• Thank you for visiting the Cafe Rad Lab Forum
  • We present & discuss radiation health, science & news
  • To keep you informed about vital nuke information.
Hello There, Guest! Login Register


Nuclear energy and environmental justice
#61
Not all naturally occurring radionuclides are long-lived>

“…Naturally occurring nuclides that are not primordial

“Some unstable isotopes which occur naturally (such as 14C, 3H, and 239Pu) are not primordial, as they must be constantly regenerated. This occurs by cosmic radiation (in the case of cosmogenic nuclides such as 14
C and 3H), or (rarely) by such processes as geonuclear transmutation (neutron capture of uranium in the case of 239
Pu). Other examples of common naturally-occurring but non-primordial nuclides are radon, polonium, and radium, which are all radiogenic nuclide daughters of uranium decay and are found in uranium ores. A similar radiogenic series is derived from the long-lived radioactive primordial nuclide thorium-232. All of such nuclides have shorter half-lives than their parent radioactive primordial nuclides.

"There are about 51 nuclides which are radioactive and exist naturally on Earth but are not primordial (making a total of fewer than 340 total nuclides to be found naturally on Earth).…”

https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnK...clide.html

“The term NORM exists also to distinguish ‘natural radioactive material’ from anthropogenic sources of radioactive material, such as those produced by nuclear power and used in nuclear medicine, where incidentally the radioactive properties of a material maybe what make it useful. However from the perspective of radiation doses to people, such a distinction is completely arbitrary.”

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information...-norm.aspx

“…Uranium also occurs in air, water, and food and so is present in human tissues. The average annual intake of uranium from all dietary sources is about 13 Bq (350 pCi) (NCRP 1987b). The intake of uranium from tap water can be a small or large fraction of the total intake depending on concentrations in local water supplies (Hess and others 1985). In the United States, the typical concentration of uranium in skeleton (wet weight) is about 8 mBq/kg (0.2 pCi/kg) (NCRP 1987b). Lung, kidney, and bone receive the highest annual doses of radiation from uranium, estimated at 11, 9.2, and 6.4 µSv (1.1, 0.92, and 0.64 mrem), respectively, for US residents. The decay products of uranium, particularly radium and its decay products, are more important than uranium itself with respect to dose to humans from both external and internal exposures (NCRP 1987a).

"Radium-226

"Radium-226 and its decay products, members of the uranium chain, are responsible for a major fraction of the internal dose received by humans from the naturally occurring radionuclides (IAEA 1990). 226 Ra is an alpha-particle emitter that decays, with a half-life of 1600 y, to radon-222, which has a half-life of 3.82 d (table 2.3). The decay of 222Rn is followed by the successive disintegration of a number of short-lived alpha-particle- and beta-particle-emitting progeny. After six decay steps, in which radionuclides that range in half-life from 1.6 × 10 −4 to 26.8 min are produced, 210Pb is produced; it has a half-life of 22.3 y. This nuclide decays through 210Bi to produce 210Po, which decays by alpha-particle mission to stable 206Pb. Radium itself adds little to the gamma-ray activity of the environment, but it does so indirectly through its gamma- ray-emitting decay products….”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK230654/

Decay energy is relevant to risk assessment of, for example, naturally occurring uranium.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primordial_nuclide
 
Reply
#62
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation
From the wiki link above, the official definition of background.
Quote:In a radiation metrology laboratory, background radiation refers to the measured value from any incidental sources that affect an instrument when a specific radiation source sample is being measured. This background contribution, which is established as a stable value by multiple measurements, usually before and after sample measurement, is subtracted from the rate measured when the sample is being measured.

