Please share far and wide!

Saturday, October 10, 2015

The Dying Nuclear Industry Is Trying to Push Through a Law of "Radiation is Good for You"

The nuclear cartel is trying to push an NRC regulation that will state "radiation is good for you".

The paid nuclear promoters and internet disruptors are running with this story, and the NRC is actually reviewing it, asking for public comment.

Here is a good story showing even small doses of radiation are harmful, and there is no indication that radiation is nuetral or "good for you"

http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/Blogs/2960165/risks_of_leukemia_in_nuclear_workers_more_than_double_previous_estimate.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is one 2012 document, produced after Fukushima,    They knew they were going to need a big change, or it would result in a full shutdown of nuclear everywhere.

If you want to email the main author, it is

feinendegen@gmx.net




stock here
100mSV is NOT low dose, it is extremely high dose, about 100 years of background radiation.

Epidemiology shows statistically significant increases of cancer risk with as little as 4 mSV cumulative dose.   Study is here
http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2015/01/statistical-proof-that-low-dose.html

Look at their "conclusion" on page....wait they dont even use page numbers, wow.    May, Might, appears...they have no data hang their hat on, speculation that goes against what is known by high power studies.      Then they take a pot shot at LNT, no engineer or scientist with a brain halfway screwed on right would argue that LNT is "correct (LNT is nuclear bomb data, extrapolated toward zero).     So its a pot shot at a straw man.

From the conclusion "It is hoped that an appropriate consensus conference eventually provides new guidance.'   Which makes me think of the junk science of Global  Warming were apparently science is not based on facts but "consensus".

They also recognize that "effect of low dose irradiation are expected to vary among individuals".    Indeed, lets say that some low dose radiation actually helped 3 people, but gave the fourth person a leukemia.     Do you just say sorry to that person?   Oh, but we helped three people with a minor benefit, sorry you have to die while your daughter just entered high school.     A primary function and promise of medicine is "to do no harm".

The dying nuclear industry is spending over $1.4B per year to expand propaganda, one element is for "radiation is good for you, hormesis".    Although it is within scientific possibility that some people may see some benefits from some isotopes at some time series of some radiation "dose", it is utterly and disgustingly irresponsible and arrogant to think that we can take a relatively safe radiation limit, toss it out, and replace it with "up to 100 times background per year is good for each and every one of you".

This is strictly about protecting the dying nuclear industry and the out of control USA Radiation Medical Industry that is already tripling dose to USA on average by their misguided efforts "treating cancer with radiation", testing with radiation.   Blasting people with CT radiation machine because they have them, although MRI would do a better job 99% of the time.

Whoremesis, is not scientifically backed up at any broad level of statistically significant peer reviewed level, especially in regards to particular isotopes, organs, and various humans.    It also does not address age, or pregnancy.    The Hippocratic OATH says "First do no harm".      The uncertainties regarding specific affects and responses to individuals shows that proponents of hormesis have no respect for the prime directive of medicine.

---------------------------------------------------------------
A further review of the body of this paper show more basic problems.

They focus nearly entirely on DNA damage as the only negative effect of radiation, referring to both SSB and DSB (single strand breaks and double strand breaks), and give some lip service to bystander effect, and non-targeted effects.     If that would truly be the case, then how could anyone be killed almost immediately from radiation?     I mean....just because their DNA is damaged, that would not cause a near immediate death.  

It is also known that radiation functions to reduce the effectiveness of the body's immune system, why would that occur due to DNA damage.

The study firmly latches on to the ICRP model of dose damage being caused entirely by "energy deposition".   This is humerous since they want to latch onto the misguided ICRP energy deposition model, whilst tossing out the ICRP Linear No Threshold Model (LNT).    They also latch onto the misguided ICRP method of only focusing on 1 particular organ in the body, the one they calculate has the highest absorbed dose and call it the critical orgam.   Then they go on to ignore all other organs!    This is incredulous, and can barely pass the straight face test.    Lets say you have a weakened heart at a level of 7, higher being worse, and a weakened liver say level 5.      They say you can ignore the liver, kidney, thyroid, red blood cells, lungs, colon, prostrate......you can ignore everything else except the "most critical organ". 

Then even though they have "thrown out" the LNT straw man, they then use LNT to prove that 97% of cancer is caused by non-radiation toxins, but first "[proving" with LNT that background radiation would only account for 3% of all the cancers that we actually see.

At the end of section 5, the author makes the incredulous claim that "since epidemiology does not reveal cancer increase at doses below about 100 mGy (mSv).    stock here: we know that cancers area clearly at increased risk with accumulated 4 mSv only.     Here is that report.

http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2015/01/statistical-proof-that-low-dose.html

Aside: If you believe the ICRP methods, they expect that at 100 mSv to expect 1 extra cancer per 100 people.     The new "hormesis gang" is proposing up to 100 mSV per year, for everyone, women and children included.     A propose that these are not Doctors, but monsters.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Author had a peer review from a Doctor de Saint-Georges, embedded below, but his arrogance in side stepping the Doctors comment and then throwing it in his face as if it should be believed is almost a sign of sociopathy, certainly rude.

