• 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


Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rad Dose Research: New
#1
Modelling the effective dose to a population from fallout after a nuclear power plant accident - A scenario-based study with mitigating actions https://journals.plos.org/plosone/articl...ne.0215081

This may be the best science I've seen in a long time, but, I haven't read it all, yet and look forward to seeing what the medical community has to say.
Pia
just pm me if needed.
 
Reply
#2
from the paper on dose estimation mentioned above

"this model is unique as it allows quantification of both the external and the internal effective dose using only a fallout map of 137Cs after a nuclear power plant accident. The cumulative effective dose over a period of 50 years following the accident per unit 137Cs deposited was found to range from 0.14 mSv/kBq m-2 to 1.5 mSv/kBq m-2,"

Yes, this dose estimate effort could have value.   

I note that the cumulative effect dose is given in mSv/kBq.    Milli-Sieverts in turn are in units of joules of energy per kilogram of tissue. I suppose its common knowledge that those arent REAL joules of energy, they are guesses of equivalency.   The algorithm also includes mitigating efforts, an uncertain and questionable factor.*  The guess of biological danger, given in the not-actual units of joules per kilo, is derived largely from Hiroshima bomb victims and is accused as being incorrect;

"The Lifetime Study of Japanese A-bomb survivors is a monumental fraud which deliberately excludes controls for being 'too healthy', writes Chris Busby. Put them back in, and you find that low levels of radiation cause over 100 times more cancer than they are 'meant' to, creating a silent global massacre of the innocent. "
https://theecologist.org/2016/dec/15/gen...r-industry

-------------------------------

'a new complex scientific algorithm can now measure happiness.  A childrens smile is 2.65 joules per kilogram'
Sound funny?   Sieverts are not a real measure of radiation exposure or biological effect and the energy deposition is not the actual energy of exposure nor is the energy necessarily relevant to biological response.   Most scientists believe Sieverts are accurate, however the European Committee on Radiation Risk has shown the sievert system is wildly incorrect for nuclear fallout exposure.   The system does have some value for medical x-rays and such.   

This is a major failure of agreement in radiation science.  The importance is that the dose systems involving the sievert are what legally allow nuclear to exist and determine the outcome of legal proceedings, for example the sailors on the U.S.S. Reagan that was dosed with Fukushima fallout.


If indeed the European Committee on Radiation Risk is correct, it should underscore the misleading conclusions of radiation measurement and public rad networks!  This is understandably a difficult reality for people to come to terms with;  we tend to believe in 'hard data' 

-----------------------------------------
footnotes!

*for my taste, this study has an anthropocentric bias.  An attempt to estimate human impact from a nuclear disaster which only models an assumed accumulated dose by people naturally ignores the impact on nature at large.  This in turn will not accurately reflect the true impact on people.  For example, many livestock farms as far away as Wales were shut down for many years because of fallout from Chernobyl.  This impacted the livelihoods of the people, obviously, with attendant emotional and physical repercussions.  An extreme example is that if you crash the ecosystem, even if people have relocated away from the disaster, their lives will be drastically affected.  Then there is the question of nature itself;  Prof Mousseau discovered there is a complex ecological effect which kills over a million birds per year from Chernobyl and certainly this has an ethical relevance. 

*its perhaps notable that the foundation of this study is based on coefficients  per Falk R, " Cesium in the Swedish population after Chernobyl: internal radiation. whole-body counting."  and It should be compared to studies from Yuri Bandazhevsky for congruence, for example

*an example of anthropocentrism and impact of questionable mitigation factors is given in the paper, i.e. hunters spending all their time outdoors have about three or four times the radiation exposure.    There is quite a difference between being bitten by one rattlesnake, or four rattlesnakes!    This higher level more accurately represents the impact on nature at large 

*and finally, some interesting excerpts from the paper;
"In this model, only generic parameters for adults and the effective dose to adults (age ≥15 y) are considered"

"Permanent relocation (HR, LR) was parameterized by completely removing the external component" (more than one study found biological effects from Chernobyl reached as far as the Americas)

"The short-term contributions from cloud shine, inhalation and transfer of radioiodine through dairy milk have not been considered here, as these components are to a large extent avoidable, and are negligible for the long-term effective dose provided that early phase mitigating actions are carried out as recommended"

"Estimates of the effective dose rate to a population must also take into account the shielding effect of buildings and possibly snow, as well as the fraction of the day spent outdoors."


