The Low Level Radiation Campaign

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Overview

The Low Level Radiation Campaign is concerned with ionising radiation and health. Its central issue is that the health effects of radioactive contamination of the environment have been very considerably underestimated by official agencies. While LLRC believes that the risks of radiation impingeing on the body from external sources are reasonably well described by the International Commission on Radiological Protection and agencies which use ICRP's advice, the same can not be said of risks from radiation sources inside the body. LLRC's case is that in many circumstances internal radiation is far more dangerous than ICRP's risk modelling predicts.
Much of the LLRC's work is related to the induction of cancer by radioisotopes released by the nuclear industry. The LLRC web site [8] contains a variety of articles on the subject.
The LLRC was started in 1993 as a campaign under the aegis of the Green Party and in 1996 it became independent (this was made possible by a grant from the Goldsmith Foundation). In 1999 it was registered by Companies House as a Company Limited by Guarantee.

[edit] Central thesis of the LLRC

LLRC holds that radiation protection standards are fundamentally flawed on two main grounds. One is that they are based on radiation dose as an average energy transfer into large volumes of undifferentiated body tissue from external radiation sources and from the radioactive decay of unstable elements within the body. LLRC cites a number of authorities who have criticised this on conceptual grounds (see [9]).
The second flaw is that estimates of health hazard are based primarily on the so-called Life-Span Studies (LSS) of the health of people who survived exposure to acute external irradiation from the A-bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. LLRC points out that the LSS suffer from methodological flaws including selective recruitment of the study group, as the studies didn't begin until five years after the bombings. More seriously, according to LLRC, the control group used to define the baseline of expected disease rates in an unexposed population was drawn from the populations of the bombed cities, so that both the study group and control group were equally contaminated by activation products and fission products. For this reason the LSS are held to be silent on the effects of fallout and informative only on the effects of acute instantaneous external irradiation by gamma-rays, X-rays and neutrons from the explosion of the bombs. LLRC claims support for this view from the official French radiation risk agency IRSN (Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire) (see [10], (and [11]English edition) and the [12] (European Committee on Radiation Risk).

[edit] The hot coal analogy

LLRC holds that on biological and radiological grounds internal contamination of body tissue by some types of radioactivity is inherently more dangerous than predicted on the basis of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki studies. According to the LLRC the reason for the discrepancy is that external irradiation is uniformly distributed on a macroscopic level, with all cells receiving the same amount of ionising energy, while many forms of radioactivity when inside the body deliver their energy exclusively to microscopic volumes of cells; some types of radioactive decay are heterogeneous even on the far smaller molecular level. LLRC's favourite analogy for this heterogeneity of energy distribution is that external irradiation is like a person sitting by a fire and warming himself. If the person were to reach into the fire to take a burning coal and eat it the local tissue effects would probably be fatal, even if a similar or smaller amount of energy had thereby been absorbed by the person's body.

[edit] Is radiation dose meaningless?

On such logic as the hot coal analogy LLRC holds that radiation dose is virtually meaningless in some circumstances. In support of this they cite authorities including CERRIE (the UK Government's Committee Examining Radiation Risk of Internal Emitters), IRSN and drafts of the ICRP's latest Recommendations.

[edit] Impact on interpretation of epidemiology

LLRC states that, since official radiation risk agencies universally quantify risk in terms of average dose, there are many types of exposure for which official reassurances are highly questionable and that it is not tenable to assert that disease phenomena like the Seascale cluster of childhood leukaemia could not be caused by radiation on the grounds of low doses.

[edit] Scale of implied error in risk estimates

[edit] Childhood leukamia

COMARE (the UK Government's advisory Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment) has reported that, on the basis of data for leukaemia derived from study of the Japanese bomb survivors, doses from Sellafield were between 200 and 300 times too small to cause the number of cases observed in Seascale. LLRC states that this is not evidence that radiation did not cause the Seascale cluster, but evidence that the risk model is in error by a factor of 200 – 300.