This is in accordance with the International Atomic Energy Agency definition of background as being "Dose or dose rate (or an observed measure related to the dose or dose rate) attributable to all sources other than the one(s) specified.[1]

Background varies from place to place so we measure it's rate and subtract it to isolate a source rate.  It makes background, all sources other than a sample, look like it's all naturally occurring and harmless.  

https://www.serv.org/?page_id=121
Quote:Nuclear apologists simply repeat, without thinking, the nuclear industry propaganda that the natural background radiation is 350 mR/yr. Based on this figure the NRC has set an “acceptable” exposure limit of 500 mR/yr to man-made sources of radiation for members of the general public and it assumes this amount to be harmless. If the NRC has included internal radioactive emitters such as radon in this 350 mR/yr total, then it must take into account micro-exposures to cell components and biomolecules. These exposures are typically very high in very small volumes/masses of tissue so they can not be legitimately combined with external whole body radiation measurements. Exposure to radionuclides such as uranium, plutonium and tritium, (byproducts of nuclear weapons tests), as well as fission products such as strontium-90, cesium-137 and iodine-131 (from the nuclear fuel cycle as well as weapons tests), and neutron activation products such as carbon-14 are internalized in the body and cause damage from within. These radioactive isotopes are clearly not natural and should not be included in the NBR total. Exposures from medical procedures should also not be included in this total.

https://www.serv.org/?page_id=59
Quote:The simple-minded approach used by the NRC to estimate risk is almost entirely based on the external fluence of gamma and beta radiation, distributed uniformly over large areas, and largely ignores the multitude of specific risks due to in-situ radionuclide incorporation. Unlike other toxic biochemical reactions which require a certain minimum concentration of reactants (toxicants) or activation energy to proceed, nuclear processes emit particles or photons with sufficient energy to precipitate a chemical reaction from the decay of a single nucleus. Thus, there is no threshold concentration for nuclear induced chemical processes as there is with chemical toxins. In fact, some radionuclides such as polonium-210, which can be present in waste fuel, are lethally toxic even in the sub-microgram range. Analyses of the radioisotope composition of the waste from each kind of starting fuel mixture, while taking into account the degree of fuel burn-up and the stage in the cooling/aging process, is essential to fully evaluate the toxicity of all the different radioisotopes in the waste fuel in the event of an accidental release. The NRC assertion that spent fuel from mixed-oxide fueled reactors is “substantially the same” as that from uranium fueled reactors shows that they have ignored the isotope composition of the waste fuel in their risk estimations.

Do we know what's in our background?  Explode a sample isotope into the air and it magically becomes natural.
"The map is not the territory that it is a map of ... the word is not the thing being referred to."
 
Reply
#63
" I dont believe the assumption is the one often assumed, which is that a lot of extra radiation was added to pre nuclear era background radiation.  (Horse, Im just using your post to piggyback my same old,...hope you dont mind. )"

Code, I hoped you would like the comment.  I can't find a lot of the sources I've read; I found a lot of file not found links.  More pro-nuke links come up in searches now.  A lot of extra radiation was added.  I would guess we've doubled that background but with no baseline measurements it's anyone's guess playing with the calculated numbers.  It's the particular isotopes we've added that is concerning.  Take the C-14, a neutron activation product naturally occurring from cosmic ray bombardment that we've released great amounts of with modern nuclear activities.  Plutonium was incidental until we started cooking uranium to produce tons of it.  New elements were created  and released with a toxicity that is vastly greater than the non-radioactive substances we encounter.   Those nicotine cigarettes weren't cancer sticks until polonium fell on their little leaves.  I can't even begin to comprehend the vast profits being made from treating cancer.
"The map is not the territory that it is a map of ... the word is not the thing being referred to."
 
Reply
#64
Greets, I hope I am not butting in, but it looks like everytime there is only inconsistant data on nuclear mishaps, but when the industry wants to get the PR on, they produce charts and graphs explicitly showng precise data.

Keep in mind Fukushima's releases are officialy more than Chernobyl's...

I haven't seen anyone officially deny it, just that Fukushima was an xray each...

"Global “background ” radiation doubled after Chernobyl nuclear accident"

"Geneticist Valery N. Soyfer, founder of the former Soviet Union’s first molecular biology laboratory, analyzed the 1986 report to the IAEA, which has since been condemned as a cover-up. Dr. Soyfer says that if only 100 million curies were vented, then world “background radiation doubled at once.”[10] This claim was unsupported by accompanying evidence, butif “background” was doubled by 100 million curies, then it was multiplied 180 times by the release of Chernobyl’s “full inventory.”