"the Swedish Radiation Protection Authority and the Swedish Defense Research Institute who, in the initial phase of the Chernobyl fallout in Sweden, collected the detailed radiometric data that now provide a valuable source of information for modelling and dose predictions."
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
#3
Hi Code, good article you posted by Busby.  Yes, there is something wrong with dose measurements from Hiroshima studies being used today.  As he said, they hold on to the flawed study to protect their bomb making.  Hopefully new studies like the one Pia posted will make a difference, but I doubt it.  Many try to bring truth to the fore but propaganda efforts still rule.  The new modeling of effective dose paper is another step in trying to find a practical way of describing the risks, especially low level doses and internal doses that the ICRP purposely left out.  New studies will help to clarify the real danger that I see in in Japanese mutated butterflies and Chernobyl dog studies.  How could they factor in genetic deformities still on the horizon for humans?  Modeling will always be incomplete but we need the better science to keep governments from sending families into contaminated areas based on old WW2 studies.
"The map is not the territory that it is a map of ... the word is not the thing being referred to."
 
Reply
#4
(04-11-2019, 07:12 PM)Horse Wrote:  Hopefully new studies like the one Pia posted will make a difference,  The new modeling of effective dose paper is another step in trying to find a practical way of describing the risks, especially low level doses and internal doses that the ICRP purposely left out. 

The study above you appear to praise as a step forward is actually based on the system that Chris Busby disparages.  As such, it is no step forward but rather a streamlined computer model that predicts the same outcome from nuclear accidents as the ICRP dosimetry it is based on;  No danger.     How can it make a difference?  How is it a step forward?  How does it describe the risks?   It could be noted that the ICRP does have dose modification coefficients for internal and specific organ contamination.   We should be clear;  the above study is based on dosimetry established by the ICRP, using the fictional Sievert, and human contamination data taken by the Swedish Defense Research Institute in the early days of the Chernobyl disaster. 

I dont have any opinion on this personally, I dont know anything about it, and have no judgement on the paper, the authors and its utility, The authors are highly qualified and probably enthusiastic about their accomplishment....just my humble guess.  But perhaps Busby's statement here fits in somehow;

 "the ICRP radiation risk model is now manifestly proved wrong, in fact it is quite embarrassingly wrong. And this matters because it's resulted in the deaths of a very large number of people. The ECRR calculation of the cancer yield of the nuclear project, if you'd like to call it that, most of the radiation released in the environment this century is in the region of millions of people, 61 million people have died as a result of cancer produced by the radionuclides released during weapons fallout mainly"

Can we even visualize the death of sixty million....and accept the role of the ICRP Sievert system in this un -acknowledged mega disaster?  I think not

And I think its pertinent to give the ECRR a good listen because there are some high level scientists there who have devoted their lives to the study of this difficult material, the science of which still awaits a complete understanding in future generations

"So what we're saying here with this is that the cancer epidemic that everybody knows exists has been caused by the exposure to these same fission products, these substances like Sr, Cs, Pu and U of course, which were generated during the weapons fallout. What all of these substances I mentioned have in common is that the doses, remember what we called absorbed doses as calculated by the ICRP are far too low to account for these cancers (and numerous other pathological conditions never traditionally tied to fallout exposure) on the basis of their model."

We should ask...how  wrong is this model, the system used in the assemblage of the above study?  In this transcription, Busby tells us its at least 300 times, or 30,000 percent if you like.  Now thirty thousand percent is an error factor that is unimaginable.  It is so far off that the dosimetry  is virtually meaningless.  Worse than meaningless because its misleading.  And we are also talking about the radiation measurements you take with geiger counters and the citizen rad networks.  If they are off by thirty thousand percent and more, then they are all but useless to estimate radiation danger.   Note this applies specifically to nuclear fallout events...man made nuclear radiation.