[edit] Infant leukamia after Chernobyl

LLRC also points to infant leukaemia after the Chernobyl accident [1] as unequivocal evidence of an error of two orders of magnitude in ICRP risk factors.

[edit] Cancer in Sweden after Chernobyl

LLRC states that there is a large amount of evidence of this nature Another study cited by LLRC is the Tondel et al. study of cancer in Sweden after Chernobyl [2]. According to the LLRC's publication Radioactive Times, this demonstrates an error in ICRP of between 125 and 600. LLRC states that the extra cancers which were registered in the 9 post-accident years 1988 to 1996 are at least 125 times the incidence predicted by ICRP on the basis of doses from Caesium in Sweden, which was measured and mapped in detail.
This 125-fold figure is based on the assumption that the effect is transient and that there would be no excess after 1996. However, the lifetime follow-up of Hiroshima survivors shows a consistent upward trend and it is likely that the effect seen in Sweden is typical of the distribution of risks throughout life and that cancer incidence will continue to be higher than expected. According to LLRC's calculations this would imply a 600-fold error in ICRP’s modelling.

[edit] An internal study

A further example relating specifically to internal radiation is a published study of nuclear industry workers diagnosed with prostate cancer [3]. This shows a statistically significant and substantially increased risk of prostate cancer associated with internal contamination. Responding in the British Medical Journal[4], UKAEA calculated that, if the internal radionuclides were causing the cancer, then internationally accepted risk factors were probably in error by more than 1000-fold.

[edit] Chernobyl studies

The LLRC web site has summaries [13] of Russian, Belarussian and Ukrainian studies since the Chernobyl disaster.
The Campaign is severely critical of the ICRP for failing to cite or discuss any epidemiological findings from Chernobyl affected territories. They refer to this as systematic theft of the greatest opportunity the human race has ever had to study the health effects of a major reactor accident.

[edit] Minority view

The views which are held and expressed by LLRC are very different to those held/expressed by the majority of scientists working within the field some of whom regard them variously as extreme or scaremongering.

[edit] Persons

[edit] Chris Busby

Dr. Chris Busby is the principal scientific adviser to the Low Level Radiation Campaign. Dr. Busby is a Director of research consultancy Green Audit [14], a past member of CERRIE (the UK Government's Committee Examining Radiation Risks of Internal Emitters [15]) and the Ministry of Defence Depleted Uranium Oversight Board ([16]). He is Scientific Secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk [17]. His curriculum vitae can be viewed at [18].
He holds a PhD in Chemical physics issued by University of Kent {Canterbury on the topic of Raman spectroscopy at metal surfaces[5][6][7][8]).
Since Dr. Busby has been interested in the relationship between humans and radiation. He has been quoted as holding the opinion that dangerous particles from Hinkley point are present in the mudflats, and the guardian newspaper have implied that the radioactive discharges from that nuclear power plant are responsible for a three headed frog.[19]

[edit] Richard Bramhall

Richard Bramhall is a founder member of the Low Level Radiation Campaign and is its Company Secretary. He is a retired professional double bass player, originally trained at the Royal College of Music in London in the 1960s. He worked in many orchestras beginning with the Royal Opera House when he left the RCM in 1969, then the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra, and at various times the English Chamber Orchestra and the London Symphony Orchestra.
According to the Cerrie web site [20]he holds the view that he is an informed non-scientist with a considerable track record of reporting developments in the field of radiation protection to an actively interested constituency of policy makers, journalists and members of the public both in the UK and abroad. He has had many years experience of Stakeholder Dialogue in the United Kingdom, working with representatives of government, regulators, the nuclear industry and other Non-Government Organisations on issues concerned with radioactive waste, contaminated land and contaminated materials.

[edit] Others

Since the Low Level Radiation Campaign is a Company under UK law, the identities of the Directors are in the public domain and can be seen on the Companies House website.
A number of people contribute to LLRC's work, as published in Radioactive Times and in the proceedings of various dialogues.