Page 342: ‘The claim that a single DNA double strand break, however grave, in a stem cell may cause cancer is scientifically unjustified.’

It is well known that cancer has a multifactorial origin and therefore that a single double strand break alone is probably unable to cause cancer. However, in the multifactorial process if the single strand break just helps in the step lacking, we may then attest that the double strand break will cause cancer.

Response: It is good to read that Dr de Saint-Georges agrees that cancer has a multifactorial origin. However, quite a number of people still claim that a single double-strand break may be oncogenic.

stock here: Wow what a jerk. 
I do have some other basic complaints on his paper.    There are numbered citations in the text that appear as hyperlinks.    Well you think there are hyperlinks, so you think you could go directly to the source information being cited.   But when you click the "hyperlink" you are just taken to the list of citiations at the back and not even the particular one being cited, just the whole page.     Then it is a PDF that does not lend to easy copy and paste to do a web search to try to find the document.    So then you export the PDF to text format, find the citation, copy and past to web search....sheesh.    He makes it hard to check his work.    

It was hard to find many of the citations, and some where never found. 

----------------------------------------Here are the references

Therapeutic Nuclear Medicine
                                                         Springer 2012 ISBN 978-3-540-36718-5                          L. E. Feinendegen et al.

Feinendegen LE, Muehlensiepen H, Lindberg C, Marx J, Porschen W, Booz J (1984) Acute and temporary inhibition of thymidine kinase in  mouse bone marrow cells  after  low-dose exposure. Intern J Radiat Biol 45:205–215
Feinendegen LE, Loken MK, Booz J, Muehlensiepen H, Sondhaus CA, Bond VP (1995) Cellular  mechanisms of protection  and repair induced  by  radiation  exposure and  their  consequences for  cell system responses. Stem Cells 13(1):7–20
Feinendegen LE, Bond VP, Sondhaus CA, Muehlensiepen H (1996)
Radiation effects induced by low doses in complex tissue and their relation to cellular adaptive responses. Mutat Res 358:199–205
Feinendegen LE, Bond VP, Sondhaus CA, Altman KI (1999) Cellular signal adaptation  with damage  control  at low doses versus the predominance of DNA damage at high doses. C.R Acad Sci Paris, Life Sciences 322:245–251
Feinendegen LE, Neumann RD (eds) (2000) Cellular responses to low doses of ionizing radiation. Workshop of the US department of energy (DOE), Washington, and the national institutes of health (NIH), Bethesda, held on 27–30 April 1999 at the Mary Woodward Lasker Center, Cloister, NIH DOE Report Publication SC-047
Feinendegen LE, Bond VP, and Sondhaus CA (2000) The dual response to low-dose irradiation: induction versus prevention of DNA damage. In: Yamada T, Mothersill C, Michael BD, Potten CS (eds), Biological effects of low dose radiation, Excerpta Medica, International Congress Serie 1211. Elsevier, Amsterdam pp 3–17
Feinendegen LE, Pollycove M, Sondhaus CA (2004) Responses to low doses of ionizing radiation in biological systems. Nonlinearity in Biol Toxicol Med 2:143–171
Feinendegen LE, Pollycove M, Neumann RD (2007a) Whole body
responses to low-level radiation exposure: new concepts in mammalian radiobiology. Exp Hematol 35:37–46
Feinendegen LE, Paretzke HG, Neumann RD (2007b) Damage propagation in complex biological systems following exposure to low doses of ionizing radiation. AFP: Int J 1:336–354
Feinendegen LE,  Paretzke  HG,  Neumann RD  (2008) Response to Comments by Dr. de Saint Georges: damage propagation in complex biological systems following exposure to low doses of ionizing radiation. AFP: Int J 2:206–210
Feinendegen LE, Brooks AL, Morgan WF (2011) Biological consequences and health risks of low-level exposure to ionizing radiation: commentary on the workshop. Health Phys 100:247–259
Finkel T, Holbrook NJ (2000) Oxidants, oxidative stress and the biology of aging. Nature 408:239–247
Fliedner TN, Dörr H, Meineke V (2005) Multi-organ involvement as a pathogenic principle of the radiation syndromes: a study involving 110 case histories documented in SEARCH and classified as the bases of haematopoetic indicators of effect. Brit J Radiol Suppl 27:1–8
Franco N, Lamartine J, Frouin V, Le Minter P, Petat C, Leplat JJ, Libert F, Gidrol X, Martin MT (2005) Low-dose exposure to gamma rays induces specific gene regulations in normal human keratinocytes. Radiat Res 163:623–635