It is easy to dismiss this monumental information for some reason....we have our trusted and treasured geiger counter, we may think the above study is a step in the right direction etc.  We may ask...well is this verified...is the Sievert and ICRP system really off by over thirty thousand percent?
 Busby continues....and keep in mind that the above study is essentially concluding there is no danger from even the internal exposure from Chernobyl in Sweden....

"Now, there is an unequivocal proof in the error in the ICRP model. This was published in the year 2000, but it has never been cited by any of the radiological risk people, in any of their publications, they just completely ignored it. This looks at leukemia in infants, not only in Wales and Scotland, ... but it was first brought attention to in scientific and medical public, in peer review literature, that there was an increase of infant leukemia in Scotland just after the Chernobyl accident, and then also in Greece, and then also in Germany and then also in America "

Here Busby is talking about increase in infant leukemia resulting from the Chernobyl disaster.  Yes, Im trying to drill the point home with this long reply...

"We also know that in Greece it went up by a factor of about three I think, in Germany by a factor of two and interestingly in America by a factor 1.5, and in Belarus, which is nearly the only place where anyone published, it went up by quite a small amount, about 1.4, about 40%. So the effect was not dose related, but the effect was certainly there. And so using that we can see what the ICRP model predicted on the basis of the doses, we can divide it into the number of children who were actually diagnosed with leukemia in that year, in that cohort and what we got was a factor of about 300. So we're back to that number of 300. So there seems to be some error in the ICRP risk model regarding internal radionuclides of the order of 300 to maybe a thousand."

This ICRP and Sievert dosimetry is something that anti nukers cling to.  They actually LIKE the idea of a linear no threshold dose.  The real world consequences are appalling.  A virtual News Blackout of the reality of man made nuclear health damage.  In Belarus, the effect of Chernobyl;

"The average life span has come down by 10 years, the birth rate has fallen catastrophically. In 5 children only one of them is healthy, 4 children are unhealthy, it is just appalling."

Well anyway, this is quite a long post so I will stop,  But I took those quotes from this transcript

http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/Busby_vs_Valentin_fulltext.pdf

And to underscore this issue about dose and peoples strong belief in those Geiger counters and the model, the algorithm above...and maybe this is appropriate;

" I don't think you were listening to my talk about dose. All of you and the previous gentleman that was talking have been using dose as some meaningful concept. "
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
#5
typical map of soil deposition from Chernobyl fallout in Europe.  Majority is between 2000 and 10,000 bq/m. The paper or method in question says 

"The cumulative effective dose over a period of 50 years following the accident per unit 137Cs deposited was found to range from 0.14 mSv/kBq m-2 to 1.5 mSv/kBq m-2"

So for a ballpark perspective, we could take an average land deposition of Cs137 of say 10,000 bq/ m2.   Since the dose is given per 1000bq/m2, we multiply the dose by 10 and get 1.4 to 15 mSv accumulated dose over a lifetime from Cesium over much of Europe, according to the paper.  

To compare, the radiation from the normal background coming from the ground  is about .2 to .3 mSv per year.   Multiply by 50 and you get about 12 mSv accumulated dose.   Well anyway we can see that they conclude Chernobyl fallout is about as harmful as natural earth radiation.   

The total background including radon, food and cosmic rays is about 3 mSv per year.    Thats roughly 10x the natural ground radiation, so they appear to conclude Chernobyl is roughly one tenth the danger of  background radiation.    But we read from Busby that leukemia rates increased considerably after Chernobyl....even in the U.S.      This should underscore the failure of the Sievert to estimate danger from nuclear fallout, even when internal radiation is accounted for.  

