read to see the lobby in action:
http://www.robindestoits.org/Pourquoi-l ... a1232.html
It's the same, same mechanism, with nuclear, dangerous products, medicines, etc ... with the same scientific academy sold to lobbies and under risk assessment by 100 to 1000, without fretting dead, well hidden , much more numerous than those of the terrorists !!
Electromagnetic waves and pollution: general public health guide to understand
Finally if you want to know and understand everything, you have to read:
http://www.bioinitiative.org/freeaccess ... /index.htm
http://www.bioinitiative.org/freeaccess ... report.pdf
A summary in French:
http://www.robindestoits.org/Les-preuve ... e_a78.html
but microwaves physicists and biologists do not speak the same language nor the same methods, enabling full manipulation, just as for nuclear and radiation !!
http://www.bioinitiative.org/freeaccess ... /index.htm
http://www.bioinitiative.org/freeaccess ... report.pdf
A summary in French:
http://www.robindestoits.org/Les-preuve ... e_a78.html
but microwaves physicists and biologists do not speak the same language nor the same methods, enabling full manipulation, just as for nuclear and radiation !!
0 x
Additional doc on ionizing radiation and health effects (Bon Appétit ... just a little long ... 
)
[Quote]
BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF LOW DOSES
IONIZING RADIATION
H.JOFFRE*
Radio Courtoisie broadcasts from November 18, December 23, 2001 and February 17, 2002
NOTES
I Characteristics of elementary particles and photons
II Production of elementary particles and photons
III Some remarks on the detection of ionizing radiation
IV Review of the article published in Paris-Match (May 1990)
The Cursed Children
V Accidents related to energy production
VI Waste associated with different modes of energy production
* Physicist Engineer from the Paris School of Physics and Chemistry
Head of the Radiation Protection Service at CEN Saclay (1960 - 1979)
- 6.3.2002 -
TABLE OF CONTENTS
THE BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF LOW DOSES OF IONIZING RADIATION
I - DEFINITIONS
1.1 Elementary Particles and Electromagnetic Radiation
1.2 Measurement Units
II - NATURAL IRRADIATION
2.1 Internal Radiation
2.2 External irradiation
III - RADIATION PROTECTION RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 Biological Effects of Radiation
3.2 Radiation protection standards
3.3 Relationship Dose-Effect Linear No Threshold
3.4 The Hiroshima and Nagasaki Irradiations used as Reference by the ICRP
IV - CURRENT STATE OF KNOWLEDGE ON BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS
OF RADIATION
4.1 Absence of Biological Effect on Low Doses
4.2 Repairs of damaged cells Natural Organics
Genetic Effects 4.3
4.4 Irradiation of the Fetus
4.4.1 - Malformations
4.4.2 - Mental retardation
4.4.3 - Cancers and Leukemias
4.5 Induction Thresholds for Cancers and Leukemias after Low Dose Irradiation
4.5.1 - Internal contamination by radium 226
4.5.2 - Internal contamination by plutonium 239
4.5.3 - Internal contamination by thorium 232 (thorotrast)
4.5.4 - External irradiation with natural radioactivity
4.6 Beneficial Effects of Radiation at Low Dose Rates
4.6.1 - Increased longevity
4.6.2 - Decrease in the frequency of cancers and leukemias
a) Influence of γ radiation
b) Radon and Lung Cancer
4.6.3 - Resistance to significant irradiation after a first irradiation at low dose rate
4.6.4 - Anti-tumor action of low doses
V - CONCLUSIONS
THE BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF LOW DOSES
RADIATION
I - DEFINITIONS
1.1- Elementary Particles and Electromagnetic Radiation
Human radiation can be produced,
- by elementary particles: electrons, protons, α particles and neutrons,
- by electromagnetic radiation made up of photons: UV, X and γ.
The characteristics of these radiations are specified in Annex I.
Electrons (β radiation consists of electrons), protons and α are electrically charged particles whose penetration into the body is limited by a "path", which increases with the energy of the particle, but beyond of which the irradiation is zero. This path in the organism is all the smaller as the particle is heavier, going from a few hundredths of a millimeter for the α particles to a few millimeters for the β particles.
X and γ photons, as well as neutrons, produce an irradiation of the entire thickness of the body which decreases with depth.
The modes of production of these radiations by natural radioactivity, the generators of
radiation and fission are defined in ANNEX II.
1. 2 Units of Measure
The units of measurement used to assess the extent of human exposure to ionizing radiation are:
1.2.1 - Business units
The becquerel defines the number of disintegrations of the nuclei of radioactive atoms per second, in a given quantity of radioactive material.
Thus we will speak of 1Bq / kg of material, 1 Bq / m3 of air or 1 Bq / m3 of water, if there is a disintegration per second in, this kg of material, this m3 of air or this m3 of water.
(The becquerel replaced the curie, old unit, 1 Ci = 3,7.10 10 Bq),
1.2.2 -Unity of absorbed dose
The gray, unit of "absorbed dose" defines the energy transferred to the material irradiated by the incident radiation. The gray is equal to an absorbed energy of 1 joule per kg of material or 1 Gy = 1 J / kg. This absorbed energy causes the body to increase the temperature of the irradiated tissues by approximately 0,24 thousandths of a ° C.
The biological effect of an irradiation of the organism, such as the probability of induction of cancers, will depend on the energy absorbed in the organism.
Note: Rad, the old unit of absorbed dose (1 rad = 1 cGy) is also frequently used.
1.2.3 - dose equivalent unit
In the field of low doses, for members of the public and workers, the limits of exposure to ionizing radiation, specified in regulatory documents, are expressed in sieverts.
The dose in sieverts, or "dose equivalent", is obtained from the dose absorbed by the following relationships:
- for Xβγ radiation: DSv = DGy
- for neutrons: DSV = 10 DGy
- for α radiations: DSv = 20 DGy
These factors 10 and 20 are recommended by the ICRP which considers that neutrons and
α radiations produce the same biological effect, with absorbed doses 10 and 20 times lower, respectively, than with Xβγ radiations.
Some remarks on the detection of radiation for the radiation protection of persons are presented in Appendix III.
Note - The letters mc indicate 1 millionth, 1 thousandth and 1 hundredth,
k MG indicate 1 thousand, 1 million and 1 billion.
Ex .: 1 mSv for 1 thousandth of a sievert or 1 millisievert
II - NATURAL IRRADIATION
Human radiation can come from two types of radiation source:
- on the one hand, the internal irradiation resulting from the absorption of radioactivity by ingestion, inhalation, injection or injury (K 40, Rn 222, nuclear fallout, scintigraphy, etc.)
- on the other hand, external irradiation resulting from sources of radiation external to the organism (cosmic, telluric radiation, nuclear fallout, artificial industrial and medical sources, etc.)
2.1 - internal natural Irradiation
2.1.1 Potassium 40
Potassium 40 is a radioactive emitter with a period of 1,3.109 years. It is present in natural potassium at a rate of 30 Bq per g of potassium. The soil contains about 1,3 kBq / kg, sea water 12 Bq / l and milk 80 Bq / l. Fish and shellfish can contain up to
400 Bq / kg.
Through food, our body absorbs an average activity of 100 Bq of potassium 40 each day, or 37 kBq / year. The activity permanently present in our organism (70 kg) is 5 kBq. This results in a natural internal irradiation of our organism of 0,18 mSv / year.
2.1.2 Radon 222
The earth's crust contains about 3 g of uranium 238 (period 4,5.109 years) or 37 Bq per ton of earth. Radon-222 is a daughter product of uranium 238; gaseous element, it emerges from the ground. It is a radioactive transmitter with a period of 3,8 days.
The radon content of the air we breathe is different outside and inside homes.
a) Radon outside dwellings
Radon in the outside air is present at an average content of about 10 Bq / m3 of air
(3.10-10 Ci / m3)
Depending on weather conditions, this content:
- can be divided by 100 in period of sunshine or in windy period, conditions favorable to a good dispersion in the atmosphere of air pollution.
- or multiplied by 10 in periods of atmospheric calm, such as in the presence of fog or in winter after snowfall or often at night.
In these periods of calm, atmospheric agitation is often zero and there is desorption of radon from the soil. Radon, heavy gas accumulates in a few meters above the ground.
Such calm conditions can extend over a period of weeks, resulting in a maximum of radon content in the air.
b) Radon inside dwellings
During atmospheric agitation (sunshine or wind), the air radon content is always higher than outside.
Ventilating the premises will cause a reduction in the presence of radon under these conditions.
By cons, in a period of calm air, the radon content of the air is often higher outside than inside.
Under these conditions, ventilate the area will result in an increase of the radon content, and any pollution present in outdoor air.
In addition, due to the porosity of building materials, any drop in atmospheric pressure will result in a desorption of radon from building materials to the air in the home. In France, the average activity of Rn 222 in homes is
65 Bq / m3 of air.
Finally, in a well-insulated house, built on granite soil, the radon content of the air in the house can reach several kBq / m3 of air. However, contrary to popular beliefs, cancer and leukemia statistics show that these are not more frequent in granite regions than in sedimentary regions; antagonistic factors may play a role, such as the natural γ radiation, which is higher in these regions, which, at low doses, stimulates the body's defense means (see 4.2 and 4.6.2b). radon and its offspring is on average 1,2 mSv / year in a range of 0,3
5 mSv / year, depending on the radioactivity of soil and building materials that surround us.
2.2 - External natural irradiation
2.1.1 Radiation telluric
Inside dwellings, the main source of external natural radiation is telluric radiation, which results from the radioactivity of the materials around us.
The radioactivity of these materials is on average, in Bq / kg [1]
K40 U 238 Ra 226 Th 232
Concrete 500 200 50
Brick 800 50 50
Granites 1850 50 50
Coal * 400 600 600 150
Earth 1300 37
Phosphate fertilizers ** 2500 4600 850
* Coal-fired power plants release about 1% of residual dust into the atmosphere after combustion, i.e. a release of around 4500 t / year for a power plant with a power of 1 GW-electric (1 EdF nuclear reactor)
** After 30 years of use of phosphate fertilizers potassium content 40 cropland can be multiplied by 10.
The average land-based exposure in homes varies by region of France between 0,6 and 1,7 mSv / year.
Other countries have areas where land exposure is much higher. In Brazil, Japan and India the annual dose reaches or exceeds in some regions 10 mSv, the maximum reaching 175 mSv; in Iran it can even reach 400 mSv. [1] [2]
In these regions, where tens of thousands of people live, studies have found no increase in the frequency of cancer and leukemia, or in the frequency of birth defects.
2.2.2 Cosmic Radiation
This radiation increases with altitude because the Earth's atmosphere constitutes an effective protective screen against ionizing radiation which reaches us from the cosmos.
This screen is equivalent to a water depth of 10 meters, the atmospheric pressure at zero altitude being 1 kg / cm².
The efficiency of this screen decreases when the altitude increases [1]:
Altitude (m) 0 1500 2240 (Mexico) 3900 (La Paz)
Annual dose (mSv) 0,3 0,6 0,8 1,7
At these altitudes, cosmic radiation is essentially made up of electrons.
A very high altitude [3], cosmic radiation further comprises, protons and neutrons of high energy. It increases rapidly with altitude and it varies during the solar cycle
(± 20%) and also with latitude:
For example, for an altitude of 12500 m the dose rate varies from 2,5 to 7,5 Sv / h when the latitude increases from 0 to 90 °. By going from 12500 m to 18000 m, the irradiation undergone is to be multiplied by 2,5, i.e. a dose rate, at 18000 m, between 6 and 20 Sv / h depending on the latitude.
Finally, for cosmonauts, the maximum dose observed after a stay of 175 days in space, was 50 mSv.
2.3 - Total natural irradiation
Total annual natural radiation, internal and external, is on average, in France, of
2,4 mSv in a range from 1,5 to 6,0 mSv.
The irradiation due should be added
- for medical purposes (at high speed): 0,8 mSv
- nuclear tests 1950-1980 0,04 mSv
- nuclear energy (280 Gwe) 0,02 mSv
Of all the sources of human radiation, radiation for medical purposes is by far the most important, especially since it is received at high speed, which is not the case for others. sources whose radiation is received continuously and distributed throughout the year.
III - RADIATION PROTECTION RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 - Biological effects
To better understand the danger of ionizing radiation and establish protection recommendations, particularly necessary in radiology, the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) was created in 1928.
At that date, the induction of cancer and leukemia due to
- on the one hand to the professional exhibitions of radiologists, uranium miners and painters of radium luminous dials,
- on the other hand, exposures for medical purposes * in pulmonary radioscopies, radiotherapy of ankylosing spondylitis by X-rays, the use of thorium oxide as a contrast agent in radiology, etc.
After the nuclear explosions in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, the ICRP monitored the appearance of cancer and leukemia among the irradiated survivors.
3.2 - Radiation protection standards
In 1977, the ICRP adopted the following recommendations:
Worker exposure limited to 50 mSv / year.
Public exposure limited to 5 mSv / year.
These limitations were reasonable with regard to natural exposure, which is generally between 2 mSv / year and 5 mSv / year.