Nineteen months after the disaster, in Nov. 1987, the U.S. government officially doubled its estimate of the “background” radiation to which we are exposed every year"

"Answers are Blowin’ in the Wind"

https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com...-accident/

I think there are far to many variables in the issue of global manmade radionuclide contamination quantification to put it into a single pie chart.

"Smallest patients have highest risk from radiation accidents, doctors warn"

"Infants, children and teens who are unexpectedly exposed to radiation from nuclear power plants or improper disposal of medical equipment may be more at risk for health problems than adults, U.S. pediatricians warn.

In general, children's smaller size and developing bodies make them more susceptible to radiation poisoning and more likely to develop short- and long-term medical issues including mental health problems and certain cancers, according to a policy statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)."

https://wsau.com/news/articles/2018/nov/...tors-warn/

We could work our way down to effects on the smallest biota.

I see the omission of many parts for profit.

With yesterdays only human science being used to convey todays global results.
Humans did not create background radiation...

 
Reply
#65
Hi Jebus, glad to see you butting in. Code was throwing that pie chart at me. I was ducking and covering. I knew it was easily double and then Fuku blew. Welcome to CRL.
"The map is not the territory that it is a map of ... the word is not the thing being referred to."
 
Reply
#66
Hello and thanks for the welcome. And happy holidays everyone.

Codes intent to shed light upon the now known other facets of nuclear decay, is true

Earth, and everything on it has been living with "radiation" almost forever.

Besides, it's all still here anyways. Just sittin everywhere. In some cases literally.

Being incorporated into carbon based life forms. There's a variable mostly missed.. I didn't say human.

It is what it is that it never was till we made it what it is. It's not supposed to be increasing in the only place in the universe where it has become the least it could be over millions of years to support the only current life there is in the universe, so far...





.



.
Humans did not create background radiation...

 
Reply
#67
My position agrees with all the anti-nuclear scientists and medical doctors that have proven that there is no threshold, no radiation hormesis, and that the response to radiation exposure is supralinear. This position is the position of someone who is totally anti-nuclear, someone who is against nuclear energy, nuclear weapons and mining for either nuclear energy or nuclear weapons.

I agree with Dr. Maziar’s comment to the EPA on July 25, 2016:

http://envinfo.org/EPA%20Radioactivity%2...202016.htm

from her website which is not pro-nuclear in any way:

http://envinfo.org/

Uranium mining and health

“…Uranium is a heavy metal with the potential to cause a spectrum of adverse health effects ranging from renal failure and diminished bone growth to damage to the DNA.4,5 Because uranium possesses both chemical toxicity and radioactivity, assessing the relative contributions of each to its toxic profile is difficult. The effects of low-level radioactivity include cancer, shortening of life, and subtle changes in fertility or viability of offspring, as determined from both animal studies and data on Hiroshima and Chernobyl survivors.6,7 These effects can be delayed for decades or for generations and are not detected in short-term toxicologic studies….

“Contamination from uranium mining activity will persist for generations. The dust that blows away from the sites and the copious amounts of water used for dust control and uranium extraction all contain long-lived radioisotopes that are being disseminated into the environment. In the tailings, thorium 230 decays to produce radon gas. With a half-life of 76 000 years, it will produce radon for millennia. In the atmosphere, radon decays into the radioactive solids polonium, bismuth, and lead, which enter water, crops, trees, soil, and animals, including humans….

“It is concerning that there is currently no plan in Canada to monitor uranium in drinking water near exploration and mining sites. There is no plan to deal with the effect of mining activity on agriculture or residential populations. Uranium binds to soil and can be taken up by garden produce and forage crops.18 There are surprisingly few studies on long-term effects of uranium ingestion in humans.

“Contamination from uranium mining activity will persist for generations. The dust that blows away from the sites and the copious amounts of water used for dust control and uranium extraction all contain long-lived radioisotopes that are being disseminated into the environment. In the tailings, thorium 230 decays to produce radon gas. With a half-life of 76 000 years, it will produce radon for millennia. In the atmosphere, radon decays into the radioactive solids polonium, bismuth, and lead, which enter water, crops, trees, soil, and animals, including humans.