[Image: li9iylz5lio21.jpg]
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
#6
Hi Code, I'm glad to see you back and feisty as ever.  I thought the paper was a step in the right direction because it was modeling more factors than are currently used.  For example, considering a farmers increased exposure compared to a city dweller.  The paper used the ICRP recommended dose numbers because that is the accepted state of affairs in the scientific community.  The paper wasn't defending the ICRP standards, but merely using those standards to express that more needs to be considered than current modeling does.  The newer modeling is useful because it will help that farmer out in the field know his risk is higher and take more precautions.  Sadly, if it's more risky for the farmer, the crop he's planted is probably more dangerous for us too.  If Dr. Busby and the ECRR recommendations ever become accepted the ECRR numbers could easily be plugged in to the new modeling system, thus it will still be useful.  This brings us back to your main argument that the ICRP grossly underestimates risk and the ECRR recommendations should be adopted.  Certainly the ICRP is wrong not to consider new science and new studies in setting the standards used by scientists and governments to determine risk factors of various radionuclides.  I don't think the problem lies with people making radiation measurements that are using the flawed Sievert.  I can argue that the problem with the ICRP is the incomplete and flawed medical studies they have used to determine risk.  It would be unethical to conduct radiation studies on people.  Radiation exposure that has been studied has mostly been due to bombing, bomb testing, and nuclear reactor accidents, situations which are not really conducive to rigorous science.  Further, industry and governments having a vested interest in using nuclear energy, have limited the available data to work with.  Fukushima is a good illustration of this.  Some radiation readings have been taken, certainly not nearly enough, but the reason we don't know the real risk has been the government forcing the medical establishment not to mention radiation exposures in statistics of death and disease.  Dr. Busby has been outstanding in providing  medical research and exposing the flaws of the ICRP dose modeling as detailed in the ECRR report.

In electronics we have a saying, it's not the voltage that kills, it's the current that kills.  Sure, it's just electricity to the public.  The claim that it's just radiation hides the effects that some radionuclides have.  I know that there is a level of background radiation composed of mostly k-40 and radon and comparing that to cesium deposition is ignoring the current that cesium has.  All radiation is not the same.  You'll perhaps find better words to describe that hazard of low levels of radio-cesium and strontium compared to that background level than I have.  Look at the large amount of contaminated land in your map.  Japan doesn't have much land mass and it's densely populated compared to the vast land mass of Eurasia. It is industry and governments that have established radiation guidelines, not the people taking the measurements or the doctors reporting on their patients.  Japan just doesn't have the land to call their once fertile areas a dead zone  and exclude it from use.  They should, but they won't.  I think we have more data from Chernobyl than we'll ever get out of the Japanese.  Maybe time will tell, that's why I mentioned the genetic mutations that haven't been factored into risk models, butterfly mutations are an indication of what's in store for humans.
"The map is not the territory that it is a map of ... the word is not the thing being referred to."
 
Reply
#7
(04-12-2019, 03:18 AM)Horse Wrote: Hi Code, I'm glad to see you back and feisty as ever.  I thought the paper was a step in the right direction because it was modeling more factors than are currently used. 

Greetings Horse

Actually, I remain neutral and open minded, casting no judgement.  The reason is I am entirely unqualified to have opinions of my own. 
 
Indeed, we see from the learning curve of radio-biology that even experts are not qualified to make firm judgments.  For example, the ICRP director Jack Valentin admitted the ICRP system is not suited for estimating fallout risk and may be off by two orders of magnitude.  A staggering failure.

You make this point "The paper wasn't defending the ICRP standards, but merely using those standards to express that more needs to be considered than current modeling does.  The newer modeling is useful because it will help that farmer out in the field know his risk is higher and take more precautions"

The paper is not defending the ICRP and other methods used to compile their algorithm, they appear to simply accept them as valid  "we believe our model is a valuable tool for long-term radiological assessment"

Radiation dose measurement and modeling is an important study.  We should know what the dose is.  The Sievert is a fictional or made up dose. The becquerel is real but does not correlate to health effects.    Busby goes so far as to say the dose is not even meaningful. We can see morbid fallout effects at radiation doses equivalent to background, which does not cause those morbid effects.   In support of the relevance of dose, I note Prof. Mousseau often sees a dose and effect relationship.  Yet his studies also reveal a complex ecosystem interaction that may make radiation in the field 8x worse than the lab.   You know, direct radiation effects arent the end of the story for fallout impact. 