In 1990, the ICRP lowered the average exposure limit from 50 to 20 mSv / year for workers and from 5 to 1 mSv / year for members of the public.
In addition, for the calculation of deaths from cancer and leukemia expected in the 50 years after exposure, at low dose, the "Linear Dose-Effect Relation Without Threshold" (RLSS), adopted by the ICRP in 1959 is maintained and will be applied. with a Carcinogenic Risk Coefficient of 4.10– 2 / Sv (eg 400 deaths per 10 people who each received an irradiation dose of 000 Sv).
* Exposures for medical purposes [4] should no longer cause concern today. However, it remains desirable to avoid fluoroscopic examinations (without luminance amplifiers) and CT examinations, which are unnecessary and repeated.
3.3 - Linear dose-effect relationship without threshold (RLSS)
The ICRP advocated a linear dose-effect relationship without threshold based on the assumptions
following pessimists:
- there is a carcinogenic risk, however small the dose of irradiation,
- the carcinogenic risk is proportional to the dose; it is constant per unit of dose,
- to assess the risk coefficient, one cannot rely on epidemiological surveys at low doses since they have revealed no measurable effect; the ICRP was therefore based on the effects suffered by survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at high doses, above about 1 Sv. But this coefficient becomes more than hypothetical at low doses.
In application of the RLSS, the number of cancers and leukemias expected after irradiation is obtained simply by multiplying the irradiation dose by the number of people exposed and by this hypothetical risk coefficient per dose unit.
In addition, this relationship leads to say that there will be the same number of deaths in a population of 60 million people exposed to 2,5 mSv (annual natural irradiation) as in a population of 60 people exposed to 000 Sv either: 2,5 x 60 x 000 - 2,50
or 6 deaths per year, for the only annual natural irradiation in France!
The same calculation, for annual irradiation for medical purposes of approximately 1 mSv, will lead to
2400 deaths per year!
The psychological impact resulting from the RLSS was highlighted after the Chernobyl accident for which the average exposure of the three billion inhabitants of the northern hemisphere, approximately
0,45 mSv (in total in the 50 years after the accident), would, according to the IAEA estimate, result in a total number of deaths from cancer and leukemia expected of 54:
3 billion x 0,45.10 - 3 x 4.10 - 2 = 54 deaths [000] [5]
This interpretation appears shocking; does it conform to reality?
The ICRP is aware that the assumptions made may be incorrect, but it is certain that they will never lead to an underestimation of the risks!
The Precautionary Principle is here pushed beyond the limits of reasonableness; it leads to erroneous and costly provisions. In addition, the hypothesis of an RLSS fills populations with great anxiety, because it falsely establishes the concept that any dose, even the smallest, is carcinogenic.
3.4 - Irradiations in Hiroshima and Nagasaki used as Reference by the ICRP
Since 1980, research on the beneficial effects at low doses (hormesis), has developed considerably and it appeared that the observation of biological effects on survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki used by the ICRP since the 1950s and still in 1990, to set irradiation limits was unsuitable for the following reasons:
1 - The irradiation was undergone there in a very short time (about 1 second). As a result, the body did not have the time and therefore no possibility to implement its means of defense. These means exist against all types of aggression, and also against ionizing radiation. We will see later that these defenses are particularly effective for γ radiation at low dose rate.
2 - In a nuclear explosion, the radiation emitted includes fission neutrons.
Neutrons are particularly important at low doses. Unlike other radiation, the biological efficiency per unit dose of neutrons increases when the dose decreases, in particular for doses of the order of a few tens of mSv [7].
Due to differences in weapon design (U 235 at Hiroshima and Pu 239 at Nagasaki) and weather conditions (atmospheric humidity) at the time of the explosion, the presence of neutrons was approximately 10 times greater at Hiroshima than in Nagasaki. Thus, if a deficit in the number of cancers and leukemias, at doses lower than 1 Sv, was observed in Nagasaki, this was not the case in Hiroshima [8] [9] [7]; neutrons may be responsible for this difference.
The RLSS applied to low doses and the lowering of the dose limit from 5 to 1 mSv for members of the public are no longer accepted by a growing majority of the international scientific community, and remorse is expressed, as this statement made. publicly by an IAEA expert at a recent congress in the USA "We made a huge mistake and I am happy on this occasion to make my mea-culpa" [6]. Or again, "I do not hesitate to claim that this is the greatest scientific scandal of our time" [10].
Finally, a report from the French Academy of Sciences considers "that there is no indisputable scientific fact in favor of lowering standards from 5 to 1 mSv" [11].
However, France had to accept the European directive requesting the regulatory application of this last standard of the ICRP of 1990.
IV - CURRENT STATE OF KNOWLEDGE ON THE BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF
IONIZING RADIATION AT LOW DOSES
4.1 - Absence of Biological Effect at Low Doses
Experience acquired today shows that there has been no increase in the frequency of cancers and leukemias for doses of several tens of mSv. The people likely to be exposed to radiation are:
- practitioners of radiological examinations or nuclear medicine,
- their patients,
- patients treated by radiotherapy (as regards the radiation dose undergone outside the treated area),
- workers in the nuclear industry.
However, for several decades, barring well-established accidental circumstances, the radiation doses undergone by these people have always been less than 200 mSv for adults and
100 mSv for children; they did not detect any increase in the frequency of cancer and leukemia.
The same applies to irradiation doses below the above values:
- leukemia in survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki,
- bone cancer in painters with luminous dials (radium),
- liver cancer in patients who have received thorotrast injections (oxide
thorium),
- lung cancer in plutonium workers,
- cancers and leukemias in populations where the level of natural radiation is high
(especially in the regions of India, Iran and Brazil where the irradiation of tens of thousands of people reaches 10 mSv / year or more, since always).
In conclusion, no increase in the frequency of cancer and leukemia is detected for doses below 200 mSv in adults and 100 mSv in children.
In addition, at higher doses, most dose-effect relationships, in humans as well as in experimental animals, do not suggest the existence of a linear relationship without threshold.
4.2 - Natural Biological Repairs of Wounded Cells [12]
Ionizing radiation is one of the many genotoxic agents to which humans are exposed, like all living things.
Every year, 5000 new chemicals (pesticides, herbicides, food additives, industrial products ...) are introduced into our environment; 10% of these new products are genotoxic and cause damage in the DNA of our cells.
To respond to these DNA damaging attacks, thousands of repairs are made every hour in the nucleus of every cell in our body (about 100 billion cells).
These repairs are most often made by the core's own means; they can also be through trade with neighboring remained intact cells, intercellular junction channels.
If the repair is not perfect, the altered cell is eliminated by its programmed death (apoptosis).
For ionizing radiation as for almost all toxic products, there is a practical threshold for the number of lesions produced, beyond which the body's defenses are saturated.
The observations made show that the body's defenses also intervene against the induction of genetic effects and against the effects of radiation on the fetus (malformations, mental retardation and induction of cancers and leukemias).
A single mutation is not enough to cause cancer. During the life of a human being, each gene is the object of approximately 10 billion mutations… The problem of cancer does not seem to be why it appears, but why it appears so rarely…
If a single mutation of any gene was enough to transform a healthy cell into a cancer cell, we would not be viable organisms.
Michael Bishop, Nobel Prize in Biology [13]
Furthermore, when the dose rate is low, the means of repairing the injured cells are particularly effective. In these conditions of low dose rate, we can observe:
- Zero biological effects up to a high value of the irradiation dose showing the existence of a threshold.
- Beneficial effects of ionizing radiation, by stimulation of the means of defense, which
will manifest:
a) by an increase in longevity,
b) or, after having undergone a low dose of irradiation, by a considerably increased resistance to a second significant irradiation,
c) or, during a relapse after radiotherapy of cancer, by an anti-tumor action showing a stimulation of the immune defenses.
4.3 - Irradiation of the gonads (genetic effects) (see also Annex IV)
In the 1950s, the genetic effects were feared even more than the carcinogenic effects.
"We wondered if the irradiation of the gonads could not cause alterations in the genetic heritage transmissible to the offspring. Today very little is said about the genetic effects. This is because, despite in-depth studies, we never have any. detected in humans, neither in the descendants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki of the first and second generations (in total about 80 children), nor in the descendants of irradiated patients, although some of them received relatively high doses during cancer treatments, nor in
workers. "[14]
In its Publication 84 (43) the ICRP [15] only mentions precautionary measures for doses higher than 500 mSv.
4.4 - Irradiation of the Fetus
4.4.1 - Malformations (teratogenic effects) (see also Annex IV)
The normal frequency of births with malformation is close to 2%. DNA lesions are eliminated to 95% by apoptosis before implantation and those not eliminated cause 50% of miscarriages.
For X-ray during diagnostic procedures, therefore at high dose rate, ICRP 84 (71) gives a minimum threshold of 100 mSv for the production of radio-induced malformations and specifies that the termination of pregnancy is not justified at this dose.
4.4.2 - Mental retardation (see also Annex IV)
The normal frequency of mental retardation is around 3% (with an IQ of less than 70%).
The most frequent causes are malnutrition, lead poisoning, maternal alcoholism.
ICRP Publication 84 (27) indicates that no decrease in IQ has been observed for fetal doses below 100 mSv at high dose rates.
A few cases have been reported in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
4.4.3 - Cancers and Leukemias
The normal frequency of cancer and leukemia in children aged 0 to 15 is around 0,25%.
In Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 1600 children were irradiated in-utero and no case of cancer or leukemia resulting from this exposure has been demonstrated.
Moreover, during radiotherapeutic γ exposures, with fetal doses of 1 Sv at high dose rate, the frequency was 6%, ie, by applying RLSS, 0,6% per 100 mSv. These 2 factors, high dose rate and RLSS, considerably increase the real risk.
Ultimately, the risk of induction of cancers and leukemias for doses lower than 100 mSv, at high dose rate, appears negligible compared to the normal frequency of cancers and leukemias in children between 0 and 15 years.
4.5 - Induction Thresholds for Cancers and Leukemias After Low Dose Rate Irradiation
4.5.1 - Internal contamination by radium 226 [16]
Workers who painted luminous dials with a radium-based paint absorbed between 1903 and 1926 significant radium activities, up to 1 mg of Ra 226 (37 MBq), resulting in α irradiations of up to 500 Gy. absorption took place by pointing the brush with the lips; the radium thus ingested remains fixed on the bones for life.
3 people were followed and it was observed:
- 85 bone sarcomas, with a latency of 5 to 60 years,
- and 37 sinus cancers, with a latency of 18 to 60 years after the start of the exposure.
The incidence of cancer has been found to be zero below 10 Gy,
then increases rapidly above this threshold value.
(See also in 4.6.1 and 4.6.2)
4.5.2 - Internal contamination by plutonium 239 [17]
The 26 workers who worked at the Los Alamos Laboratory on the Manhattan Project, suffered large doses after inhalation and ingestion of plutonium. Although this α radioactive element has been called "the most toxic substance known to man," these workers have remained surprisingly healthy.
In 1990, only 2 lung cancers were observed, a significant deficit compared to the reference population. This remark is all the more important since all of these 26 workers were heavy smokers; in fact, the purification of the lung being slower in smokers, there is an increase in the risk of approximately 40% for the same quantity of plutonium absorbed. In other studies, an excess of cancers has only been observed for doses greater than 1 Gy. Furthermore, no case of plutonium-induced leukemia has been observed.
4.5.3 - Internal contamination by thorium 232 (thorotrast) [18] [19]
Thorotrast is an X-ray contrast agent that was used from 1928 to 1955. It consists of a colloidal solution of thorium oxide. Thorium 232 is a naturally occurring radioactive element (with a period of 1,47.1010 years), the α particles of which travel through the tissues of 40 µm. he
has been injected into hundreds of thousands of patients at doses of 1 to 100 ml, approximately 2 to 200 kBq of thorium 232. The first cancer was observed in 1947 and was followed by a long series.
Liver cancer has been more frequent, its appearance (20 to 28 years after the injection) is all the earlier the greater the activity injected.
The frequency also increases with the activity injected. For a 25 ml injection (containing approximately 12,5 g of thorium, i.e. 50 kBq), the average absorbed dose in the liver is estimated at
0,25 Gy / year for the entire lifetime, the thorium oxide being permanently fixed; after an injection of 25 ml, the irradiation undergone reaches 5 Gy in 20 years.
The practical threshold for the induction dose of cancer is, in this case, that for which the duration of onset of cancer is greater than the life expectancy of the subject.
The frequency of liver cancer was zero for doses below 2 Gy.
4.5.4 - Irradiation by natural radioactivity [1] [2]
The natural radiation dose in France is generally between 1,5 and 6 mSv / year; the studies carried out did not detect any increase in the incidence of cancer and leukemia according to the dose of irradiation.
In Brazil, Japan and India the dose often reaches in some regions 10 mSv / year, and up to 175 mSv / year; in Iran it can even reach 400 mSv / year. In these regions, as well as in the state of Kerala in the south of India where tens of thousands of people have always received doses of 10 mSv / year and more, the studies carried out have not detected any increase in the frequency of cancers and leukemias, nor the frequency of congenital malformations. (see also in 4.6.1 and 4.6.2 b).