Fujita  K, Ohtomi M, Ohyama H, and Yamada T  (1998) Biphasic
induction of apoptosis in the spleen after fractionated exposure of mice to very low doses of ionizing g radiation. In: Yamada T, Hashimoto Y (eds), Apoptosis, its role and mechanism, Business Center for Academic Societies Japan, Tokyo, pp 201–218
Guyton AC, Hall JE (2005) Textbook of medical physiology, 11th edn.
WB Saunders Company, Philadelphia
Hall EJ, Giaccia AJ (2005) Radiobiology for the Radiologist, 6th edn.
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, New York
Harder  D  (2008) Ionisierende Strahlung and  die  Dosiabhängigkeit ihrer Wirkung. Nova Acta Leopoldina NF 96(355):21–44
Heidenreich WF, Hoogenweem R (2001) Limits of applicability for the deterministic approximation of the two-step cloncal expansion model. Risk Anal 21:103–105
Heidenreich WF, Paretzke HG, Jacob P (1997) No evidence for increased tumour rates below 200 mSv in atomic bomb survivors. Radiat Environ Biophys 36(3):205–207
Hohn-el-Karim K,  Muehlensiepen H,  Altman  KI, Feinendegen LE (1990) Modification of effects of radiation on thymidine kinase. Intern J Radiat Biol 58:97–110
ICRP  (International  Commission  on  Radiation  Protection)  (1977)
Recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection, ICRP Publication 26, Annals of the ICRP 1 No. 3
ICRU (International Commission on Radiation Units and Measure- ments) (1983) Microdosimetry. Report 36, ICRU, Bethesda
ICRU (International Commission on Radiation Units and Measure- ments)  (2005)  Patient  dosimetry  of  X-rays  used  in  medical imaging, Report 74, J ICRU; Oxford J, Oxford University Press, Oxford
ICRU (International Commission on Radiation Units and Measure- ments) (2011) Quantification and reporting of low-dose and other heterogeneous exposures. Report 86, J ICRU; Oxford University Press, Oxford
ICRU (Internationalö Comnission on Radiaiton Units and Measure- ments) (1998) Fundamental quanititis and units for ionizting radiaiton, report 60. ICRU, Bethesda
ICRU (International Commission on Radiation Units and Measure- ments) (2002) Acsorbed dose specification in nuclerar medicine, Report 67, J thw ICRU; Oxford J, Oxford University Press, Oxford Ishizaki K, Hayashi Y, Nakamura H, Yasui Y, Komatsu K, Tachibana A (2004)  No  induction  of  p53  phosphorylation  and  few  focus formation  of  phosphorylated  H2AX  suggest  efficient repair  of DNA damage during chronic low-dose-rate irradiation in human
cells. J Radiat Res 45:521–525
James  SJ,  Makinodan  T  (1990)  T-cell  potentiation  by  low  dose ionizing radiation: possible mechanisms. Health Phys 59:29–34
Kadhim MA, Hill MA, Moore SR (2006) Genomic instability and the role of radiation quality. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 122:221–227
Kondo S (1988) Altruistic cell suicide in relation to radiation hormesis.
Intern J Radiat Biol 53:95–102
Leonard BE (2007) Adaptive response and human benefit: Part I—a microdosimetric  dose  dependent  model.  Intern  J  Radiat  Biol
83:115–131
Liu SZ, Zhang YC, Mu Y, Su X, Liu JX (1996) Thymocyte apoptosis in response to low-dose radiation. Mutat Res 358:185–191
Mitchel REJ, Jackson JS, Morrison DP, Carlisle SM (2003) Low doses of radiation increase the latency of spontaneous lymphomas and spinal osteosarcomas in cancer prone, radiation sensitive Trp53 heterozygous mice. Radiat Res 159:320–327
Mitchel RE, Burchart P, Wyatt H (2008) A lower dose threshold for the in vivo protective adaptive response to radiation. Tumorigen- esis in chronically exposed normal and Trp53 heterozygous C57BL/6 mice. Radiat Res 170:765–775
Morgan WF, Sowa MB (2009) Non-targeted effects of ionizing radiation: Implications for risk assessment and the radiation dose response profile. Health Phys 97:426–432
Mothersill C, Seymour CB (2006) Radiation-induced bystander effects and the DNA paradigm: an ‘‘out of field’’ perspective. Mutat Res 59:5–10
Mullenders L, Atkinson M, Paretzke H, Sabatier L, Bouffler S (2009) Assessing  cancer  risk  of  low-dose  radiation.  Nat  Rev/Cancer
9:596–604
Nair RR, Rajan B, Akiba S, Jayalekshmi P, Nair MK, Gangadharan P, Koga T, Morishima H, Nakamura S, Sugahara T (2009) Back- ground radiation and cancer incidence in Kerala, India-Karana- gappally cohort study. Health Phys 96:55–66
National Research Council, Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation (2006) Health risks from low levels of ionizing radiation: BEIR VII, Phase 2. The National Academies Press, Washington
Therapeutic Nuclear Medicine
Hormesis  by  Low  Dose  Radiation  Effects      Springer 2012  ISBN 978-3-540-36718-5                                                        