You say "I don't think the problem lies with people making radiation measurements".    For sure the problem lies in the measurements, not the people taking them.  But this is not entirely true because it is more scientific to always question assumptions....the assumption that this system is correct.  It is even worse to be closed minded and stick resolutely to a system in the face of contrary evidence.  And the contrary evidence has been out there...it is not hidden, and its nearly inconceivable that people who spend their lives in that field are not aware of it.    We have yet another level where this failure of the measurement is used to support the nuke industry and belittle concerned people.   You see this in the news and in institutions.  This amounts to lies and collusion

An example of this might be this video which plays full time at Scripps I believe.  The cost of this video must be at least $10,000.  It sounds authoritative, concerned, serious....and it finally concludes there is less danger from Fukushima than background radiation.  They make the unquestioned assumption the Sievert and ICRP model is accurate. I cant say one way or the other, but some keen folks have noted this seems to be a slick public relations effort aimed at downplaying the fukushima disaster and placating the public.  

https://vimeo.com/122642785

And finally you say " I can argue that the problem with the ICRP is the incomplete and flawed medical studies they have used to determine risk.  It would be unethical to conduct radiation studies on people.  Radiation exposure that has been studied has mostly been due to bombing, bomb testing, and nuclear reactor accidents, situations which are not really conducive to rigorous science."

Chernobyl was a large radiation risk experiment.  Very qualified and serious researchers have looked at the results of that experiment...a lifetime study....and found the ICRP system a serious failure.   The people at the ICRP are certainly aware of it.   At the World health Organization, affiliated with the IAEA and ICRP, there was one of the longest running demonstrations.  Years long.    You couldn't have missed it if you worked there

[Image: 675px-Alexei_Yablokov%2C_Rosa_Goncharova...erenko.jpg]

So for my taste the problem of the ICRP and dose and studies and institutes etc is that there is a very powerful psychological underpinning.   So many institutes and the media repeat these untruths and one can hardly escape the conclusion there is a cover up.  You mentioned this about the government in Japan, not allowing a correlation of health data.  Many papers were written about a major cover up concerning Chernobyl.   

We can gain some insight into this from the psyche phenomenon known as the  "Dominance-Submissive Authoritarian Embrace" and also the Byrne Karpman drama triangle.  In short, we live in a world where most are willing victims and enablers and a few are authoritarians and persecutors.  It is no wonder people are called sheep.  They follow the pack, are afraid to ruffle feathers or go against the status quo.  They may often be afraid for their jobs and of peer pressure.    This may be the bigger failure of the radiation measurement systems.  And yes, its back on the people, back on the scientists.     We need not coddle our scientists, institutes and political leaders.  

I note Julian Assange was arrested...

some fast random google hits on the psyche aspect
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/...et-away-it
https://lindagraham-mft.net/triangle-vic...cutor-get/

John Downer muses over the odd scale and implications of the European fallout map
http://blog.nuclearphilosophy.org/?p=984

Fallout from Chernobyl reduces the intelligence at levels considered harmless
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40506270?se...b_contents

Moose in Sweden have radiation from Cs137 between 200 and 1000 bq/kg.   For perspective, Yuri Bandazhevsky found morbid metabolic effects and heart pathology in people at 50 bq/kg and even less.  
https://pub.epsilon.slu.se/12526/1/weimer_r_150824.pdf
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
#8
One of the greatest difficulties in producing any relevant modeling possible radiation fallout is the fact that 'modeling' is the only current option available for researchers. Nuke industry doesn't provide data surrounding facilities on a 24/7 basis, CTBT doesn't allow public use of raw data collected globally, governments don't concern themselves with the welfare of their people, wind direction/intensity and other weather patterns can be highly variable, and, as Code correctly notes -traditional 'measurement' protocol is really irrelevant when estimating radiation's impact on individuals (based on male characteristics, ignores greater impacts on children and women, 'all it takes is one hot particle'...)