4.6 - Beneficial Effects of Low Dose Ionizing Radiation
The International Scientific Community today recognizes the merits of the beneficial effects of radiation at low doses (hormesis). Since 1970, the beneficial effects
radiation has been the subject of a great deal of research for which thousands of references are mentioned in the report of the UN Scientific Committee, published
in 1994 [20].
4.6.1 - Increased longevity
The beneficial effects of radiation, under certain conditions, remained unnoticed for a long time. The ICRP regulations may have been the cause, since it had always established, and it was considered by all, as a dogma, that:
- a dose of X-radiation has the same biological efficacy as the same dose of γ-radiation,
- the dose rate is not to be taken into account.
In other words, the ICRP considered that X and γ radiation exhibited the same biological efficacy by cGy.
However, this is not the case, because exposures to X rays, by construction of the generators, are always received at very high dose rates, a few cGy to a few tens of cGy / min, while possible occupational exposure to γ radiation are generally received at a dose rate, most often less than 1 cGy / h. The γ radiation dose rates are even much smaller for atmospheric radioactive fallout from nuclear tests or accidents at nuclear facilities, as well as for natural irradiation.
This fundamental difference, between X and γ, was demonstrated in publications from 1967 and 1970 relating to the study of the longevity of irradiated mice. [21]
Experiments, carried out on batches sufficient to give the required precision, bring the following results:
- for X radiation at 80 cGy / min, we observe,
a clear and continuous decrease in longevity:
3% at 25 cGy, 5% at 50 cGy 14% at 100 cGy, 17% at 150 cGy, 29% at 300 cGy, 31% at 450 cGy
- whereas for γ radiation at around 1 cGy / h:
longevity is first increased by 3% to 150 cGy, returns to its normal value at 300 cG and decreases by 5% to 620 cGy.
It is clear that low dose rate γ radiation has enabled and even stimulated cellular repairs. This has clearly not been observed for X-rays, which are always produced at a high dose rate.
The results of the 1967/1970 study, mentioned above at a dose rate γ of cobalt 60 of the order of 1 cGy / h, are corroborated by an experiment published in 1999 [22] relating to batches of 300 mice irradiated continuously at much lower dose rates of 7 and
14 cGy per year; this experiment showed an average increase in longevity, for the two dose rates, of 23% (the average lifespan of the mice in the control sample is approximately 18 months).
An increase in longevity, due to γ radiation, has also been reported for populations exposed to high natural irradiation [23] as well as for workers having used a radium-based paint [24] (0,1 mg of radium fixed in the skeleton causes γ irradiation of the whole organism of a few cGy per year).
4.6.2 - Decrease in the frequency of cancers
a) - Influence of γ radiation
- An average decrease in mortality from cancer has been observed among workers who have painted radium dials [24].
- After an accidental irradiation, caused by an explosion, in the Urals
(ex USSR) in 1957, nearly 8000 people were exposed to doses of 4 to 50 cGy.
It has been found [25] that the cancer death rate has been found to be lower by around 30% compared to the normal frequency.
b) - Radon and lung cancer
Lung cancer has been known since 1870. Between 1870 and 1900 only 40 cases have been reported in the world medical literature. An in-depth study has been reported on cases of lung cancer in the population and miners of Saxony [26] where uranium-bearing soils lead to concentrations exceeding 15 kBq / m3 of air in 12% of homes and which can reach
115 kBq / m3. However, cases of lung cancer in this region were extremely rare there before 1900.
The first cigarette manufacturing plant built in Germany, in Dresden, went into operation in 1892. The consumption of cigarettes became increasing among miners, more than 80% of whom were smokers, and in 1913 the first cases of lung cancer were simply correlated. with high radon contents in uranium mines. On the other hand, it was found [27] that the frequency of lung cancer in non-smokers was lower than the normal frequency for a radon content in the air below 400 Bq / m3; at 200 Bq / m3 the frequency is minimum and is 20% lower than the normal frequency. The same result was obtained [28] with a study on 90% of the population of the USA between 60 Bq / m3 (average content in the USA) and 200 Bq / m3, with the same decrease of 20% at this last concentration.
On the other hand, of course, the observations made on minors who are very exposed are very different [26]. In the decades subsequent to 1945 uranium miners in the same Saxony mined 220 t of uranium in very unsafe conditions:
In addition to radon, miners were exposed to dust resulting from the dry grinding of ore, diesel exhaust fumes and nitrous vapors resulting from blasting operations, this situation being exacerbated by inadequate ventilation and in particular by causing heavy use of cigarettes in a complex synergy, a total of more than 10 lung cancer in the decades involved.
Such results, among others like have been used by the ICPR for extrapolation to low doses of population exposure to natural light. These effects extrapolated to low doses according to the LNT, multiplied by the number of large populations lead to impressive estimates that appear in the reports of national agencies or
International Respectful of the ICRP!
For example, in 1983, according to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), there were
in this country 20 cases of cancer caused each year by radon [000]. This agency maintains that radon is a major cause of lung cancer and encourages a program to protect premises [29] of enormous unjustified financial and emotional cost, but which are not without relevance for the business of air conditioning companies.
Yet, scientists recognized by their long experience and competence in radiation protection had strongly disagreed with the LNT. Thus in 1980,
LS Taylor Honorary President of the National Council for Radiation Protection and Radiation Measurement of the U.S.A. (NCRP) wrote: The application of RLSS is a "deeply immoral use of our scientific knowledge" [31] (see also in 3.4).
4.6.3 - Increased resistance to significant irradiation after a first low-dose irradiation
Laboratory experimentation [32], also involving human cells [33], has shown that if a small dose of a few cGy is given, then, after a few hours of waiting, a large dose of 3 Gy for example, it is observed that the number of genetic abnormalities in the DNA is significantly lower than that obtained for the same dose of 3 Gy given directly.
This observation could be made on humans in accidental circumstances which recently arose in Istanbul [34]. To make the metal, scrap trying to open a container in which a cobalt medical source 60 had been forgotten. For four hours, they tried to open the container, during which time they received a low dose of low-flow radiation; then, they managed to open it, this time undergoing a high dose rate. Finally, feeling unwell, they happily stopped their attempt.
The examinations showed that the actual dose undergone, evaluated according to the fall of leukocytes and platelets, was between 3 and 4 Gy. On the other hand, the number of genetic lesions undergone by DNA led to a dose of 1 to 2 Gy, showing much less damage to DNA, and therefore also to stem cells called to replace blood cells.
Depending on the type of accident, we can therefore find ourselves exceptionally in the situation where a low dose previously received protects the victim.
4.6.4 - Anti-tumor action of low doses
Intensive research on hormesis began in the 1980s [35] and in 1985 an International Symposium on Hormesis by Radiation was held in Oakland [36].
However, for more than 10 years already, Japanese researchers had already implemented low-dose irradiation to suppress cancer cells reappearing after conventional radiotherapy treatment [37].
cancer therapy at low doses showed a stimulation of the immune systems and cures over 10 years were obtained. For example, the cure rate of patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma was increased from 50% to 84%. [38]
A cooperative program between Japanese teams and the International Center for Low Dose Research at the University of Ottawa is currently considering the application of these techniques for the treatment of cancer in hospitals in Ottawa and Toronto [39].
V- CONCLUSIONS
This document has sought to consolidate the results and publications (only a small part) relating to studies carried out for twenty years or more, on the biological effects of low doses and low dose rates of ionizing radiation:
Contrary to the basic principles established by the ICRP for decades and confirmed in 1990 (and therefore still in application):
- a dose of ionizing radiation, however small, is carcinogenic,
- the induced biological effect is proportional to the dose; the dose / effect relationship is therefore a linear relationship without threshold (RLSS).
and following in-depth studies carried out in particular over the past decade, the following conclusions are becoming clearer every day:
1 - For doses below 200 mSv for adults and 100 mSv for children, it has been shown no increase in the usual frequency
- genetic or teratogenic effects,
- the number of cancers and leukemias.
2 - It has been noted that there is a threshold for the induction of the biological effects mentioned above, which can be caused by high doses using alpha radioactive sources (radon, radium, thorium, plutonium) or gamma (natural irradiation, cobalt 60, cesium 137…)
3 - As with all toxic, chemical or biological substances capable of attacking humans, the human organism has effective means of defense against the effects of ionizing radiation. This defense can be provided by the injured cell itself and also by the cells adjoining the injured cell.
4 - Ionizing radiation, at low doses and in particular at low dose rates, bring beneficial effects:
- increased longevity,
- decrease in the frequency of cancer or leukemia,
- induction by a low dose, of radioresistance in the face of significant irradiation to come,
for an intervention with a high dose rate or before radiotherapy,
- immune action.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The basic provisions taken into account by the ICRP, in blind application of the precautionary principle, have wrongly led to the conviction, generally well established for decades, that any exposure to ionizing radiation, however small, is dangerous for the man. This conviction is today completely unfounded with regard to the low doses of radiation caused by:
- natural irradiation,
- the medical examinations and treatments normally carried out,
- nuclear energy, for workers and members of the public,
- the fallout from cesium 137 following the Chernobyl accident…
The media which have succeeded so well in developing anxiety must today, objectively and honestly, cease unjustified campaigns, waged against activities associated with ionizing radiation and in particular against nuclear energy.
These campaigns, passively supported by the responsible authorities, hide really serious dangers such as:
- Tobacco which causes more than 3 million deaths per year on our planet (in France, tobacco causes more than 60 deaths per year, which is 000 to 6 times more than road accidents),
- The annual release of 28 Gt of carbon dioxide (1 Gt = 1 billion tonnes) to which must be added an equivalent of 7 Gt for the greenhouse effect also resulting from methane leaks during transport by pipeline.
Despite the very insufficient measures recommended by international bodies to reduce these releases, it is expected that this annual release will reach 50 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2050, that is, taking methane into account, an annual equivalent of 62 Gt of carbon dioxide which will significantly increase the growth of the greenhouse effect. When, sooner or later, this effect manifests itself in an obvious way (it is already considered a certainty by many scientists), it will be too late and all human efforts will prove to be very derisory.
The Intergovernmental Committee on Climate Change (IPCC), created in 1988, estimates that sea level will likely rise by about 50cm over the next century, threatening to cover regions where around 90 million people live, these regions are often the most populous and the poorest (Bangladesh).
The 20 members of the IPCC approved on December 15, 1995, despite strong opposition from the USA and OPEC countries, a resolution recommending:
- decarbonization of liquid and gaseous fossil fuels (leaving only hydrogen, the combustion of which does not cause any pollution),
- the use of nuclear energy,
- and the use of renewable energies.
To compare more fully the dangers of nuclear energy and the dangers associated with the use of fossil fuels, Appendix V summarizes the fatal accidents resulting from various sources of energy production, and Appendix VI presents:
- radioactive waste produced by nuclear energy, the means of treatment and associated storage,
- chemical gaseous effluents by the use of fossil fuels and the extent of the atmospheric pollution which results from it.
Annex V shows that for 30 years:
- transportation and storage of oil and natural gas resulted in 6500 deaths, or approximately
150 times more than the Chernobyl accident (43 deaths registered to date),
- dam failures have resulted in 260 deaths, around 000 times more than in Chernobyl.
Annex VI shows that
- the external irradiation at the edge of a nuclear power plant site, due to the radioactivity rares of rare gases without chemical affinity (krypton and xenon), is less than one hundredth of the natural irradiation. This irradiation is of the same order as the internal irradiation due to the natural radioactivity of the dust released by a coal-fired power station (uranium 238, thorium 232 and their daughter products).
- radioactive waste, conditioned in concrete blocks for storage above ground for waste of less activity and, for high activity waste, in vitrified blocks placed in underground storage after 10 years of decay, will not have the possibility of causing sensitive radiation. Indeed, Oklo's natural nuclear reactors have highlighted the low migration of fission radionuclides in soils for alkaline earth elements, rare earths and transuranians, elements whose radiotoxicity is important and which remain alone after a few hundreds of years of decay of high level radioactive waste.
- carbon dioxide and toxic products resulting from fossil fuels, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons, are directly released into the atmosphere. Under these conditions, the problems of waste are quickly resolved, without worrying about the greenhouse effect or the intoxication of populations with chemicals. Meanwhile, experts from certain organizations, called independent, "tease the becquerel [40]"!
"What the priests of nature must do and demand is that the rigor of the protection applied against ionizing radiation be extended to protection against other physical or chemical agents which threaten man and not all of which are in addition to its service as are the radiations.
I am scandalized by the negligence with regard to chemical pollution of which no military or industrial factor affects the harmfulness of the suicidal factor that is the use of cigarettes.
Prof. Georges MATHE
Director of the Villejuif Institute of Cancerology and Immunogenetics
REFERENCES
[1] - R.Paulin - Natural radionuclides,
NUCLEAR TOXIC - ED. MASSON - Paris January 1998 –P.3
[2] - M. Tubiana "Current Problems and the Evolution of Knowledge in the Last Decade" (ACT p. 24).
