighted several problem areas; despite the CNSC’s positive spin on the IAEA missions, the findings are a cause of deep concern for independent observers and experts.

Given the CNSC’s often-stated priority and legal mandate to protect the environment and the health of Canadians, the groups are requesting the Federal Government consider recruiting CNSC senior ranks from within the health and environmental protection communities, including perhaps Environment and Climate Change Canada and the federal Health Portfolio.

The signatory organizations note that the appointment contravenes both IAEA guidelines and the Federal Government’s own guidance on the independence of regulatory bodies, and compromises the public’s expectation of neutrality, objectivity and independence of Canada’s nuclear regulatory body and reinforces the public perception of industry capture of that body. Rescinding the appointment would be a significant step towards a much-needed reform of the CNSC and towards restoring public trust in that critically important agency.

Quotes: The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is supposed to be a neutral body, carefully safeguarding the health of the Canadian public and the environment from the risks associated with the use of nuclear energy. Senior executives from the nuclear industry should be disqualified from positions at the CNSC.” – Dr. Ole Hendrickson.

“Having a nuclear business executive whose companies have pushed for questionable projects placed in charge of the very agency that would now regulate and approve them, is an obvious conflict of interest” – J. P. Unger, science writer and policy analyst. “The Government should abandon any pretense of having a watchdog and true regulator for nuclear matters -or carry out its urgently needed reform.”

July 21, 2024 Posted by | Canada, politics | Leave a comment

History of the medical profession’s role in illnesses and death caused by nuclear radiation.

From Hiroshima to Fukushima to You, Dale Dewar,  4 July 2024 “…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Are we still questioning the safety of ionizing radiation? Nuclear industry leaders are delighted to remind me that physicians are the leading causes of the radioactive “burden” that most people carry.

Inadvertent research in medicine

What is less well known is that the medical profession has inadvertently conducted research on radioactivity and, after the fact of the exposures, discovered correlations of injury with radioactivity. Only a few are listed here:

1.    Radiation-Induced Meningiomas:

In the early 1900’s until after the discovery of topical anti-fungals[2] in the late 1950’s, the treatment of choice for fungal or yeast infections of the scalp was irradiation, especially for Jewish children planning to immigrate to Isreal. The technique exposed the scalp to 5 – 8 Gy to the scalp, and 1.4 – 1.5 Gy to the surface of the brain. Initially it seemed like a safe thing to do.

But then reports of somnolence (sleepiness) lasting from 4 – 14 days in 30 of 1100 children occurred. By the 1930’s side effects included atrophic changes to the scalp, epilepsy, hemiparesis, emotional changes and dilatation of the brain’s ventricles.

The absolute death knell to the practice occurred in 1966 when University Medical Center (New York) published a study showing a dramatic increase in cancers among those irradiated. An increase rate of psychiatric hospitalizations was also noted.

Studies continue to roll in – the latent phase for meningioma is approximately 30 years but metastatic tumours may take over 40 years to develop. No one irradiates scalps for ringworm now.[xvii]

2.   Treatment of tuberculosis using chest fluoroscopy:

Between 1925 and 1954, one of the therapies for tuberculosis was collapse of the lung followed by x-Ray fluoroscopy. More than 2500 of these patients were followed for 30 years. Increases in the rate of cancer of the breast was not seen until about 10 to 15 years after first exposure[3]. There were 147 breast cancers in the treated cohort compared to 113.6 in tuberculosis patients that were not treated with fluoroscopy. The researchers concluded that younger women were more likely to develop cancer and that the risk of developing cancer remained high for their entire lives.

The fluoroscopic and x-ray doses were known. Another finding from this study was that fractionated doses had the same risk of developing cancer as the single total dose.[xviii]

3.   Irradiation of the thymus gland and subsequent breast cancer

Young children normally have large thymus glands. With the advent of chest x-rays in the 1920’s, this large thymus was viewed with suspicion. Pediatricians feared that a large thymus could lead to respiratory problems. Until 1953[xix]irradiation of the thymus was done to decrease its size.

The rate of breast cancer among woman who were so treated as children was three times that of those that were not treated. The cancers occurred when women were in their early 30’s, more than 25 years after irradiation.

Since the amount of radiation given to the thymus was quite low, researchers have become concerned about the rising tendency for CT scans of the chest either for diagnosis or treatment. Their results “underscored the importance of limiting radiation exposure in the youngest children as much as possible.”

4.   CT scans of children’s heads following injuries.

Like many physicians wishing to comfort parents whose child had a concussion, I was pleased to be able to refer the child to a CT scanner when one became available in 1996. We all slept better at night thinking that a normal CT meant that the kid’s brain was ok.

Maybe we should not have.

A Canadian study of children receiving CTs to the head indicated that as few as four CT scans before the age of six could result in doubling the risk of leukemias, lymphomas and intracranial tumours starting about ten years later.[xx]

5, Secondary cancers resulting from radiation treatment for cancer

Until recently second primary cancers were neither given serious thought nor studied. Most patients receiving radiation did not live long enough, the 15 to 20 years after their treatment, to display the side effects of ionizing radiation.

One of the first studies on this population indicated that the number of second cancers caused by radiation was as high as one person in five.

There are many criticisms of this study not the least of which is that the size of their sample was small and, at ten years, the length of time for the development of solid cancers was short, but the researchers still concluded that “an effort toward a reduction in their incidence is mandatory. In parallel, radiation therapy philosophy must evolve, and the aim of treatment should be to deliver the minimal effective radiation therapy rather than the maximal tolerable dose.[xxi]

Arising from their work were estimations of dose associated with harm. They concluded that the incidence increased with the dose even though thyroid and breast cancers were observed following doses as low as 100 mGy and adults developed cancers following treatment doses as little 500 mGy. The risk of developing sarcoma (bone cancer) was 30.6 times higher for doses of more than 44 Gray than for doses of less than 15 Gray.

6.   Side effects of ionizing radiation tracers and heart disease.

Research has shown that the lifetime risk of developing fatal cancer from the use of a radioactive tracer as in a PET or MIBI scan is 1 in 2000, in other words, it is lower than the lifetime risk of dying in a motor vehicle accident (1 in 108).[xxii]

However, when Canadian researchers focused on their 82,861 patients who had heart attacks, they found that 77% underwent at least one cardiac imaging or therapeutic procedure involving low-dose ionizing radiation. By comparing populations, they found that for every 10 mSv of radiation there was a 3% increase in the risk of age- and sex-adjusted cancer over a follow-up period of five years. 

Because five year follow-up is very short for the development of cancers, this is an underestimate, probably by a large factor…………………………………………………………………….. https://ionizingradiationandyou.blogspot.com/

July 21, 2024 Posted by | history, radiation, Reference | Leave a comment