We end up with a big fat zero in determining true impacts. That said, this research is a step in the right direction as Horse notes because it does attempt to go where no other researcher has gone before. This research can be the beginning of a new trend in analysing impacts of nuclear catastrophes.
Pia
just pm me if needed.
 
Reply
#9
Yes, it seems like a model of rad dose that incorporates the internal emitters is a step in the right direction.  This would be especially true if they looked at the forms...the micro particles and secondarily if they ascribed an accurate health effect to them.  Reading the paper, it didnt seem they were looking for micro particles.  OF course the system is charged as being wildly incorrect.  So while the algorithm is a step in the right direction it is currently deceptive and useless, although we can assume not intentionally....while not excluding that possibility. 

Busby "It is not about the intensity of radiation but about the so-called hot cesium and other particles: they are invisible particles that no meter detects, very quickly cause cancer and death. Everywhere in the air… So, as it is today, it is the international secret of the nuclear club…"

The model depends entirely on the data and that data comes from the "Swedish Radiation Protection Authority and the Swedish Defense Research Institute who, in the initial phase of the Chernobyl fallout in Sweden, collected the detailed radiometric data"

we can get some idea of the troubles Busby has had with the Swedish authoritative bodies...
https://y8j2t3c9.stackpathcdn.com/wp-con...Nacka3.pdf

And this might cause some to question even the validity of the radiometric data.  Whereas Bandazhevsky was taking readings by autopsy, the Swedish Institutes may have been taking whole body data and this could be seriously flawed when it comes to internal organ variations, what to say of micro particles.   A system is only as good as its source data, and it is often said, garbage in garbage out. 

So yes, keeping up the good trend, we may expect to see usable algorithms some day that correctly model internal emitters and their danger...    we have to wait...but for how long?
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
#10
Busby "It is not about the intensity of radiation but about the so-called hot cesium and other particles: they are invisible particles that no meter detects, very quickly cause cancer and death. Everywhere in the air… So, as it is today, it is the international secret of the nuclear club…"

Since this new method will be modeling internal emitters, perhaps more study will be considered into micro-particles of radio-nuclide matter.  More focus on these hard to measure components of fallout will probably go far to explaining why the health of people is destroyed by some kinds of radiation exposure.  Normally a 9 volt battery is considered safe, but the small current from a 9 volt battery can kill when passed across the heart and cause arrhythmias.  Micro-particles are to easily internalized, getting a little too close to the heart. Radioactive fallout is not a part of background, its been mixed into the background, and hiding there.  We need to learn to make better measurements of it and determine the health risks.

BTW Code, I like your new signature.
"The map is not the territory that it is a map of ... the word is not the thing being referred to."
 
Reply
#11
(04-12-2019, 08:51 AM)Horse Wrote: Since this new method will be modeling internal emitters, perhaps more study will be considered into micro-particles of radio-nuclide matter.  More focus on these hard to measure components of fallout will probably go far to explaining why the health of people is destroyed by some kinds of radiation exposure.  

Spot on Horse.  Glad you bring this up.  The promise of accurate radiation dosimetry will not be realized until science changes its basic assumptions, politics and even psychology.  The internal burden in the model is nothing new, just the estimate of what you would eat or breath.  The source data for that is in some cases 28 years old (ref 19 in the paper.  We dont see the impetus to incorporate the science from the ECRR camp.  

So touching on particles...
The mainstream science says cesium quickly becomes uniform in the environment. Ken Beusseler;
'Luckily, cesium is an electrolyte, and is water-soluble. Thus it moves through living organisms relatively quickly.

“It doesn’t have a target organ that it goes to, it just flushes through like a salt. So the good thing is one of the more serious contaminants for the ocean is lost quickly when it gets into the food chain.' 