[3] - F. Spurny, A. Malusek - Variation of the air crew exposure to cosmic radiation -
THE EFFECTS OF LOW DOSES OF IONIZING RADIATION ON HUMAN HEALTH,
Proceedings of the First International Symposium held at the University of Versailles,
Saint-Quentin en Yvelines, France on 17th and 18th June 1999. p.247
Ed. WONUC (World Council of Nuclear Workers), 49, rue Lauriston, Paris. (WONUC p.247) [4] - H. Bouhnik et al. - Evaluation of the doses delivered during radiological examinations -
Radiodiagnostic Commission of the French Society of Hospital Physicists -
Radioprotection, 23, Special Issue, 1988 - Ed.Gédim, 42029 St-Etienne
[5] - M. Tubiana, "Radio-induced cancer among cancer risk" - (WONUC p.10)
[6] - M. Tubiana "The Modeling of the Carcinogenic Effect and the Relationship
Dose / Effect "NEWS IN RADIOBIOLOGY AND RADIOPROTECTION, (ACT p.135)
Ed. Nucléon (2001), 91194 Gif-sur-Yvette Cedex.
[7] - H. Joffre, "Observations on the biological basis of dose limits",
Report on the Days of Study of Radiation Protection of the Association for Techniques and Sciences of Radiation Protection - CERN, Geneva 12-14 November 1981, p.46.
[8] - RC Milton and T. Shohoji, "Attempt 1965 radiation estimate for atomic bomb survivors", report Atomic Casualty Commission, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, ABCC-TR-1-68 1968).
[9] - WE Loewe and E. Mendelsohn (LLNL), Health Physics 41, 663 (1981).
[10] - Gunnar Walinder "Carcinogenic Effects of Low Radiation Doses; An Epistemologically Insoluble Problem" (WONUC p.359).
[11] - M. Tubiana "The report of the French Academy of Science: Problems Associated with the effects of low doses of ionizing radiation" J.Radiol. Prot. 18: 4, pp 243-248, 1998.
[12] - Ethel Moustacchi "From Initial Lesion to Alteration of the Cell" (ACT p.33).
[13] - B. Alberts and al. Eds. Molecular Biology of the Cell, 3rd Ed. Garland Pub.,
New York, 1994. (WONUC p. 311)
[14] - M. Tubiana, "Current Problems and the Evolution of Knowledge in the Last Decade" (ACT p.11).
[15] - "Pregnancy and Medical Irradiation", 2001, ICRP Publication 84,
EDP SCIENCES, 7, av. du Hoggar, 91944 Les Ulis cedex A.
[16] - Jerry M. Cuttler "Resolving the Controversy Over Beneficial Effects of Ionizing Radiation", (WONUC p.463).
[17] - H. Métivier, "Plutonium" TOXIQUES NUCLEAIRES (TN p.225), Ed. MASSON Paris, 1998.
[18] - P. Galle "Thorium and radiocancers due to thorotrast" (TN p.345).
[19] - M. Tubiana "Current Problems and the Evolution of Knowledge in the Last Decade" (ACT p. 22).
[20] - United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation "Adaptive responses to radiation in cells and organisms," Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation: UNSCEAR 1994 Report to the General Assembly, with Scientific Annexes. Annex B.
[21] - AC Upton et al., Radiation Research 32, p.493 (1967) and 41, p.467 (1970).
[22] - M. Courtade and al. "Influence of very low doses of ionizing radiation on life span and immune system in mice", 1999 - (WONUC p.85).
[23] - M. Pollycove "Positive health effects of low level radiation in human populations". In Biological Effects of Low Level Exposures: Dose-Response Relationships.
Ed. EJ Calabrese, Lewis Pub. Inc., Chelsa, Michigan, 1994, 171-187. (WONUC p.306).
[24] - S. Kondo "Health Effects of Low-Level Radiation". Osaka, Japan: Kinki University Press Madison, WI: Medical Physics Publishing, 1993. (WONUC p. 306).
[25] - Z. Jaworowski "Beneficial radiation". Nukleonika 40: 3-12 (1995) (WONUC p. 306)
[26] - K. Becker "Is residential radon dangerous" (WONUC p.161).
[27] - KT Bogen Mechanistic Model Predicts a U-shaped Relation of Radon Exposure to Lung Cancer Risk Reflected in Combined Occupational and US Residential Data, Human Experim. Toxicol. 17, 691-696, 1998. (WONUC p.167).
[28] - BL Cohen Test of the linear no-threshold theory of radiation carcinogenesis in the low dose, low dose rate region. Health Phys. 68: 157-174 (1995.) (WONUC p. 306).
[29] EPA Radon and Radionuclide Emission Standards. (1983) October 6, Hearing Before the Procurement and Military Nuclear Systems Subcommittee First Session of the Ninety-eighth Congress. (WONUC p. 275).
[30] Ph. H. Abelson, Editorial, Science 254, 777, 1991. (WONUC p.166).
[31] LS Taylor Some non-scientific influences on radiation protection standards and practice. Health Phys. 39: 851-874 (1980). (WONUC p. 307).
[31] Bobby E. Leonard Repair of multiple break chromosomal damage - Its impact on the use of the linear quadratic model for low dose and low dose rates (WONUC p.449).
[33] XC Le, and al. Inducible repair of thymine glycol detected by an ultra sensitive assay for DNA damage. Science 280: 1066-1069 (1998). (WONUC p. 314).
[34] - JM Cosset "The Modeling of the Carcinogenic Effect and the Dose / Effect Relationship"
(ACT p.134).
[35] - TDLuckey in Jerry M. Cuttler "Resolving the Controversy Over Beneficial Effects of Ionizing Radiation" (WONUC p.468).
[36] - International Symposium on Radiation Hormesis, Oakland, California, 1985.
[37] - S. Hattori "Medical Application of low doses of ionizing radiation" proceedings of International Symposium and Health Effect of Low Dose of Ionizing Radiation, University of Ottawa, Canada, 1998. (WONUC p.468).
[38] - K. Sakamoto and al. in M. Cuttler "Resolving the Controversy Over Beneficial Effects of Ionizing Radiation" (WONUC p.468).
[39] - Jerry M. Cuttler "Resolving the Controversy Over Beneficial Effects of Ionizing Radiation"
(WONUC p.468)
[40] - J. Bonnemains - Towards a new Nuclear Control -
Nuclear Safety Authority - State Secretariat for Industry - Paris, November 27, 1998.
APPENDIX I
CHARACTERISTICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND PHOTONS
1 - Elementary particles
- electron and particle β (mass = 1 / 1840th of the mass of the proton,
negative electrical charge = -1,6.10 - 19 coulomb)
- proton: it is the nucleus of the hydrogen atom
(mass = 1 atomic mass unit = 1,7 .10 - 24 g,
positive electric charge = 1,6.10 - 19 coulomb)
- neutron (mass = 1 AMU = 1,7.10 - 24 g, zero electrical charge)
- α particle: it is the nucleus of the helium atom, it is made up of 2 neutrons + 2 protons.
2 - electromagnetic radiation: UV, X and γ
A photon, a quantum of electromagnetic energy, is characterized by its wavelength λ;
examples:
- UV photon: λ = 0,3 μm and below
- 100 keV X photon: λ = 12,4 pm (1 picometer = 10 –12 m)
- 1 MeV γ photon: λ = 1,24 pm
The absorbed dose, at a given depth of penetration of electromagnetic radiation into the body, will be greater the shorter the wavelength of the photons:
- for UV photons, only the skin is concerned,
- for photons of 100 keV and 1 MeV, the dose rate will be reduced, to a depth of 15 cm, respectively, to around 10% and 30%.
ANNEX II
PRODUCTION OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND PHOTONS
Electrons and protons are produced, at a well-defined energy, by "particle accelerators". The depth of penetration of these particles in the body is a precise function of their energy, hence their very efficient use in radiotherapy (irradiation of the ganglia with electrons, irradiation of the eye with protons).
The β radiation consists of electrons whose energies have a continuous spectrum ranging from an energy of 0 up to a maximum energy characteristic of the radioactive element. The path of β particles in the body is a few millimeters.
Α particles are emitted by many naturally occurring radioactive elements of the families of
uranium 238 and thorium 232. The α particles exhibit a spectrum of energy lines characteristic of the radioactive element. The path of α particles in the body is a few hundredths of a millimeter.
Neutrons are produced, in particular, in the fission of uranium 235 and plutonium 239 atoms present in the fuel of nuclear reactors. They in turn generate new fissions among the other atoms of uranium 235 and plutonium 239.
The X photons are emitted either in X generators by braking, in a metallic target, of electrons previously accelerated (radioscopy, radiography, scanner…) or by radioactive elements emitting X.
Γ photons are emitted by radioactive elements. They exhibit a spectrum of γ lines whose energies are characteristic of the radioactive element (1,17 and 1,33 MeV for cobalt 60).
Note: radiodiagnosis by scintigraphy uses X or γ emitting radioactive elements.
ANNEX III
NOTES ON THE DETECTION OF IONIZING RADIATION
A first aspect which characterizes ionizing radiation is the possibility of detecting it with a very high sensitivity relative to the dose necessary to produce a detectable biological effect. In addition, a very limited number of detectors is sufficient to ensure the detection of all radiation (external irradiation by radiation and by neutrons, contamination of the air by aerosols and by gases, contamination of water and surface contamination).
These particular characteristics make it possible to achieve very high safety for workers who are immediately informed of a slight variation in the level of external irradiation or of contamination of the air by light and sound signaling.
These provisions constitute a powerful safety factor for workers in the nuclear field in relation to other industries, they make it possible to considerably limit exposure in the event of an accident.
A risk of contamination of the air by plutonium is thus infinitely less devious and always less serious of consequences than if it were beryllium, asbestos, bacilli or pathogenic viruses for which instant detection, associated with immediate signaling is practically impractical. The invisible presence of chemical or biological pollutants is often not detected until their effects are manifested on humans.
The radiation detection sensitivity is very high. A pocket detector
Geiger-Müller tube counter allows immediate detection of external radiation, even
)
[Quote]
BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF LOW DOSES
IONIZING RADIATION
H.JOFFRE*
Radio Courtoisie broadcasts from November 18, December 23, 2001 and February 17, 2002
NOTES
I Characteristics of elementary particles and photons
II Production of elementary particles and photons
III Some remarks on the detection of ionizing radiation
IV Review of the article published in Paris-Match (May 1990)
The Cursed Children
V Accidents related to energy production
VI Waste associated with different modes of energy production
* Physicist Engineer from the Paris School of Physics and Chemistry
Head of the Radiation Protection Service at CEN Saclay (1960 - 1979)
- 6.3.2002 -
TABLE OF CONTENTS
THE BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF LOW DOSES OF IONIZING RADIATION
I - DEFINITIONS
1.1 Elementary Particles and Electromagnetic Radiation
1.2 Measurement Units
II - NATURAL IRRADIATION
2.1 Internal Radiation
2.2 External irradiation
III - RADIATION PROTECTION RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 Biological Effects of Radiation
3.2 Radiation protection standards
3.3 Relationship Dose-Effect Linear No Threshold
3.4 The Hiroshima and Nagasaki Irradiations used as Reference by the ICRP
IV - CURRENT STATE OF KNOWLEDGE ON BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS
OF RADIATION
4.1 Absence of Biological Effect on Low Doses
4.2 Repairs of damaged cells Natural Organics
Genetic Effects 4.3
4.4 Irradiation of the Fetus
4.4.1 - Malformations
4.4.2 - Mental retardation
4.4.3 - Cancers and Leukemias
4.5 Induction Thresholds for Cancers and Leukemias after Low Dose Irradiation
4.5.1 - Internal contamination by radium 226
4.5.2 - Internal contamination by plutonium 239
4.5.3 - Internal contamination by thorium 232 (thorotrast)
4.5.4 - External irradiation with natural radioactivity
4.6 Beneficial Effects of Radiation at Low Dose Rates
4.6.1 - Increased longevity
4.6.2 - Decrease in the frequency of cancers and leukemias
a) Influence of γ radiation
b) Radon and Lung Cancer
4.6.3 - Resistance to significant irradiation after a first irradiation at low dose rate
4.6.4 - Anti-tumor action of low doses
V - CONCLUSIONS
THE BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF LOW DOSES
RADIATION
I - DEFINITIONS
1.1- Elementary Particles and Electromagnetic Radiation
Human radiation can be produced,
- by elementary particles: electrons, protons, α particles and neutrons,
- by electromagnetic radiation made up of photons: UV, X and γ.
The characteristics of these radiations are specified in Annex I.
Electrons (β radiation consists of electrons), protons and α are electrically charged particles whose penetration into the body is limited by a "path", which increases with the energy of the particle, but beyond of which the irradiation is zero. This path in the organism is all the smaller as the particle is heavier, going from a few hundredths of a millimeter for the α particles to a few millimeters for the β particles.
X and γ photons, as well as neutrons, produce an irradiation of the entire thickness of the body which decreases with depth.
The modes of production of these radiations by natural radioactivity, the generators of
radiation and fission are defined in ANNEX II.
1. 2 Units of Measure
The units of measurement used to assess the extent of human exposure to ionizing radiation are:
1.2.1 - Business units
The becquerel defines the number of disintegrations of the nuclei of radioactive atoms per second, in a given quantity of radioactive material.