“In intact rock formations, radon gas is largely trapped within the rock during its decay process. In finely ground tailings, it has multiple access routes to the surface and the atmosphere. Planting over the tailings will result in the uptake of radioactive substances by vegetation which, in the usual cycle of growth and decay, will be deposited on the surface.

“The effects of all these sources of contamination on human health will be subtle and widespread, and therefore difficult to detect both clinically and epidemiologically. Incidences of cancers, fertility problems, and inheritable defects can be expected to rise with the increasing background radiation.

“Genetic effects in humans have been clearly documented.,,,”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3653646/

(pt3) Radioactivity in rain 20 000cpm / sq. meter Toronto Canada!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDSpCxjZ2D8

This reading was made post-Fukushima in 2011.

!!!ALERT!!! 62 TIMES background radiation, Saint Louis Mo 4/15/11
5:30 pm Saint Louis Rain at 62 times background!

http://pissinontheroses.blogspot.com/201...ation.html
Another reading post-Fukushima.

Fukushima Nuclear Accident Recorded in Tibetan Plateau Snow Pits

“The β radioactivity of snow-pit samples collected in the spring of 2011 on four Tibetan Plateau glaciers demonstrate a remarkable peak in each snow pit profile, with peaks about ten to tens of times higher than background levels. The timing of these peaks suggests that the high radioactivity resulted from the Fukushima nuclear accident that occurred on March 11, 2011 in eastern Japan. Fallout monitoring studies demonstrate that this radioactive material was transported by the westerlies across the middle latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere….”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4319914/
 
Reply
#68
“…the Environmental Research Department, SRI Center for Physical Sciences and Technology in Vilnius, Lithuania reported in the Journal of Environmental Radioactivity:

“Analyses of (131)I, (137)Cs and (134)Cs in airborne aerosols were carried out in daily samples in Vilnius, Lithuania after the Fukushima accident during the period of March-April, 2011.***The activity ratio of (238)Pu/(239,240)Pu in the aerosol sample was 1.2, indicating a presence of the spent fuel of different origin than that of the Chernobyl accident.
“(“Pu” is short for plutonium.) Fukushima is 4,988 miles from Vilnius, Lithuania. So the plutonium traveled quite a distance. Today, EneNews reports that a fuel fragment from Fukushima has been found in Norway:
“Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions, Atmospheric removal times of the aerosol-bound radionuclides 137Cs and 131I during the months after the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant accident – a constraint for air quality and climate models, May 2012: Hot particles (particles that carry very high radioactivity, e.g., fragments of the nuclear fuel) were present in the FD-NPP plume….”

https://www.globalresearch.ca/nuclear-fu...pe/5380746

Fukushima nuclear fuel fragments found in Europe — 10,000+ km from reactors — Plume came directly from N. America — Hot particles a “significant part” radioactive release — Quickly spread over entire hemisphere — Film shows core material on Norway air filter (PHOTO)

https://web.archive.org/web/201606040649...rway-photo


https://nuclear-news.net/2014/05/07/nucl...hot-parti/

Gundersen: This video “confirms our worst fears” — Scientist: Reactor core materials found almost 500 km from Fukushima plant — 40,000,000,000,000,000,000 Bq/kg — Can travel very, very significant distances — Hot particles found in 25% of samples from Tokyo and Fukushima (VIDEO)

https://www.democracynow.org/embed/story...saster_man
 
Reply
#69
lol. I would like to humbly add another part mostly missed in radiation dose assesment to the general population of bipeds.

Dose, she comes and she goes. Is this the XRay we all got?

https://opendata.socrata.com/Government/.../yqd5-rjuc

Is there a background dose for I-131?

It is astounding to me for the medical waste exposures to be spoken as and included into backround dose now.

Is there a way to know the absolute dose humans received on average before humans started continuously contaminating the planet with short lived fission products and grossly contaminated the environment with long lived manmade radionuclides?
Humans did not create background radiation...