[edit] "Non research" methods

[edit] Civil disobedience

Chris Busby gave an annual South Place Ethical Society lecture in London in 1994 on non violent direct action. He also argued the Green Party into embracing non violent direct action in the same year as a legitimate political strategy. He has engaged in civil disobedience, for instance he organized the chain up at Trawsfynydd. This was an event where Chris Busby, together with a number of other protestors, chained himself to the gate to protest against the restart of the power reactors under conditions which Dr Busby and others considered to be unsafe. This chaining by a person of themselves to an object is a method of protest which has been used by suffragettes in the UK and by other groups including Bertrand Russell's Committee of 100. Dr. Busby was a prime mover in setting up a Green Committee of 100 in 1994. The last known action of the Green Committee of 100 was the invasion of the British Nuclear Energy Society's 1997 International Conference on Low Level Radiation and Health in Stratford (England). In this, Richard Bramhall, dressed and made-up as the Grim Reaper, chained himself to the podium while epidemiologist Sir Richard Doll was delivering a keynote address. Other activists distributed copies of Dr. Busby's book Wings of Death to delegates.

[edit] Satire

In contrast to nuclear / radiological organisations (such as the IAEA and the ITU) LLRC regards itself as a campaigning organisation and uses modes of communication appropriate to that status. Richard Bramhall has described parts of the LLRC web site as satire. Another Wikipedia editor has identified the following three quotes, taken from the jargon buster of the LLRC [21].
Committee Examining Radiation Risks of Internal Emitters. An oppositional committee set up by the UK Environment Minister in 2001. Notable for caving into legalistic threats from Departmental lawyers right at the end of its two-and-a-half year deliberations.
and
The LLRC also describes the ICRP as the Incestuous Cabal for Radioactive Pollution
and
The LLRC comments that the idea of Controllable Dose is "(the) ICRP's idea for allowing the nukes to pollute anybody and everybody with radioactivity up to an arbitrary threshold ".

[edit] Cartoons and lampoons

Other styles are cartoons, including a Teddy and Dolly series and Roger Radon penned by Chris Busby. A series by Richard Bramhall features a fictional detective called Sergeant Mercer and his sidekick Constable Joskin (see [22]). There are lampoons of poems such as Owen's Strange Meeting and of the Wombles' Song. Good King Roger is a fairy story about ICRP's proposal to abandon the concept of collective dose.

[edit] Its relationship with other organisations

It is possible that the LLRC's work is Pathological science, where research serves only to support a preconceived hypothesis. The Environmental Health Sub-Committee of the Sellafield local liaison committee in agenda item 39 have commented (about Chris Busby, a key worker within the LLRC) that "His (Busby's) avoidance of the peer review process makes his work hard to judge".[23] However an examination of Chris Busby's résumé has indicated that his rejection of peer reviewed journals has not been total.[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] As Busby has failed sometimes to use the conventional method of subjecting his work to a peer reviewed journal where several referees would judge if his findings are reasonable, it is difficult to make a judgment as to the worth of his work which was not published in a peer reviewed journal.

[edit] Busby's reasons for rejecting peer review

During a series of e-mails written between a wikipedia author and Chris Busby, he explained his reasoning for rejecting peer reviewed journals.

He stated that "I only want the ideas out there: most of the time I don’t even bother to send it to any journal" and that "As to getting the ideas out, I seem to do alright without sending stuff to peer review journals.".

[edit] Choice of journals

One of the journals that Chris Busby favours for publication is European Biology and Bioelectromagnetics[24] which is a journal in which Chris Busby has been an author of 18% of the papers published in volume 1 (and volume 2 issue 1). This degree of involvement in the papers published in a journal is rare, one explanation is that the topic is a relatively small subject area in terms of the number of workers, so as a result one author is able to dominate a journal in this way.