Thus we will speak of 1Bq / kg of material, 1 Bq / m3 of air or 1 Bq / m3 of water, if there is a disintegration per second in, this kg of material, this m3 of air or this m3 of water.
(The becquerel replaced the curie, old unit, 1 Ci = 3,7.10 10 Bq),
1.2.2 -Unity of absorbed dose
The gray, unit of "absorbed dose" defines the energy transferred to the material irradiated by the incident radiation. The gray is equal to an absorbed energy of 1 joule per kg of material or 1 Gy = 1 J / kg. This absorbed energy causes the body to increase the temperature of the irradiated tissues by approximately 0,24 thousandths of a ° C.
The biological effect of an irradiation of the organism, such as the probability of induction of cancers, will depend on the energy absorbed in the organism.
Note: Rad, the old unit of absorbed dose (1 rad = 1 cGy) is also frequently used.
1.2.3 - dose equivalent unit
In the field of low doses, for members of the public and workers, the limits of exposure to ionizing radiation, specified in regulatory documents, are expressed in sieverts.
The dose in sieverts, or "dose equivalent", is obtained from the dose absorbed by the following relationships:
- for Xβγ radiation: DSv = DGy
- for neutrons: DSV = 10 DGy
- for α radiations: DSv = 20 DGy
These factors 10 and 20 are recommended by the ICRP which considers that neutrons and
α radiations produce the same biological effect, with absorbed doses 10 and 20 times lower, respectively, than with Xβγ radiations.
Some remarks on the detection of radiation for the radiation protection of persons are presented in Appendix III.
Note - The letters mc indicate 1 millionth, 1 thousandth and 1 hundredth,
k MG indicate 1 thousand, 1 million and 1 billion.
Ex .: 1 mSv for 1 thousandth of a sievert or 1 millisievert
II - NATURAL IRRADIATION
Human radiation can come from two types of radiation source:
- on the one hand, the internal irradiation resulting from the absorption of radioactivity by ingestion, inhalation, injection or injury (K 40, Rn 222, nuclear fallout, scintigraphy, etc.)
- on the other hand, external irradiation resulting from sources of radiation external to the organism (cosmic, telluric radiation, nuclear fallout, artificial industrial and medical sources, etc.)
2.1 - internal natural Irradiation
2.1.1 Potassium 40
Potassium 40 is a radioactive emitter with a period of 1,3.109 years. It is present in natural potassium at a rate of 30 Bq per g of potassium. The soil contains about 1,3 kBq / kg, sea water 12 Bq / l and milk 80 Bq / l. Fish and shellfish can contain up to
400 Bq / kg.
Through food, our body absorbs an average activity of 100 Bq of potassium 40 each day, or 37 kBq / year. The activity permanently present in our organism (70 kg) is 5 kBq. This results in a natural internal irradiation of our organism of 0,18 mSv / year.
2.1.2 Radon 222
The earth's crust contains about 3 g of uranium 238 (period 4,5.109 years) or 37 Bq per ton of earth. Radon-222 is a daughter product of uranium 238; gaseous element, it emerges from the ground. It is a radioactive transmitter with a period of 3,8 days.
The radon content of the air we breathe is different outside and inside homes.
a) Radon outside dwellings
Radon in the outside air is present at an average content of about 10 Bq / m3 of air
(3.10-10 Ci / m3)
Depending on weather conditions, this content:
- can be divided by 100 in period of sunshine or in windy period, conditions favorable to a good dispersion in the atmosphere of air pollution.
- or multiplied by 10 in periods of atmospheric calm, such as in the presence of fog or in winter after snowfall or often at night.
In these periods of calm, atmospheric agitation is often zero and there is desorption of radon from the soil. Radon, heavy gas accumulates in a few meters above the ground.
Such calm conditions can extend over a period of weeks, resulting in a maximum of radon content in the air.
b) Radon inside dwellings
During atmospheric agitation (sunshine or wind), the air radon content is always higher than outside.
Ventilating the premises will cause a reduction in the presence of radon under these conditions.
By cons, in a period of calm air, the radon content of the air is often higher outside than inside.
Under these conditions, ventilate the area will result in an increase of the radon content, and any pollution present in outdoor air.
In addition, due to the porosity of building materials, any drop in atmospheric pressure will result in a desorption of radon from building materials to the air in the home. In France, the average activity of Rn 222 in homes is
65 Bq / m3 of air.
Finally, in a well-insulated house, built on granite soil, the radon content of the air in the house can reach several kBq / m3 of air. However, contrary to popular beliefs, cancer and leukemia statistics show that these are not more frequent in granite regions than in sedimentary regions; antagonistic factors may play a role, such as the natural γ radiation, which is higher in these regions, which, at low doses, stimulates the body's defense means (see 4.2 and 4.6.2b). radon and its offspring is on average 1,2 mSv / year in a range of 0,3
5 mSv / year, depending on the radioactivity of soil and building materials that surround us.
2.2 - External natural irradiation
2.1.1 Radiation telluric
Inside dwellings, the main source of external natural radiation is telluric radiation, which results from the radioactivity of the materials around us.
The radioactivity of these materials is on average, in Bq / kg [1]
K40 U 238 Ra 226 Th 232
Concrete 500 200 50
Brick 800 50 50
Granites 1850 50 50
Coal * 400 600 600 150
Earth 1300 37
Phosphate fertilizers ** 2500 4600 850
* Coal-fired power plants release about 1% of residual dust into the atmosphere after combustion, i.e. a release of around 4500 t / year for a power plant with a power of 1 GW-electric (1 EdF nuclear reactor)
** After 30 years of use of phosphate fertilizers potassium content 40 cropland can be multiplied by 10.
The average land-based exposure in homes varies by region of France between 0,6 and 1,7 mSv / year.
Other countries have areas where land exposure is much higher. In Brazil, Japan and India the annual dose reaches or exceeds in some regions 10 mSv, the maximum reaching 175 mSv; in Iran it can even reach 400 mSv. [1] [2]
In these regions, where tens of thousands of people live, studies have found no increase in the frequency of cancer and leukemia, or in the frequency of birth defects.
2.2.2 Cosmic Radiation
This radiation increases with altitude because the Earth's atmosphere constitutes an effective protective screen against ionizing radiation which reaches us from the cosmos.
This screen is equivalent to a water depth of 10 meters, the atmospheric pressure at zero altitude being 1 kg / cm².
The efficiency of this screen decreases when the altitude increases [1]:
Altitude (m) 0 1500 2240 (Mexico) 3900 (La Paz)
Annual dose (mSv) 0,3 0,6 0,8 1,7
At these altitudes, cosmic radiation is essentially made up of electrons.
A very high altitude [3], cosmic radiation further comprises, protons and neutrons of high energy. It increases rapidly with altitude and it varies during the solar cycle
(± 20%) and also with latitude:
For example, for an altitude of 12500 m the dose rate varies from 2,5 to 7,5 Sv / h when the latitude increases from 0 to 90 °. By going from 12500 m to 18000 m, the irradiation undergone is to be multiplied by 2,5, i.e. a dose rate, at 18000 m, between 6 and 20 Sv / h depending on the latitude.
Finally, for cosmonauts, the maximum dose observed after a stay of 175 days in space, was 50 mSv.
2.3 - Total natural irradiation
Total annual natural radiation, internal and external, is on average, in France, of
2,4 mSv in a range from 1,5 to 6,0 mSv.
The irradiation due should be added
- for medical purposes (at high speed): 0,8 mSv
- nuclear tests 1950-1980 0,04 mSv
- nuclear energy (280 Gwe) 0,02 mSv
Of all the sources of human radiation, radiation for medical purposes is by far the most important, especially since it is received at high speed, which is not the case for others. sources whose radiation is received continuously and distributed throughout the year.
III - RADIATION PROTECTION RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 - Biological effects
To better understand the danger of ionizing radiation and establish protection recommendations, particularly necessary in radiology, the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) was created in 1928.
At that date, the induction of cancer and leukemia due to
- on the one hand to the professional exhibitions of radiologists, uranium miners and painters of radium luminous dials,
- on the other hand, exposures for medical purposes * in pulmonary radioscopies, radiotherapy of ankylosing spondylitis by X-rays, the use of thorium oxide as a contrast agent in radiology, etc.
After the nuclear explosions in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, the ICRP monitored the appearance of cancer and leukemia among the irradiated survivors.
3.2 - Radiation protection standards
In 1977, the ICRP adopted the following recommendations:
Worker exposure limited to 50 mSv / year.
Public exposure limited to 5 mSv / year.
These limitations were reasonable with regard to natural exposure, which is generally between 2 mSv / year and 5 mSv / year.
In 1990, the ICRP lowered the average exposure limit from 50 to 20 mSv / year for workers and from 5 to 1 mSv / year for members of the public.
In addition, for the calculation of deaths from cancer and leukemia expected in the 50 years after exposure, at low dose, the "Linear Dose-Effect Relation Without Threshold" (RLSS), adopted by the ICRP in 1959 is maintained and will be applied. with a Carcinogenic Risk Coefficient of 4.10– 2 / Sv (eg 400 deaths per 10 people who each received an irradiation dose of 000 Sv).
* Exposures for medical purposes [4] should no longer cause concern today. However, it remains desirable to avoid fluoroscopic examinations (without luminance amplifiers) and CT examinations, which are unnecessary and repeated.
3.3 - Linear dose-effect relationship without threshold (RLSS)
The ICRP advocated a linear dose-effect relationship without threshold based on the assumptions
following pessimists:
- there is a carcinogenic risk, however small the dose of irradiation,
- the carcinogenic risk is proportional to the dose; it is constant per unit of dose,
- to assess the risk coefficient, one cannot rely on epidemiological surveys at low doses since they have revealed no measurable effect; the ICRP was therefore based on the effects suffered by survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at high doses, above about 1 Sv. But this coefficient becomes more than hypothetical at low doses.
In application of the RLSS, the number of cancers and leukemias expected after irradiation is obtained simply by multiplying the irradiation dose by the number of people exposed and by this hypothetical risk coefficient per dose unit.
In addition, this relationship leads to say that there will be the same number of deaths in a population of 60 million people exposed to 2,5 mSv (annual natural irradiation) as in a population of 60 people exposed to 000 Sv either: 2,5 x 60 x 000 - 2,50
or 6 deaths per year, for the only annual natural irradiation in France!
The same calculation, for annual irradiation for medical purposes of approximately 1 mSv, will lead to
2400 deaths per year!
The psychological impact resulting from the RLSS was highlighted after the Chernobyl accident for which the average exposure of the three billion inhabitants of the northern hemisphere, approximately
0,45 mSv (in total in the 50 years after the accident), would, according to the IAEA estimate, result in a total number of deaths from cancer and leukemia expected of 54:
3 billion x 0,45.10 - 3 x 4.10 - 2 = 54 deaths [000] [5]
This interpretation appears shocking; does it conform to reality?
The ICRP is aware that the assumptions made may be incorrect, but it is certain that they will never lead to an underestimation of the risks!
The Precautionary Principle is here pushed beyond the limits of reasonableness; it leads to erroneous and costly provisions. In addition, the hypothesis of an RLSS fills populations with great anxiety, because it falsely establishes the concept that any dose, even the smallest, is carcinogenic.
3.4 - Irradiations in Hiroshima and Nagasaki used as Reference by the ICRP
Since 1980, research on the beneficial effects at low doses (hormesis), has developed considerably and it appeared that the observation of biological effects on survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki used by the ICRP since the 1950s and still in 1990, to set irradiation limits was unsuitable for the following reasons:
1 - The irradiation was undergone there in a very short time (about 1 second). As a result, the body did not have the time and therefore no possibility to implement its means of defense. These means exist against all types of aggression, and also against ionizing radiation. We will see later that these defenses are particularly effective for γ radiation at low dose rate.
2 - In a nuclear explosion, the radiation emitted includes fission neutrons.
Neutrons are particularly important at low doses. Unlike other radiation, the biological efficiency per unit dose of neutrons increases when the dose decreases, in particular for doses of the order of a few tens of mSv [7].
Due to differences in weapon design (U 235 at Hiroshima and Pu 239 at Nagasaki) and weather conditions (atmospheric humidity) at the time of the explosion, the presence of neutrons was approximately 10 times greater at Hiroshima than in Nagasaki. Thus, if a deficit in the number of cancers and leukemias, at doses lower than 1 Sv, was observed in Nagasaki, this was not the case in Hiroshima [8] [9] [7]; neutrons may be responsible for this difference.
The RLSS applied to low doses and the lowering of the dose limit from 5 to 1 mSv for members of the public are no longer accepted by a growing majority of the international scientific community, and remorse is expressed, as this statement made. publicly by an IAEA expert at a recent congress in the USA "We made a huge mistake and I am happy on this occasion to make my mea-culpa" [6]. Or again, "I do not hesitate to claim that this is the greatest scientific scandal of our time" [10].
Finally, a report from the French Academy of Sciences considers "that there is no indisputable scientific fact in favor of lowering standards from 5 to 1 mSv" [11].
However, France had to accept the European directive requesting the regulatory application of this last standard of the ICRP of 1990.