 
Reply
#70
(12-24-2018, 01:21 PM)Jebus Wrote: https://opendata.socrata.com/Government/.../yqd5-rjuc

Is there a background dose for I-131?

Jebus, You make a great observation there. We should know the background rate of each radionuclide. Lumping everything into one general background rate hides the newcomers that cause the most damage.

probably better to say we need to know the baseline rate of each radionuclide to know how each has contributed over the years.
"The map is not the territory that it is a map of ... the word is not the thing being referred to."
 
Reply
#71
Fundamental Health Physics

External Emitters are mitigated by Time, Distance, and Shielding.

Internal Emitters are just a matter of Time.

I think that's why they wear those tyvex suits....
Humans did not create background radiation...

 
Reply
#72
British Scientist: There’s no doubt Fukushima dwarfs Chernobyl

https://web.archive.org/web/201509240611...cers-video

Cesium-137 levels 100 times normal levels in Osaka, 350 miles SW of Fukushima — First-ever detection of cesium-134
Published: May 19th, 2011 at 4:27 pm ET
By ENENews

https://web.archive.org/web/201509250752...cesium-134
 
Reply
#73
NHK: Internal radiation exposure damages DNA — Plutonium hot particle seen in cell — Avoid touching the “death ash” (VIDEO)
Jan 22, 2012

https://web.archive.org/web/201509120546...wsubtitles
https://web.archive.org/web/201509220809...m/page/250
 
Reply
#74
MOX Scandal: Japan Times on “latest revelation of attempts to rig public opinions on nuclear power” — “Collusive ties” between gov’t and nuke industry
Nov. 27, 2011

https://web.archive.org/web/201604030213...e-industry
 
Reply
#75
Nuclear power will exacerbate climate change, not solve it

"Fairwinds 29th Dec 2018 Relicensing old nuclear power plants and building new nukes will not
resolve any climate change issues. View our well-researched film,
Smokescreen, created with data from university analyses and independent
international economic reports. Also, check out Arnie’s speech at McGill
University where he discusses how building new nuclear power plants will
actually exacerbate climate change as well as his Truthout article"

https://www.fairewinds.org/demystify//cl...the-answer

https://nuclear-news.net/2018/12/31/nucl...-solve-it/

Radiations and male fertility
Kavindra Kumar Kesari,1 Ashok Agarwal, 2 and Ralf Henkel3

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6240172/

“…RF-EMF exposure and Genotoxicity: Many in vitro and in vivo studies showed that EMF induced genotoxic single- and double-strand DNA breaks, micronucleus formation, chromosomal abbreviations, changes in gene expression, cell proliferation and apoptosis [25, 26, 94–97]. Such changes are responsible for genomic instability and promote tumorigenic effect in cells. We explore the genotoxic effect of RF EMF on sperm parameters and possible infertility outcome as discussed below and which is also represented in Figure 2….”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6240172/

Poisoned water and deadly dust
Posted on December 30, 2018 by beyondnuclearinternational

Navajo community contaminated by uranium suffers loss of loved ones and livestock

https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2...adly-dust/

“We do not accept anything that harms our mother Earth”

“…Every time we fight off a uranium mine, a pipeline, a fossil fuel or nuclear plant, an incinerator or nuclear waste dump, we do it for Mother Earth, our only home…”

https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2...her-earth/
 
Reply
#76
Why Is China Losing Interest In Nuclear Power?

“…Whatever the underlying cause, China has de-emphasized its massive nuclear new build strategy. We suspect the reason is a combination of slowing demand for electricity and deteriorating cost competitiveness of the nuclear plants compared to the alternatives.