But studies show the cesium from fallout is in small particles that are not water soluble.  Those particles stick strongly to soils, plant and animal. 

[Image: 11.jpg?w=641&h=520]

I would like to understand more about the size distribution of these hot particles.  The photos show what appear to be large spots of contamination.  Researches have said they were not able to wash this radioactivity off the feathers.  Im struck by the size... most of the hot particles are reported to be 1 to 2 micrometers.  A red blood cell is perhaps 8 micrometers.  It seems there is a tremendous size discrepancy in the macro autoradiographs showing huge hot spots vs the size of the hot particles which are everywhere around Fukushima and even in Tokyo.  Those particles being smaller than blood cells. 

Micro-autoradiographs show the fine structure uptake and uneven distribution of radioactive cesium and strontium down to the cellular level.  Its reported that in some trees, the fallout is migrating to the heart wood and will reach maximum transport in 28 years.  The dynamic of hot spot or uneven location of fallout occurs at microscopic domains on the cellular  level. That is different than the aerosol hot particles.  I mean hot particles are one thing..but uneven distribution by biological, chemical processes is another.   

In the paper, radioactive iodine was not considered because they believe if you follow the official guidelines you can avoid health damage...nor do they consider it important in long term accumulated dose measurements.  Some of the iodine has a very short half life.  But the biological impact of fallout has a lot to do with metabolic functions.  If radioactive iodine disrupts metabolic functions...the endocrine system, this will surely modify the impact of a life time cumulative dose of radio cesium.   The assumption of how ionizing radiation causes disease has been incorrect. Newer papers refer to those old assumptions as dogma....a fitting word indicating the influence of human psychology...

The conclusions given by the method show the limitations of the assumptions of the method.  Fallout no worse than background radiation! (accept areas closest to the disaster).  To realize the promise of better modeling, the scientific assumptions, bias and accurate health impact coefficients will have to be addressed.   Unwarranted confidence!

The science of radio-biology really stands out among other disciplines...an architectural engineering algorithm that under-predicted wind loads by 1000 times would of course be considered an absolute failure.   Complex modelling of ship volume would be useless if the result underestimated flotation my hundreds of times.   I wonder if the immediate sinking of battleships would get more attention than the 60 million unacknowledged deaths from nuclear....

Basic assumptions of fallout danger first have to change 

findings from Yuri Bandazhevsky;

 regular intake of radioactively contaminated
food directly results in abnormal heart
rhythms and irreversible damage to
heart tissue and other vital organs.

Bandazhevsky discovered that the body
concentrates Caesium-137 in the organs, rather than
uniformly distributing it throughout
the body. This renders the idea of
“acceptable dosages” to be a fallacy.
Just as radioactive matter is randomly
distributed throughout a landmass,
creating radioactive hotspots, so too
the body absorbs radioactivity in uneven
ways, processing it through the pancreas,
the brain, the thyroid, the adrenal
glands, the heart, and the intestinal
walls, and no doubt in many other
ways which we have yet to identify

...chronic low-dose
exposure leads to diseases of the
circulatory systems, the endocrine
system, the immune system, the
respiratory system; to reproductive
disorders; to changes in the composition
of bones; to brain damage; to blindness;
to congenital malformations and
abnormalities; to thyroid cancer; to
leukaemia; to intensified infections;
to organ failures (especially to foetuses
irradiated in utero); to premature
aging; to gene mutations; to “Chernobyl
AIDS, Chernobyl Heart, Chernobyl
Limbs” and “Vegetovascular dystonia.”
These latter names are a catchall for a
variety of new syndromes that medical
specialists have only come across in the
post-Chernobyl years. 