IV - CURRENT STATE OF KNOWLEDGE ON THE BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF
IONIZING RADIATION AT LOW DOSES
4.1 - Absence of Biological Effect at Low Doses
Experience acquired today shows that there has been no increase in the frequency of cancers and leukemias for doses of several tens of mSv. The people likely to be exposed to radiation are:
- practitioners of radiological examinations or nuclear medicine,
- their patients,
- patients treated by radiotherapy (as regards the radiation dose undergone outside the treated area),
- workers in the nuclear industry.
However, for several decades, barring well-established accidental circumstances, the radiation doses undergone by these people have always been less than 200 mSv for adults and
100 mSv for children; they did not detect any increase in the frequency of cancer and leukemia.
The same applies to irradiation doses below the above values:
- leukemia in survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki,
- bone cancer in painters with luminous dials (radium),
- liver cancer in patients who have received thorotrast injections (oxide
thorium),
- lung cancer in plutonium workers,
- cancers and leukemias in populations where the level of natural radiation is high
(especially in the regions of India, Iran and Brazil where the irradiation of tens of thousands of people reaches 10 mSv / year or more, since always).
In conclusion, no increase in the frequency of cancer and leukemia is detected for doses below 200 mSv in adults and 100 mSv in children.
In addition, at higher doses, most dose-effect relationships, in humans as well as in experimental animals, do not suggest the existence of a linear relationship without threshold.
4.2 - Natural Biological Repairs of Wounded Cells [12]
Ionizing radiation is one of the many genotoxic agents to which humans are exposed, like all living things.
Every year, 5000 new chemicals (pesticides, herbicides, food additives, industrial products ...) are introduced into our environment; 10% of these new products are genotoxic and cause damage in the DNA of our cells.
To respond to these DNA damaging attacks, thousands of repairs are made every hour in the nucleus of every cell in our body (about 100 billion cells).
These repairs are most often made by the core's own means; they can also be through trade with neighboring remained intact cells, intercellular junction channels.
If the repair is not perfect, the altered cell is eliminated by its programmed death (apoptosis).
For ionizing radiation as for almost all toxic products, there is a practical threshold for the number of lesions produced, beyond which the body's defenses are saturated.
The observations made show that the body's defenses also intervene against the induction of genetic effects and against the effects of radiation on the fetus (malformations, mental retardation and induction of cancers and leukemias).
A single mutation is not enough to cause cancer. During the life of a human being, each gene is the object of approximately 10 billion mutations… The problem of cancer does not seem to be why it appears, but why it appears so rarely…
If a single mutation of any gene was enough to transform a healthy cell into a cancer cell, we would not be viable organisms.
Michael Bishop, Nobel Prize in Biology [13]
Furthermore, when the dose rate is low, the means of repairing the injured cells are particularly effective. In these conditions of low dose rate, we can observe:
- Zero biological effects up to a high value of the irradiation dose showing the existence of a threshold.
- Beneficial effects of ionizing radiation, by stimulation of the means of defense, which
will manifest:
a) by an increase in longevity,
b) or, after having undergone a low dose of irradiation, by a considerably increased resistance to a second significant irradiation,
c) or, during a relapse after radiotherapy of cancer, by an anti-tumor action showing a stimulation of the immune defenses.
4.3 - Irradiation of the gonads (genetic effects) (see also Annex IV)
In the 1950s, the genetic effects were feared even more than the carcinogenic effects.
"We wondered if the irradiation of the gonads could not cause alterations in the genetic heritage transmissible to the offspring. Today very little is said about the genetic effects. This is because, despite in-depth studies, we never have any. detected in humans, neither in the descendants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki of the first and second generations (in total about 80 children), nor in the descendants of irradiated patients, although some of them received relatively high doses during cancer treatments, nor in
workers. "[14]
In its Publication 84 (43) the ICRP [15] only mentions precautionary measures for doses higher than 500 mSv.
4.4 - Irradiation of the Fetus
4.4.1 - Malformations (teratogenic effects) (see also Annex IV)
The normal frequency of births with malformation is close to 2%. DNA lesions are eliminated to 95% by apoptosis before implantation and those not eliminated cause 50% of miscarriages.
For X-ray during diagnostic procedures, therefore at high dose rate, ICRP 84 (71) gives a minimum threshold of 100 mSv for the production of radio-induced malformations and specifies that the termination of pregnancy is not justified at this dose.
4.4.2 - Mental retardation (see also Annex IV)
The normal frequency of mental retardation is around 3% (with an IQ of less than 70%).
The most frequent causes are malnutrition, lead poisoning, maternal alcoholism.
ICRP Publication 84 (27) indicates that no decrease in IQ has been observed for fetal doses below 100 mSv at high dose rates.
A few cases have been reported in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
4.4.3 - Cancers and Leukemias
The normal frequency of cancer and leukemia in children aged 0 to 15 is around 0,25%.
In Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 1600 children were irradiated in-utero and no case of cancer or leukemia resulting from this exposure has been demonstrated.
Moreover, during radiotherapeutic γ exposures, with fetal doses of 1 Sv at high dose rate, the frequency was 6%, ie, by applying RLSS, 0,6% per 100 mSv. These 2 factors, high dose rate and RLSS, considerably increase the real risk.
Ultimately, the risk of induction of cancers and leukemias for doses lower than 100 mSv, at high dose rate, appears negligible compared to the normal frequency of cancers and leukemias in children between 0 and 15 years.
4.5 - Induction Thresholds for Cancers and Leukemias After Low Dose Rate Irradiation
4.5.1 - Internal contamination by radium 226 [16]
Workers who painted luminous dials with a radium-based paint absorbed between 1903 and 1926 significant radium activities, up to 1 mg of Ra 226 (37 MBq), resulting in α irradiations of up to 500 Gy. absorption took place by pointing the brush with the lips; the radium thus ingested remains fixed on the bones for life.
3 people were followed and it was observed:
- 85 bone sarcomas, with a latency of 5 to 60 years,
- and 37 sinus cancers, with a latency of 18 to 60 years after the start of the exposure.
The incidence of cancer has been found to be zero below 10 Gy,
then increases rapidly above this threshold value.
(See also in 4.6.1 and 4.6.2)
4.5.2 - Internal contamination by plutonium 239 [17]
The 26 workers who worked at the Los Alamos Laboratory on the Manhattan Project, suffered large doses after inhalation and ingestion of plutonium. Although this α radioactive element has been called "the most toxic substance known to man," these workers have remained surprisingly healthy.
In 1990, only 2 lung cancers were observed, a significant deficit compared to the reference population. This remark is all the more important since all of these 26 workers were heavy smokers; in fact, the purification of the lung being slower in smokers, there is an increase in the risk of approximately 40% for the same quantity of plutonium absorbed. In other studies, an excess of cancers has only been observed for doses greater than 1 Gy. Furthermore, no case of plutonium-induced leukemia has been observed.
4.5.3 - Internal contamination by thorium 232 (thorotrast) [18] [19]
Thorotrast is an X-ray contrast agent that was used from 1928 to 1955. It consists of a colloidal solution of thorium oxide. Thorium 232 is a naturally occurring radioactive element (with a period of 1,47.1010 years), the α particles of which travel through the tissues of 40 µm. he
has been injected into hundreds of thousands of patients at doses of 1 to 100 ml, approximately 2 to 200 kBq of thorium 232. The first cancer was observed in 1947 and was followed by a long series.
Liver cancer has been more frequent, its appearance (20 to 28 years after the injection) is all the earlier the greater the activity injected.
The frequency also increases with the activity injected. For a 25 ml injection (containing approximately 12,5 g of thorium, i.e. 50 kBq), the average absorbed dose in the liver is estimated at
0,25 Gy / year for the entire lifetime, the thorium oxide being permanently fixed; after an injection of 25 ml, the irradiation undergone reaches 5 Gy in 20 years.
The practical threshold for the induction dose of cancer is, in this case, that for which the duration of onset of cancer is greater than the life expectancy of the subject.
The frequency of liver cancer was zero for doses below 2 Gy.
4.5.4 - Irradiation by natural radioactivity [1] [2]
The natural radiation dose in France is generally between 1,5 and 6 mSv / year; the studies carried out did not detect any increase in the incidence of cancer and leukemia according to the dose of irradiation.
In Brazil, Japan and India the dose often reaches in some regions 10 mSv / year, and up to 175 mSv / year; in Iran it can even reach 400 mSv / year. In these regions, as well as in the state of Kerala in the south of India where tens of thousands of people have always received doses of 10 mSv / year and more, the studies carried out have not detected any increase in the frequency of cancers and leukemias, nor the frequency of congenital malformations. (see also in 4.6.1 and 4.6.2 b).
4.6 - Beneficial Effects of Low Dose Ionizing Radiation
The International Scientific Community today recognizes the merits of the beneficial effects of radiation at low doses (hormesis). Since 1970, the beneficial effects
radiation has been the subject of a great deal of research for which thousands of references are mentioned in the report of the UN Scientific Committee, published
in 1994 [20].
4.6.1 - Increased longevity
The beneficial effects of radiation, under certain conditions, remained unnoticed for a long time. The ICRP regulations may have been the cause, since it had always established, and it was considered by all, as a dogma, that:
- a dose of X-radiation has the same biological efficacy as the same dose of γ-radiation,
- the dose rate is not to be taken into account.
In other words, the ICRP considered that X and γ radiation exhibited the same biological efficacy by cGy.
However, this is not the case, because exposures to X rays, by construction of the generators, are always received at very high dose rates, a few cGy to a few tens of cGy / min, while possible occupational exposure to γ radiation are generally received at a dose rate, most often less than 1 cGy / h. The γ radiation dose rates are even much smaller for atmospheric radioactive fallout from nuclear tests or accidents at nuclear facilities, as well as for natural irradiation.
This fundamental difference, between X and γ, was demonstrated in publications from 1967 and 1970 relating to the study of the longevity of irradiated mice. [21]
Experiments, carried out on batches sufficient to give the required precision, bring the following results:
- for X radiation at 80 cGy / min, we observe,
a clear and continuous decrease in longevity:
3% at 25 cGy, 5% at 50 cGy 14% at 100 cGy, 17% at 150 cGy, 29% at 300 cGy, 31% at 450 cGy
- whereas for γ radiation at around 1 cGy / h:
longevity is first increased by 3% to 150 cGy, returns to its normal value at 300 cG and decreases by 5% to 620 cGy.
It is clear that low dose rate γ radiation has enabled and even stimulated cellular repairs. This has clearly not been observed for X-rays, which are always produced at a high dose rate.
The results of the 1967/1970 study, mentioned above at a dose rate γ of cobalt 60 of the order of 1 cGy / h, are corroborated by an experiment published in 1999 [22] relating to batches of 300 mice irradiated continuously at much lower dose rates of 7 and
14 cGy per year; this experiment showed an average increase in longevity, for the two dose rates, of 23% (the average lifespan of the mice in the control sample is approximately 18 months).
An increase in longevity, due to γ radiation, has also been reported for populations exposed to high natural irradiation [23] as well as for workers having used a radium-based paint [24] (0,1 mg of radium fixed in the skeleton causes γ irradiation of the whole organism of a few cGy per year).
4.6.2 - Decrease in the frequency of cancers
a) - Influence of γ radiation
- An average decrease in mortality from cancer has been observed among workers who have painted radium dials [24].
- After an accidental irradiation, caused by an explosion, in the Urals
(ex USSR) in 1957, nearly 8000 people were exposed to doses of 4 to 50 cGy.
It has been found [25] that the cancer death rate has been found to be lower by around 30% compared to the normal frequency.
b) - Radon and lung cancer
Lung cancer has been known since 1870. Between 1870 and 1900 only 40 cases have been reported in the world medical literature. An in-depth study has been reported on cases of lung cancer in the population and miners of Saxony [26] where uranium-bearing soils lead to concentrations exceeding 15 kBq / m3 of air in 12% of homes and which can reach
115 kBq / m3. However, cases of lung cancer in this region were extremely rare there before 1900.
The first cigarette manufacturing plant built in Germany, in Dresden, went into operation in 1892. The consumption of cigarettes became increasing among miners, more than 80% of whom were smokers, and in 1913 the first cases of lung cancer were simply correlated. with high radon contents in uranium mines. On the other hand, it was found [27] that the frequency of lung cancer in non-smokers was lower than the normal frequency for a radon content in the air below 400 Bq / m3; at 200 Bq / m3 the frequency is minimum and is 20% lower than the normal frequency. The same result was obtained [28] with a study on 90% of the population of the USA between 60 Bq / m3 (average content in the USA) and 200 Bq / m3, with the same decrease of 20% at this last concentration.
On the other hand, of course, the observations made on minors who are very exposed are very different [26]. In the decades subsequent to 1945 uranium miners in the same Saxony mined 220 t of uranium in very unsafe conditions:
In addition to radon, miners were exposed to dust resulting from the dry grinding of ore, diesel exhaust fumes and nitrous vapors resulting from blasting operations, this situation being exacerbated by inadequate ventilation and in particular by causing heavy use of cigarettes in a complex synergy, a total of more than 10 lung cancer in the decades involved.