“It is not a good sign when the country that that boasts one of the better construction cost records in the business steps back and says, in effect, ‘Maybe we have something better to do with our money.’ Chinese nuclear operators will, no doubt, continue to sell their wares abroad. China’ s CNNC is building two indigenous designed Hualong One reactors in Pakistan and CGN’s strategy appears to be invest only with generous subsidies from host governments like the U.K. But ultimately why would people want to buy a product that the producer can no longer reliably sell in its home market?...”

https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/...Power.html
 
Reply
#77
A Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation
Igor Yakymenko, Olexandr Tsybulin

Abstract
"This review aims to cover experimental data on oxidative effects of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation (RFR) in living cells. Analysis of the currently available peer-reviewed scientific literature reveals molecular effects induced by low-intensity RFR in living cells; this includes significant activation of key pathways generating reactive oxygen species (ROS), activation of peroxidation, oxidative damage of DNA and changes in the activity of antioxidant enzymes. It indicates that among 100 currently available peer-reviewed studies dealing with oxidative effects of low-intensity RFR, in general, 93 confirmed that RFR induces oxidative effects in biological systems. A wide pathogenic potential of the induced ROS and their involvement in cell signaling pathways explains a range of biological/health effects of low-intensity RFR, which include both cancer and non-cancer pathologies. In conclusion, our analysis demonstrates that low-intensity RFR is an expressive oxidative agent for living cells with a high pathogenic potential and that the oxidative stress induced by RFR exposure should be recognized as one of the primary mechanisms of the biological activity of this kind of radiation."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication..._radiation

GSM 900 MHz cellular phone radiation can either stimulate or depress early embryogenesis in Japanese quails depending on the duration of exposure
Article (PDF Available)  in International Journal of Radiation Biology 89(9) · April 2013 with 182 Reads
DOI: 10.3109/09553002.2013.791408 · Source: PubMed
Olexandr Tsybulin
Evgeniy Sidorik
Olga Brieieva
• Kavetsky Institute of Experimental Pathology, Oncology and Radiobiology, NAS of Ukraine
Igor Yakymenko
• National University for Food Technologies

Abstract
"Purpose: Our study was designed to assess the effects of low intensity radiation of a GSM (Global System for Mobile communication) 900 MHz cellular phone on early embryogenesis in dependence on the duration of exposure. Materials and methods: Embryos of Japanese Quails were exposed in ovo to GSM 900 MHz cellular phone radiation during initial 38 h of brooding or alternatively during 158 h (120 h before brooding plus initial 38 h of brooding) discontinuously with 48 sec ON (average power density 0.25 μW/cm(2), specific absorption rate 3 μW/kg) followed by 12 sec OFF intervals. A number of differentiated somites were assessed microscopically. Possible DNA damage evoked by irradiation was assessed by an alkaline comet assay. Results: Exposure to radiation from a GSM 900 MHz cellular phone led to a significantly altered number of differentiated somites. In embryos irradiated during 38 h the number of differentiated somites increased (p < 0.001), while in embryos irradiated during 158 h this number decreased (p < 0.05). The lower duration of exposure led to a significant (p < 0.001) decrease in a level of DNA strand breaks in cells of 38-h embryos, while the higher duration of exposure resulted in a significant (p < 0.001) increase in DNA damage as compared to the control. Conclusion: Effects of GSM 900 MHz cellular phone radiation on early embryogenesis can be either stimulating or deleterious depending on the duration of exposure."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication...f_exposure

Studies published in 2003-2005 demonstrating biological effects from
exposure to low-intensity r
adiofrequency radiation.
http://www.emrpolicy.org/science/researc...search.pdf

Causes of Lung Cancer in Never Smokers

"...Radon…
“Radon gas enters homes as the result in the normal decay of uranium in the soil beneath homes, and becomes trapped….”

https://www.verywellhealth.com/causes-of...rs-2248878
 
Reply
#78
Criminal Investigation Sought Into Nuclear Waste Handling At San Onofre

https://www.kpbs.org/news/2019/jan/02/cr...te-handli/

Beginner's Guide to Huntington's Atomic and Nuclear Legacy

“,,,Federal websites (and others) confirm nuclear barrier and processing materials, such as Uranium 235, and other radioactive by products, such as Plutonium 238, came from “recycling” of spent fuel materials from diffusion plants. The facility supplied nickel powder for use in the gaseous diffusion plants at Paducah, Kentucky and Portsmouth, Ohio. (and others). The level of enriched uranium present continues to be disputed. Federal documents state 4%; former workers have stated 97%...