Neumaier T, Swenson J, Pham C, Polyzos A, Lo AT, Yang PA, Dyball J, Asaithamby A, Chen DJ, Bissell MJ, Thalhammer S, Costes SV (2012) Evidence for formation of DNA repair centers and dose-response nonlinearity in human cells. Proc Nat Acad Sci US 109:443–448
Nikjoo H, O’Neill P, Terrissol M, Goodhead DT (1999) Quantitative modelling of DNA damage using Monte-Carlo track structure method. Radiat Envrion Biophys 38:31–38
Olivieri G, Bodycote J, Wolff S (1984) Adaptive response of human
lymphocytes  to   low  concentration   of  radioactive   thymidine. Science 223:594–597
Pollycove M, Feinendegen LE (2001) Biologic response to low doses of ionizing radiation: detriment versus hormesis. Part 2: dose responses of organisms. J Nucl Med 42:26N–32N
Pollycove M, Feinendegen LE (2003) Radiation-induced versus endogenous DNA damage: possible effect of inducible protective responses in mitigating endogenous damage. Hum Exp Toxicol
22:290–306
Preston DL, Pierce DA, Shimizu Y, Cullings HM, Fujita S, Funamoto S, Kodama K (2004) Effect of recent changes in atomic bomb survivor dosimetry on cancer mortality risk estimates. Radiat Res
162:377–389
Preston DL,  Ron  E,  Tokuoka S,  Funamoto S,  Nishi  N,  Soda  M, Mabuchi K, Kodama K (2007) Solid cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors: 1958–1998. Radiat Res 168:1–64
Rothkamm K, Löbrich M (2003) Evidence for a lack of DNA double- strand break repair  in  human cells  exposed to  very  low  x-ray doses’. Proc Natl Acad Sci US 100:5057–5062
Schöllnberger H, Stewart RD, Mitchel REJ (2005) Low-LET-induced radioprotective mechanisms within a stochastic two-stage cancer model. Dose-Response 3:508–518
Scott BR (2004) A biological-based model that.links genomic instability;
bystander effects, and adaptive response. Mutat Res 568:129–143
Sedelnikova OA, Horikawa I, Zimonjic DB, Popescu NC, Bonner WM, Barrett JC (2004) Senescing human cells and ageing mice accumulate DNA lesions with unrepairable double-strand breaks. Nature Cell Biol 6:168–170
Sen K, Sies H,  Baeurle  P (eds) (2000) Redox regulation  of  gene expression. Academic Press, San Diego
Tanooka H (2001) Threshold dose-response in radiation carcinogen-
esis: an approach from chronic beta-irradiation experiments and a review of non-tumour doses. Int J Radiat Biol 77:541–551
Tanooka H (2011) Meta-analysis of non-tumour doses for radiation- induced  cancer  on  the  basis  of  dose-rate.  Int  J  Radiat  Biol
87:645–652
Tubiana M, Aurengo A, Averbeck D, et al. (2005). Dose-effect relationships and the estimation of the carcinogenic effects of low doses of ionizing radiation. Academy of Medicine (Paris) and Academy of Science (Paris) Joint Report No. 2
Tubiana M, Feinendegen LE, Yang CJM, Kaminski JM (2009) The linear no-threshold relationship is inconsistent with radiation biologic and experimental data. Radiology 251:13–22
Vilenchik MM, Knudson AG (2000) Inverse radiation dose-rate effects on somatic and germ-line mutations and DNA damage rates. Proc Natl Acad Sci US 97:5381–5386
Wolff S, Afzal V, Wienke JK, Olivieri G, Michaeli A (1988) Human lymphocytes exposed to low doses of ionizing radiations become refractory to high doses of radiation as well as to chemical mutagens that induce double-strand breaks in DNA. Intern J Radiat Biol 53:39–49
Zamboglou N, Porschen W, Muehlensiepen H, Booz J, Feinendegen LE (1981) Low dose effect of ionizing radiation on incorporation of iodo-deoxyuridine into bone marrow cells. Int J Radiat Biol
39:83–93

 

1 comment:

  1. Great write-up, I am a big believer in commenting on blogs to inform the blog writers know that they’ve added something worthwhile to the world wide web!.. http://www.acs-advancedcooling.com/

    ReplyDelete

Insightful and Relevant if Irreverent Comments