This information is out there but the science community needs to assimilate it, letting go of the old dogma which forms the basis of their models, their safety guidelines
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
#12
bare minimum reading requirement for anyone compiling dosimetry models;

ECRR   Chernobyl: 20 Years On
https://ratical.org/radiation/Chernobyl/...lebook.pdf

The unsustainable legacy of the Nuclear Age 
The enduring legacy of the Nuclear Age is incompatible with the terrestrial
(and human) environment
Angelo Baracca
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1812/1812.02332.pdf

Huge disparity between WHO and Greenpeace!;

World Health Organization

'no increased risk of leukaemia linked to ionizing radiation has so
far been confirmed in children, in recovery operation workers, or in the general population of the
former Soviet Union '
https://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/a....08.24.pdf


GreenPeace

'Higher rates of acute leukaemia among Belarusian liquidators were first
observed in 1990-91. From 1992, significant increases in the incidence of all
10 forms of leukaemia were detectable in the adult population of Belarus as a
whole. ... Childhood leukaemia in Tula region in the post-Chernobyl period significantly exceeded the average rates for Russia, especially in children aged 10-14.  In Lipetsk, cases of leukaemia increased 4.5 times from 1989 to 1995. Some data suggest increased risk of leukaemia even for children exposed in the womb.'
https://www.sortirdunucleaire.org/IMG/pd...health.pdf
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
#13
Code, thanks for including the link to the ECRR study, I was going to squeeze one in because we have talked about it.  It hasn't had the press that it should.  I do hope people take the time to read it.  How complex can it get?  The size of the radioactive particulate matter, what radio-nuclides are being found, whether they're water soluble or not.  Difficulties on the detection and sampling side.  The disparities between WHO and Greenpeace data highlights the dearth of medical data we have access to.  The medical profession needs to step up to the plate and do the studies we need to determine the health risks from various exposures.  In addition the two disciplines must start working together to gives us more reliable information on exposure and health results.  I don't see that happening because, again, the industry fielded ICRP remains the gatekeeper of this most important connection.
"The map is not the territory that it is a map of ... the word is not the thing being referred to."
 
Reply
#14
Here is a great paper from Bandazhevsky

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b44b/7c...aee5ca.pdf
There are >80% normal ECGs in children that average 5 Bq/kg of 137Cs in total body weight, versus <40% normal ECGs in children that average 11 Bq/kg of 137Cs in total body weight.]

a summary found here https://chernobyl-today.org/en/news/19-n...6-16-29-57



'Group 1. 137Cs incorporation of up to 20 Bq/kg – Multifactorial congenital defects; metabolic, electrophysiological and functional changes in organs and tissues if there is a genetic predisposition (based on insufficient gene activity);'

'Group 2. 137Cs incorporation of 20-50 Bq/kg - Conditions peculiar to those of Group 1, as well as dystrophic changes in cells, tissues and organs leading to their failure;'

'Group 3. 137Cs incorporation of more than 50 Bq/kg – Conditions specific to those of Groups 1 and 2, as well as dystrophic, necrobiotic and sclerotic changes in vitally important organs substantially disrupting their function and leading, in some cases, to death of the organism or its disability.'
'
'In cases of combined action of radiocesium and toxic agents of different origin having a negative effect on metabolic processes, irreversible pathological changes may occur in vital organs and systems even with a low content of radiocesium in the body.'

My humble comment  is that first, radiobiology is very complicated. Second, we can see that nuclear fallout at levels below natural background radiation, including our natural internal radioactive exposure, causes disease.   Third, this information has been out for a long time.  How could anyone in the field possibly miss it?  Fourth, if the authors of the study which is the start of this thread...the dose algorithm...if they incorporated this information, they would admit their model is worse than useless.  And fifth,  this fallout from man made radiation, the bomb tests, nuclear reactors and catastrophes is everywhere.  While Bandazhevsky et al find some morbid impact on the majority of say the population of Belarus, the health impact seen is subject to the limits of the test methods, for example electrocardiograms and so on. So to my mind, there are likely sub-clinical effects still present even at the smallest doses of fallout radiation.  The implication is that the world is sick...nothing has escaped the effect, and the wide ranging impact on metabolic functions means this fallout radiation is responsible to some extent or another, in every chronic disease state
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
  


Forum Jump:


Browsing: 1 Guest(s)