” the 2014 DOL Site Matrix Report for HPP indicates that the following chemicals were present at the plant: Neptunium, Nickel, Plutonium, Protactinium, Technetium, Thorium and Uranium….”

http://www.huntingtonnews.net/161427
 
Reply
#79
The elephant in the room regarding causes of lung cancer, 70+ years of plutonium fallout from nuclear teating, bombing Hisorhima and Nagasaki, weapons testing and production, nuclear accidents and nuclear energy and waste, MOX production, transport, and use.. How many autopsies of lung cancer fatalities include searching for plutonium?

Radiat Res. 2013 Mar; 179(3): 332–342.
Published online 2013 Feb 7. doi: 10.1667/RR3054.1
PMCID: PMC3661277
NIHMSID: NIHMS460897
PMID: 23391147

Lung Cancer Risks from Plutonium: An Updated Analysis of Data from the Mayak Worker Cohort
E. S. Gilbert,a,1 M. E. Sokolnikov,b D. L. Preston,c S. J. Schonfeld,a A. E. Schadilov,b E. K. Vasilenko,b and N. A. Koshurnikovab

Abstract

“Workers at the Mayak nuclear facility in the Russian Federation offer a unique opportunity to evaluate health risks from exposure to inhaled plutonium. Risks of mortality from lung cancer, the most serious carcinogenic effect of plutonium, were evaluated in 14,621 Mayak workers who were hired in the period from 1948–1982, followed for at least 5 years, and either monitored for plutonium or never worked with plutonium. Over the follow-up period from 1953–2008, there were 486 deaths from lung cancer, 446 of them in men. In analyses that were adjusted for external radiation dose and smoking, the plutonium excess relative risk (ERR) per Gy declined with attained age and was higher for females than for males. The ERR per Gy for males at age 60 was 7.4 (95% CI: 5.0–11) while that for females was 24 (95% CI: 11–56). When analyses were restricted to plutonium doses <0.2 Gy, the ERR per Gy for males at age 60 was similar: 7.0 (95% CI: 2.5–13). Of the 486 lung cancer deaths, 105 (22%) were attributed to plutonium exposure and 29 (6%) to external exposure. Analyses of the 12,708 workers with information on smoking indicated that the relationship of plutonium exposure and smoking was likely sub-multiplicative (P = 0.011) and strongly indicated that it was super-additive (P < 0.001). Although extensive efforts have been made to improve plutonium dose estimates in this cohort, they are nevertheless subject to large uncertainties. Large bioassay measurement errors alone are likely to have resulted in serious underestimation of risks, whereas other sources of uncertainty may have biased results in ways that are difficult to predict.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3661277/
 
Reply
#80
Environmental and health effects of depleted uranium

Svetlana Zunic, L. Rakic

Abstract

“Uranium is a naturally occurring, ubiquitous heavy metal. In various chemical forms, natural uranium is found in all soils, rocks, seas and oceans. Uranium is also present in drinking water and food. Natural and depleted uranium differ in their isotopic composition, but both are a, β, γ emitters, with a dominant alpha radiation emitted during their radioactive decays. The high ionization potential is liable for alpha particles' bystander effect in the living tissues, what is the basis of early and delayed health effects of depleted uranium. In the nature, repeated releases of high amounts of alpha particles, may induce empirically unknown consequences and catastrophic phenomena, including atmosphere heating. Uranium remains radioactive for more than 4 billion of years. U-238 and U-235 are the parent nuclides of two independent decay series, while U-234 is a decay product of the U-238 series. Depleted uranium is weakly radioactive. Radiation dose of depleted uranium is approximately 60 percent of that from natural uranium with the same mass. Due to its high density, about twice that of lead, depleted uranium has several civil applications. Repeated military use of depleted uranium, i.e., approximately every four years (1991-2011) and recently in numerous military conflicts, could significantly influence the balance of all natural resources and undermine the human health inducing early and delayed health effects. The low doses (air pollution easy transferable to the remote distances from the place of explosion) and the slow doses (depleted uranium ammunition remnants can be fully oxidized into corrosion products twenty-five to thirty-five years after impact) have ensured further prolonged contribution to the maintenance of alpha particles radiation with consequent disastrous Petkau effect within the biosphere. Evolutionary adaptation of the living world that was established through millennia has been compromised with repeated nuclear disasters and use of nuclear weapons in a short period of time, for less than half a century. Some molecular mechanisms that resist radiation harm were discussed as examples of hormesis related to the Biosphere and Lithosphere-Atmosphere-Ionosphere Coupling (Zunic and Rakic, 2013). Because of its radiotoxic effect, depleted uranium has unique potential to threaten all natural resources including human society. With unrestrained military use of high amounts (thousands of tons) of depleted uranium, numerous unusual environmental physical manifestations have been recorded during last 20 years. Simultaneous monitoring revealed an exceptional parallelism between the natural phenomena in the environment and in the biosphere. Increased number of earthquakes, elevated humidity in the environment, increased number of forest fires and extreme weather events, have directed focus of our thinking to the question if periodically, artificial discharge of large amounts of ionizing alpha-particles emitted from the decay of depleted uranium that was used in military purposes can seriously misbalance the nature equilibrium conditions.”

