Please share far and wide!

Tuesday, May 17, 2016

Aspects of DNA Damage from Internal Radionuclides --- Chris Busby

stock here--here is an introduction to an article by Busby.    He does a good job of putting information into a level that a "lay engineer" can wrap their head around.   

Bottom line--He says the existing radiation risk models are fully wrong.  I agree.

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

http://www.intechopen.com/books/new-research-directions-in-dna-repair/aspects-of-dna-damage-from-internal-radionuclides

Aspects of DNA Damage from Internal Radionuclides

Christopher Busby1

1. Introduction

In this chapter, there is insufficient space to exhaustively review the research which has been carried out on internal radionuclide effects. I hope only to highlight evidence which shows that internal radionuclides cannot be assessed by the current radiation risk model, and to suggest some research directions that may enable a new model to be developed, one which more accurately quantifies the real effects of such exposures. The biological effects of exposure to ionizing radiation have been studied extensively in the last 70 years and yet very little effort has gone into examining the health effects of exposure to internal incorporated radionuclides. This is curious, since the biosphere has been increasingly contaminated with novel man-made radioactive versions of naturally occurring elements which living creatures have adapted to over evolutionary timescales, and intuition might suggest that these substances could represent a significant hazard to health, one not easily or accurately modelled by analogy with external photon radiation (X-rays and gamma rays).
The question of the health effects of internal radionuclide exposures began to be asked in the early 1950s when there was widespread fallout contamination of food and milk from atmospheric nuclear tests. It quickly became the subject of disagreements between two committees of the newly formed International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP)[1]. The questions of the equivalence of internal and external radiation exposure, which were the basis of these disagreements, have still not been resolved. In the West, up to very recently, the whole spectrum of health effects from internal incorporated radionuclides has focused on animal studies of Radium, Plutonium and Strontium-90 and human retrospective studies of those individuals exposed to Radium-226 and Thorium-232 in the contrast medium “Thorotrast”. These studies suffer from a number of problems which will be discussed.
Soviet scientists were more interested in internal radiation effects from fission-product radionuclides, but unfortunately their valuable studies have been difficult to access since they are published in Russian. In 1977 Gracheva and Korolev published a book summarising work in this area which was translated in India in 1980 as Genetic Effects of the Decay of Radionuclides in Cells [2]. This presented a wealth of interesting data relating to beta emitter genetic effects in various systems and drew attention to the distinction that must be made between external and internal radiation. This is important since the whole assessment of radiation in terms of health has been through the quantity “absorbed dose” and what can be called the bag-of-water model.
In this bag of water model, illustrated in Fig 1, the total energy transferred by the radiation to living tissue is diluted into a large mass, greater than a kilogram, as if the effects were uniform throughout the tissue being considered. In Fig 1 the tissue mass A represents an external irradiation by X-rays or gamma rays and here the effects are uniform across the tissue. But in the case B, for internal irradiation, it is clear that it is possible, for certain kinds of exposure, for tissue local to the source to receive very large amounts of radiation energy at the same overall energy transfer to the tissue mass.

7 comments:

  1. Busby work is flawed. Where is his discussion on repair mechanisms?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL as if that is a rebuttal.

      Delete
    2. Where is his studies on cellular repair? We don't live in a petri dish. We are complex organisms.

      Go ask him why his ECRR fails to gain traction across the world.ECRR is sour graping as they desperately seek legitimacy. Yet you and I know they are playing to their own audience. The health physics community has rejected their methodology on scientific grounds. No rebuttal required.

      There is such a thing as the wisdom of crowds, all 20,000 professional radiation protection professionals reject Busby. His methods are unsuitable for professional practice.

      Jet sethe nukist out. See you in New Orleans. Gundersen won't be there. It's a venue for the legitimate nuclear professional.

      Delete
    3. 20,000 nuke pimps upset with anyone who is trying to rock their boat, expose the precious for what it really is.

      Delete
    4. Busby is a fraud. Full of sound and fury signifying nothing. If Busby is all you have theno you lose.

      Delete
    5. Busby is a fraud. Full of sound and fury signifying nothing. If Busby is all you have theno you lose.

      Delete

Insightful and Relevant if Irreverent Comments