Such results, among others like have been used by the ICPR for extrapolation to low doses of population exposure to natural light. These effects extrapolated to low doses according to the LNT, multiplied by the number of large populations lead to impressive estimates that appear in the reports of national agencies or
International Respectful of the ICRP!
For example, in 1983, according to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), there were
in this country 20 cases of cancer caused each year by radon [000]. This agency maintains that radon is a major cause of lung cancer and encourages a program to protect premises [29] of enormous unjustified financial and emotional cost, but which are not without relevance for the business of air conditioning companies.
Yet, scientists recognized by their long experience and competence in radiation protection had strongly disagreed with the LNT. Thus in 1980,
LS Taylor Honorary President of the National Council for Radiation Protection and Radiation Measurement of the U.S.A. (NCRP) wrote: The application of RLSS is a "deeply immoral use of our scientific knowledge" [31] (see also in 3.4).
4.6.3 - Increased resistance to significant irradiation after a first low-dose irradiation
Laboratory experimentation [32], also involving human cells [33], has shown that if a small dose of a few cGy is given, then, after a few hours of waiting, a large dose of 3 Gy for example, it is observed that the number of genetic abnormalities in the DNA is significantly lower than that obtained for the same dose of 3 Gy given directly.
This observation could be made on humans in accidental circumstances which recently arose in Istanbul [34]. To make the metal, scrap trying to open a container in which a cobalt medical source 60 had been forgotten. For four hours, they tried to open the container, during which time they received a low dose of low-flow radiation; then, they managed to open it, this time undergoing a high dose rate. Finally, feeling unwell, they happily stopped their attempt.
The examinations showed that the actual dose undergone, evaluated according to the fall of leukocytes and platelets, was between 3 and 4 Gy. On the other hand, the number of genetic lesions undergone by DNA led to a dose of 1 to 2 Gy, showing much less damage to DNA, and therefore also to stem cells called to replace blood cells.
Depending on the type of accident, we can therefore find ourselves exceptionally in the situation where a low dose previously received protects the victim.
4.6.4 - Anti-tumor action of low doses
Intensive research on hormesis began in the 1980s [35] and in 1985 an International Symposium on Hormesis by Radiation was held in Oakland [36].
However, for more than 10 years already, Japanese researchers had already implemented low-dose irradiation to suppress cancer cells reappearing after conventional radiotherapy treatment [37].
cancer therapy at low doses showed a stimulation of the immune systems and cures over 10 years were obtained. For example, the cure rate of patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma was increased from 50% to 84%. [38]
A cooperative program between Japanese teams and the International Center for Low Dose Research at the University of Ottawa is currently considering the application of these techniques for the treatment of cancer in hospitals in Ottawa and Toronto [39].
V- CONCLUSIONS
This document has sought to consolidate the results and publications (only a small part) relating to studies carried out for twenty years or more, on the biological effects of low doses and low dose rates of ionizing radiation:
Contrary to the basic principles established by the ICRP for decades and confirmed in 1990 (and therefore still in application):
- a dose of ionizing radiation, however small, is carcinogenic,
- the induced biological effect is proportional to the dose; the dose / effect relationship is therefore a linear relationship without threshold (RLSS).
and following in-depth studies carried out in particular over the past decade, the following conclusions are becoming clearer every day:
1 - For doses below 200 mSv for adults and 100 mSv for children, it has been shown no increase in the usual frequency
- genetic or teratogenic effects,
- the number of cancers and leukemias.
2 - It has been noted that there is a threshold for the induction of the biological effects mentioned above, which can be caused by high doses using alpha radioactive sources (radon, radium, thorium, plutonium) or gamma (natural irradiation, cobalt 60, cesium 137…)
3 - As with all toxic, chemical or biological substances capable of attacking humans, the human organism has effective means of defense against the effects of ionizing radiation. This defense can be provided by the injured cell itself and also by the cells adjoining the injured cell.
4 - Ionizing radiation, at low doses and in particular at low dose rates, bring beneficial effects:
- increased longevity,
- decrease in the frequency of cancer or leukemia,
- induction by a low dose, of radioresistance in the face of significant irradiation to come,
for an intervention with a high dose rate or before radiotherapy,
- immune action.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The basic provisions taken into account by the ICRP, in blind application of the precautionary principle, have wrongly led to the conviction, generally well established for decades, that any exposure to ionizing radiation, however small, is dangerous for the man. This conviction is today completely unfounded with regard to the low doses of radiation caused by:
- natural irradiation,
- the medical examinations and treatments normally carried out,
- nuclear energy, for workers and members of the public,
- the fallout from cesium 137 following the Chernobyl accident…
The media which have succeeded so well in developing anxiety must today, objectively and honestly, cease unjustified campaigns, waged against activities associated with ionizing radiation and in particular against nuclear energy.
These campaigns, passively supported by the responsible authorities, hide really serious dangers such as:
- Tobacco which causes more than 3 million deaths per year on our planet (in France, tobacco causes more than 60 deaths per year, which is 000 to 6 times more than road accidents),
- The annual release of 28 Gt of carbon dioxide (1 Gt = 1 billion tonnes) to which must be added an equivalent of 7 Gt for the greenhouse effect also resulting from methane leaks during transport by pipeline.
Despite the very insufficient measures recommended by international bodies to reduce these releases, it is expected that this annual release will reach 50 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2050, that is, taking methane into account, an annual equivalent of 62 Gt of carbon dioxide which will significantly increase the growth of the greenhouse effect. When, sooner or later, this effect manifests itself in an obvious way (it is already considered a certainty by many scientists), it will be too late and all human efforts will prove to be very derisory.
The Intergovernmental Committee on Climate Change (IPCC), created in 1988, estimates that sea level will likely rise by about 50cm over the next century, threatening to cover regions where around 90 million people live, these regions are often the most populous and the poorest (Bangladesh).
The 20 members of the IPCC approved on December 15, 1995, despite strong opposition from the USA and OPEC countries, a resolution recommending:
- decarbonization of liquid and gaseous fossil fuels (leaving only hydrogen, the combustion of which does not cause any pollution),
- the use of nuclear energy,
- and the use of renewable energies.
To compare more fully the dangers of nuclear energy and the dangers associated with the use of fossil fuels, Appendix V summarizes the fatal accidents resulting from various sources of energy production, and Appendix VI presents:
- radioactive waste produced by nuclear energy, the means of treatment and associated storage,
- chemical gaseous effluents by the use of fossil fuels and the extent of the atmospheric pollution which results from it.
Annex V shows that for 30 years:
- transportation and storage of oil and natural gas resulted in 6500 deaths, or approximately
150 times more than the Chernobyl accident (43 deaths registered to date),
- dam failures have resulted in 260 deaths, around 000 times more than in Chernobyl.
Annex VI shows that
- the external irradiation at the edge of a nuclear power plant site, due to the radioactivity rares of rare gases without chemical affinity (krypton and xenon), is less than one hundredth of the natural irradiation. This irradiation is of the same order as the internal irradiation due to the natural radioactivity of the dust released by a coal-fired power station (uranium 238, thorium 232 and their daughter products).
- radioactive waste, conditioned in concrete blocks for storage above ground for waste of less activity and, for high activity waste, in vitrified blocks placed in underground storage after 10 years of decay, will not have the possibility of causing sensitive radiation. Indeed, Oklo's natural nuclear reactors have highlighted the low migration of fission radionuclides in soils for alkaline earth elements, rare earths and transuranians, elements whose radiotoxicity is important and which remain alone after a few hundreds of years of decay of high level radioactive waste.
- carbon dioxide and toxic products resulting from fossil fuels, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons, are directly released into the atmosphere. Under these conditions, the problems of waste are quickly resolved, without worrying about the greenhouse effect or the intoxication of populations with chemicals. Meanwhile, experts from certain organizations, called independent, "tease the becquerel [40]"!
"What the priests of nature must do and demand is that the rigor of the protection applied against ionizing radiation be extended to protection against other physical or chemical agents which threaten man and not all of which are in addition to its service as are the radiations.
I am scandalized by the negligence with regard to chemical pollution of which no military or industrial factor affects the harmfulness of the suicidal factor that is the use of cigarettes.
Prof. Georges MATHE
Director of the Villejuif Institute of Cancerology and Immunogenetics
REFERENCES
[1] - R.Paulin - Natural radionuclides,
NUCLEAR TOXIC - ED. MASSON - Paris January 1998 –P.3
[2] - M. Tubiana "Current Problems and the Evolution of Knowledge in the Last Decade" (ACT p. 24).
[3] - F. Spurny, A. Malusek - Variation of the air crew exposure to cosmic radiation -
THE EFFECTS OF LOW DOSES OF IONIZING RADIATION ON HUMAN HEALTH,
Proceedings of the First International Symposium held at the University of Versailles,
Saint-Quentin en Yvelines, France on 17th and 18th June 1999. p.247
Ed. WONUC (World Council of Nuclear Workers), 49, rue Lauriston, Paris. (WONUC p.247) [4] - H. Bouhnik et al. - Evaluation of the doses delivered during radiological examinations -
Radiodiagnostic Commission of the French Society of Hospital Physicists -
Radioprotection, 23, Special Issue, 1988 - Ed.Gédim, 42029 St-Etienne
[5] - M. Tubiana, "Radio-induced cancer among cancer risk" - (WONUC p.10)
[6] - M. Tubiana "The Modeling of the Carcinogenic Effect and the Relationship
Dose / Effect "NEWS IN RADIOBIOLOGY AND RADIOPROTECTION, (ACT p.135)
Ed. Nucléon (2001), 91194 Gif-sur-Yvette Cedex.
[7] - H. Joffre, "Observations on the biological basis of dose limits",
Report on the Days of Study of Radiation Protection of the Association for Techniques and Sciences of Radiation Protection - CERN, Geneva 12-14 November 1981, p.46.
[8] - RC Milton and T. Shohoji, "Attempt 1965 radiation estimate for atomic bomb survivors", report Atomic Casualty Commission, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, ABCC-TR-1-68 1968).
[9] - WE Loewe and E. Mendelsohn (LLNL), Health Physics 41, 663 (1981).
[10] - Gunnar Walinder "Carcinogenic Effects of Low Radiation Doses; An Epistemologically Insoluble Problem" (WONUC p.359).
[11] - M. Tubiana "The report of the French Academy of Science: Problems Associated with the effects of low doses of ionizing radiation" J.Radiol. Prot. 18: 4, pp 243-248, 1998.
[12] - Ethel Moustacchi "From Initial Lesion to Alteration of the Cell" (ACT p.33).
[13] - B. Alberts and al. Eds. Molecular Biology of the Cell, 3rd Ed. Garland Pub.,
New York, 1994. (WONUC p. 311)
[14] - M. Tubiana, "Current Problems and the Evolution of Knowledge in the Last Decade" (ACT p.11).
[15] - "Pregnancy and Medical Irradiation", 2001, ICRP Publication 84,
EDP SCIENCES, 7, av. du Hoggar, 91944 Les Ulis cedex A.
[16] - Jerry M. Cuttler "Resolving the Controversy Over Beneficial Effects of Ionizing Radiation", (WONUC p.463).
[17] - H. Métivier, "Plutonium" TOXIQUES NUCLEAIRES (TN p.225), Ed. MASSON Paris, 1998.
[18] - P. Galle "Thorium and radiocancers due to thorotrast" (TN p.345).
[19] - M. Tubiana "Current Problems and the Evolution of Knowledge in the Last Decade" (ACT p. 22).
[20] - United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation "Adaptive responses to radiation in cells and organisms," Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation: UNSCEAR 1994 Report to the General Assembly, with Scientific Annexes. Annex B.
[21] - AC Upton et al., Radiation Research 32, p.493 (1967) and 41, p.467 (1970).
[22] - M. Courtade and al. "Influence of very low doses of ionizing radiation on life span and immune system in mice", 1999 - (WONUC p.85).
[23] - M. Pollycove "Positive health effects of low level radiation in human populations". In Biological Effects of Low Level Exposures: Dose-Response Relationships.
Ed. EJ Calabrese, Lewis Pub. Inc., Chelsa, Michigan, 1994, 171-187. (WONUC p.306).
[24] - S. Kondo "Health Effects of Low-Level Radiation". Osaka, Japan: Kinki University Press Madison, WI: Medical Physics Publishing, 1993. (WONUC p. 306).
[25] - Z. Jaworowski "Beneficial radiation". Nukleonika 40: 3-12 (1995) (WONUC p. 306)
[26] - K. Becker "Is residential radon dangerous" (WONUC p.161).
[27] - KT Bogen Mechanistic Model Predicts a U-shaped Relation of Radon Exposure to Lung Cancer Risk Reflected in Combined Occupational and US Residential Data, Human Experim. Toxicol. 17, 691-696, 1998. (WONUC p.167).
[28] - BL Cohen Test of the linear no-threshold theory of radiation carcinogenesis in the low dose, low dose rate region. Health Phys. 68: 157-174 (1995.) (WONUC p. 306).
[29] EPA Radon and Radionuclide Emission Standards. (1983) October 6, Hearing Before the Procurement and Military Nuclear Systems Subcommittee First Session of the Ninety-eighth Congress. (WONUC p. 275).