https://www.researchgate.net/publication...ed_uranium

Depleted uranium induced petkau effect: Challenges for the future
Book · January 2016 with 4 Reads
• Svetlana Zunic, L. Rakic
o
Abstract

“The primary objective of this study is to contribute to a better understanding of the interaction of depleted uranium as a source of low dose radiation with the living world and humans in a contaminated environment. There has been increased interest in biological effects of low dose radiation after the incident in Chernobyl. Uncertainty of epidemiological studies about the health effects of low-dose radiation arises from the fact that the biological effects of low-dose radiation do not relate obligatory to DNA damage. Military use of depleted uranium (DU) for decades put the problem of low-dose radiation exposure in the spotlight. The explanation related to the limited effects of ƒÑ-emitting nuclear weapons, including DU, was based to some extent on the fact that alpha particles have a short track in air. This paradigm has changed with the realization that nano- and micro-sized particles of DU could have a global atmospheric movement. The idea about the spreading of uranium particles through air masses across the globe arose from the results of air pollution measurement. Due to uncontrolled military use of high amounts (a thousand tons) of depleted uranium, numerous unusual environmental physical manifestations were recorded in the last two or three decades. Simultaneous monitoring of natural phenomena on Earth and in the atmosphere has revealed an exceptional parallelism between the phenomena in the environment and in the living world. Our knowledge has evolved from in-vitro studies of radiation exposure to a more comprehensive understanding of unexpected and poorly understood natural phenomena, whose consequences may be achievable according to the theory of litosphere-atomsphere-ionospehere and biosphere coupling. The emission of radiation in the course of several decades due to corrosion of scattered remnants of DU armaments, which has been intensified by the repeated bombing of the regions within the range of the transfer of radioactive particles through the air, strikes a broad territory and numerous populations, and unavoidably leads to in-vivo Petkau effect. The Petkau effect is a challenge for science to declare the future health strategy with the main goal focused on minimizing the early as well as delayed in-vivo effects of depleted uranium. As inhaled air is the main source of internal contamination, further research on this topic is valuable, especially in terms of overcoming inter-individual variability. The authors propose a simple model based on apoptotic parameters and artificial network method for individualized estimation of tissue response to low-dose tobacco exposure. Non-targeted effects of radiation are time-evolving and can lead to delayed health effects, including cancerogenesis. The authors discuss the importance of an individual approach to the diagnosis and selection of appropriate therapy, based not only on the results of the expression analysis, but also on metabolic and apoptotic tissue properties. Humanity is the main subject of the authors’ study. Understanding the basic principles of cell biology and radiation interaction with living matter is supported by authentic medical data obtained from patients originating from the territories which were geographically close to each other (Serbia and Montenegro seaside, as well as Bosnia and Herzegovina, the territories of the former Yugoslavia). (Imprint: Novinka).”

https://www.researchgate.net/publication...the_future
 
Reply
  


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Unanswered Documented Environmental Impact Issues DUDe 0 31 09-18-2019, 12:21 PM
Last Post: DUDe

Forum Jump:


Browsing: 1 Guest(s)