[30] Ph. H. Abelson, Editorial, Science 254, 777, 1991. (WONUC p.166).
[31] LS Taylor Some non-scientific influences on radiation protection standards and practice. Health Phys. 39: 851-874 (1980). (WONUC p. 307).
[31] Bobby E. Leonard Repair of multiple break chromosomal damage - Its impact on the use of the linear quadratic model for low dose and low dose rates (WONUC p.449).
[33] XC Le, and al. Inducible repair of thymine glycol detected by an ultra sensitive assay for DNA damage. Science 280: 1066-1069 (1998). (WONUC p. 314).
[34] - JM Cosset "The Modeling of the Carcinogenic Effect and the Dose / Effect Relationship"
(ACT p.134).
[35] - TDLuckey in Jerry M. Cuttler "Resolving the Controversy Over Beneficial Effects of Ionizing Radiation" (WONUC p.468).
[36] - International Symposium on Radiation Hormesis, Oakland, California, 1985.
[37] - S. Hattori "Medical Application of low doses of ionizing radiation" proceedings of International Symposium and Health Effect of Low Dose of Ionizing Radiation, University of Ottawa, Canada, 1998. (WONUC p.468).
[38] - K. Sakamoto and al. in M. Cuttler "Resolving the Controversy Over Beneficial Effects of Ionizing Radiation" (WONUC p.468).
[39] - Jerry M. Cuttler "Resolving the Controversy Over Beneficial Effects of Ionizing Radiation"
(WONUC p.468)
[40] - J. Bonnemains - Towards a new Nuclear Control -
Nuclear Safety Authority - State Secretariat for Industry - Paris, November 27, 1998.
APPENDIX I
CHARACTERISTICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND PHOTONS
1 - Elementary particles
- electron and particle β (mass = 1 / 1840th of the mass of the proton,
negative electrical charge = -1,6.10 - 19 coulomb)
- proton: it is the nucleus of the hydrogen atom
(mass = 1 atomic mass unit = 1,7 .10 - 24 g,
positive electric charge = 1,6.10 - 19 coulomb)
- neutron (mass = 1 AMU = 1,7.10 - 24 g, zero electrical charge)
- α particle: it is the nucleus of the helium atom, it is made up of 2 neutrons + 2 protons.
2 - electromagnetic radiation: UV, X and γ
A photon, a quantum of electromagnetic energy, is characterized by its wavelength λ;
examples:
- UV photon: λ = 0,3 μm and below
- 100 keV X photon: λ = 12,4 pm (1 picometer = 10 –12 m)
- 1 MeV γ photon: λ = 1,24 pm
The absorbed dose, at a given depth of penetration of electromagnetic radiation into the body, will be greater the shorter the wavelength of the photons:
- for UV photons, only the skin is concerned,
- for photons of 100 keV and 1 MeV, the dose rate will be reduced, to a depth of 15 cm, respectively, to around 10% and 30%.
ANNEX II
PRODUCTION OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND PHOTONS
Electrons and protons are produced, at a well-defined energy, by "particle accelerators". The depth of penetration of these particles in the body is a precise function of their energy, hence their very efficient use in radiotherapy (irradiation of the ganglia with electrons, irradiation of the eye with protons).
The β radiation consists of electrons whose energies have a continuous spectrum ranging from an energy of 0 up to a maximum energy characteristic of the radioactive element. The path of β particles in the body is a few millimeters.
Α particles are emitted by many naturally occurring radioactive elements of the families of
uranium 238 and thorium 232. The α particles exhibit a spectrum of energy lines characteristic of the radioactive element. The path of α particles in the body is a few hundredths of a millimeter.
Neutrons are produced, in particular, in the fission of uranium 235 and plutonium 239 atoms present in the fuel of nuclear reactors. They in turn generate new fissions among the other atoms of uranium 235 and plutonium 239.
The X photons are emitted either in X generators by braking, in a metallic target, of electrons previously accelerated (radioscopy, radiography, scanner…) or by radioactive elements emitting X.
Γ photons are emitted by radioactive elements. They exhibit a spectrum of γ lines whose energies are characteristic of the radioactive element (1,17 and 1,33 MeV for cobalt 60).
Note: radiodiagnosis by scintigraphy uses X or γ emitting radioactive elements.
ANNEX III
NOTES ON THE DETECTION OF IONIZING RADIATION
A first aspect which characterizes ionizing radiation is the possibility of detecting it with a very high sensitivity relative to the dose necessary to produce a detectable biological effect. In addition, a very limited number of detectors is sufficient to ensure the detection of all radiation (external irradiation by radiation and by neutrons, contamination of the air by aerosols and by gases, contamination of water and surface contamination).
These particular characteristics make it possible to achieve very high safety for workers who are immediately informed of a slight variation in the level of external irradiation or of contamination of the air by light and sound signaling.
These provisions constitute a powerful safety factor for workers in the nuclear field in relation to other industries, they make it possible to considerably limit exposure in the event of an accident.
A risk of contamination of the air by plutonium is thus infinitely less devious and always less serious of consequences than if it were beryllium, asbestos, bacilli or pathogenic viruses for which instant detection, associated with immediate signaling is practically impractical. The invisible presence of chemical or biological pollutants is often not detected until their effects are manifested on humans.
The radiation detection sensitivity is very high. A pocket detector
Geiger-Müller tube counter allows immediate detection of external radiation, even
0 x
Reason is the madness of the strongest. The reason for the less strong it is madness.
[Eugène Ionesco]
http://www.editions-harmattan.fr/index. ... te&no=4132
[Eugène Ionesco]
http://www.editions-harmattan.fr/index. ... te&no=4132
This summary, without any precise internet link, in fact:
http://www.ecolo.org/documents/document ... joffre.htm
brought out by Flytox, course summary or nuclear lobby credo, old, very late, (like Jancovici repeating the lesson) especially before the 80s, is remarkable for underestimating the risks and even for affirming that a good radioactive dose is very good for health and lengthen the lifespan as used and fashionable in the 1920s to 1930s !! (we also wove asbestos like cotton without any fear, and invisible but very real deaths !!)
We must compare to more modern studies that take into account recent knowledge in biology, more capable of seeing genetic damage, (and not studies before the 1970s) as:
European Committee on Irradiation Risk
http://www.euradcom.org/2011/ecrr2010.pdf
Uranium weapons: why all the fuss?
http://www.unidir.ch/pdf/articles/pdf-art2758.pdf
Clearly it will take a generation with the death of the dinosaurs, (Tubiana M.)
http://www.dissident-media.org/infonucl ... biana.html
http://infodoc.inserm.fr/histoire/Histo ... enDocument
(for him the radioactivity which he has subjected much more than suffered directly, keeps very well!)
for that to change, to take into account modern biology and the genetics that allows to see the damage on genes and DNA, on generations, impossible to measure before the 90s !!.
It is exactly the same mechanism that has greatly underestimated other risks for decades, powerful financial interests of lobbies, and technicians more than scientists abused or sold: Mediator, asbestos, tobacco, glycol ethers, bisphenol A (bomb to delay), GMOs, pesticides, herbicides, chemicals, junk food, etc.
Furthermore it is badly placed HS on non-ionizing (portable) electromagnetic waves:
Move to for example;
https://www.econologie.com/forums/comprendre ... 06-50.html
where I will put a big extract of the recent Euradcom report which gives me shivers considering the underestimation of real dangers !!!
or to:
https://www.econologie.com/forums/munitons-a ... 03-10.html
The video of bad waves:
http://www.robindestoits.org/VIDEO-docu ... a1238.html
Questioning of official expertise on the dangers of mobile telephony
http://www.robindestoits.org/Mises-en-c ... _a546.html
Same methods of underestimation as for radioactivity !!
http://www.ecolo.org/documents/document ... joffre.htm
brought out by Flytox, course summary or nuclear lobby credo, old, very late, (like Jancovici repeating the lesson) especially before the 80s, is remarkable for underestimating the risks and even for affirming that a good radioactive dose is very good for health and lengthen the lifespan as used and fashionable in the 1920s to 1930s !! (we also wove asbestos like cotton without any fear, and invisible but very real deaths !!)
We must compare to more modern studies that take into account recent knowledge in biology, more capable of seeing genetic damage, (and not studies before the 1970s) as:
European Committee on Irradiation Risk
http://www.euradcom.org/2011/ecrr2010.pdf
Uranium weapons: why all the fuss?
http://www.unidir.ch/pdf/articles/pdf-art2758.pdf
Clearly it will take a generation with the death of the dinosaurs, (Tubiana M.)
http://www.dissident-media.org/infonucl ... biana.html
http://infodoc.inserm.fr/histoire/Histo ... enDocument
(for him the radioactivity which he has subjected much more than suffered directly, keeps very well!)
for that to change, to take into account modern biology and the genetics that allows to see the damage on genes and DNA, on generations, impossible to measure before the 90s !!.
It is exactly the same mechanism that has greatly underestimated other risks for decades, powerful financial interests of lobbies, and technicians more than scientists abused or sold: Mediator, asbestos, tobacco, glycol ethers, bisphenol A (bomb to delay), GMOs, pesticides, herbicides, chemicals, junk food, etc.
Furthermore it is badly placed HS on non-ionizing (portable) electromagnetic waves:
Move to for example;
https://www.econologie.com/forums/comprendre ... 06-50.html
where I will put a big extract of the recent Euradcom report which gives me shivers considering the underestimation of real dangers !!!
or to:
https://www.econologie.com/forums/munitons-a ... 03-10.html
The video of bad waves:
http://www.robindestoits.org/VIDEO-docu ... a1238.html
Questioning of official expertise on the dangers of mobile telephony
http://www.robindestoits.org/Mises-en-c ... _a546.html
Same methods of underestimation as for radioactivity !!
Last edited by dedeleco the 22 / 05 / 11, 22: 05, 2 edited once.
0 x
-
Christophe
- Moderator
- posts: 79330
- Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
- Location: Greenhouse planet
- x 11046
+1 these 2 messages are to copy / paste in the right subjects!
(in addition to the fact that that of Flytox is truncated and without citing a source ...)
(in addition to the fact that that of Flytox is truncated and without citing a source ...)
0 x
Do a image search or an text search - Netiquette of forum
I got this doc at work in word format ..... it is very interesting to know that it is ultra outdated. It was intended for those responsible for radiation protection ..... 
0 x
Reason is the madness of the strongest. The reason for the less strong it is madness.
[Eugène Ionesco]
http://www.editions-harmattan.fr/index. ... te&no=4132
[Eugène Ionesco]
http://www.editions-harmattan.fr/index. ... te&no=4132
It is questioned very strongly, and Jancovici unconscious still teaches it for radiation protection, which makes it possible to hide the deaths of Chernobyl in Europe, like the future deaths of Fukushima, with an insufficient evacuation, exactly like the asbestos of buildings has been considered harmless for decades !!
0 x
Other source of information on electromagnetic fields
I found in www.official-prevention.com an article on the prevention of electomagnetic waves at work: "Prevention of occupational risks from electromagnetic fields."
link: http://www.officiel-prevention.com/prot ... dossid=338
link: http://www.officiel-prevention.com/prot ... dossid=338
0 x
-
Penelopezzz
- I discovered econologic
- posts: 1
- Registration: 20/07/13, 17:42
Protect yourself from electromagnetic waves during sleep
Bonjour.
We want to develop a new product: an electromagnetic wave bed canopy. We would like to take this opportunity to identify and take into account the needs of people potentially interested in this type of product.
Those who feel concerned can answer the short questionnaire below, it takes between 5 and 10 minutes.
We thank you very much for your interest.
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1LL8FbC ... 4/viewform
We want to develop a new product: an electromagnetic wave bed canopy. We would like to take this opportunity to identify and take into account the needs of people potentially interested in this type of product.
Those who feel concerned can answer the short questionnaire below, it takes between 5 and 10 minutes.
We thank you very much for your interest.
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1LL8FbC ... 4/viewform
0 x
-
- Similar topics
- Replies
- views
- Last message
-
- 3 Replies
- 5498 views
-
Last message by djuVSondes
View the latest post
28/07/15, 08:22A subject posted in the forum : Health and prevention. Pollution, causes and effects of environmental hazards
-
- 10 Replies
- 13826 views
-
Last message by Did67
View the latest post
19/01/15, 19:40A subject posted in the forum : Health and prevention. Pollution, causes and effects of environmental hazards
-
- 3 Replies
- 6800 views
-
Last message by izentrop
View the latest post
25/10/14, 15:03A subject posted in the forum : Health and prevention. Pollution, causes and effects of environmental hazards
-
- 14 Replies
- 13959 views
-
Last message by izentrop
View the latest post
05/06/15, 13:13A subject posted in the forum : Health and prevention. Pollution, causes and effects of environmental hazards
-
- 4 Replies
- 5841 views
-
Last message by Obamot
View the latest post
09/06/12, 07:49A subject posted in the forum : Health and prevention. Pollution, causes and effects of environmental hazards
Back to "Health and Prevention. Pollution, causes and effects of environmental risks "
Who is online ?
Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 349 guests