[edit] Suppression of ideas

He has also stated that he considers many referees to be either unable to understand his work or are likely to be biased by culture or employment resulting in the whole process becoming a waste of time. It is interesting that some of these points have been raised by other workers. It has been noted that unpopular ideas are subject to suppression by the experts who hold a great deal of power as they are oftein referees. .[26] The peer review process may suppress dissent against "mainstream" theories.[27][28][29] Reviewers tend to be especially critical of conclusions that contradict their own views, and lenient towards those that accord with them. At the same time, elite scientists are more likely than less established ones to be sought out as referees, particularly by high-prestige journals or publishers. As a result, it has been argued, ideas that harmonize with the elite's are more likely to see print and to appear in premier journals than are iconoclastic or revolutionary ones, which accords with Thomas Kuhn's well-known observations regarding scientific revolutions.[30]

Others have pointed out that:

"... peer review does not thwart new ideas. Journal editors and the 'scientific establishment' are not hostile to new discoveries. Science thrives on discovery and scientific journals compete to publish new breakthroughs."[31]

[edit] The slow pace of peer review

Chris Busby considers that he has a duty to bring to the world's attention a series of facts and ideas, and that "science by press conference is actually a very powerful method" by which he can bring his ideas into the public domain. He also claimed that "Nikola Tesla never published anything. He had considerable scorn for peer review."

[edit] Assessment of the possibility that the work is pseudoscience

In the pseudoscience article the following symptoms of pseudoscience are noted (Others are present in the pseudoscience article but these can not be applied to Busby).

[edit] Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation

  • A over-reliance on testimonials and anecdotes is one of the symptoms of pseudoscience. Testimonial and anecdotal evidence can be useful for discovery (i.e. hypothesis generation) but should not be used in the context of justification (i.e. hypothesis testing).[32]
    • The LLRC have used testimonial and anecdotal evidence from the staff of Disneyland to suggest that the childhood cancer rate in Wales is very high because the Irish Sea is very radioactive. While to rely unpon this alone would be a poor or pseudoscientific method, Chris Busby has written a large literature review using a range of other information sources which suggest that the Irish sea is strongly contaminated with plutonium. This literature review was published in a recent book.[33] While it is possible that the book is not an unbiased review of plutonium in the marine environment, it is important to note that a mere bias in favour of one hypothesis alone is not a reason to reject a source as being unscientific. It is the case that many scientists have a pet hypothesis which they favour, one form the normal scientific method is to create a hypothesis which is then subject to testing through observation and/or experiment (Hypothetico-deductive model).
  • Selective use of experimental evidence: presentation of data that seems to support its own claims while suppressing or refusing to consider data that conflict with its claims.[34]
    • Chirs Busby has been accused of poorly interpretting the data, other people using his methodology have not been able to repeat the work.
  • Reversed burden of proof. In science, the burden of proof rests on the individual making a claim, not on the critic. "Pseudoscientific" arguments may neglect this principle and demand that skeptics demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that a claim (e.g. an assertion regarding the efficacy of a novel therapeutic technique) is false. It is essentially impossible to prove a universal negative, so this tactic incorrectly places the burden of proof on the skeptic rather than the claimant.[35]
    • Busby in his dealings with the mainstream scientists over the second event theroy has tried to place the burden of proof on his critics.

[edit] Lack of openness to testing by other experts

  • Evasion of peer review before publicizing results (called "science by press conference").[36] Some proponents of theories that contradict accepted scientific theories avoid subjecting their work to the often ego-bruising process of peer review, sometimes on the grounds that peer review is inherently biased against claims that contradict established paradigms, and sometimes on the grounds that assertions cannot be evaluated adequately using standard scientific methods. By remaining insulated from the peer review process, these proponents forego the opportunity of corrective feedback from informed colleagues.[37]
    • The LLRC have oftein avoided peer reviewed main stream journals, they have often chosen to publish their ideas on radiation biology in books, letters and on web sites rather in journals.

[edit] Criticism from mainstream scientists

It is claimed by David Cartwright (BNFL) that "Dr Busby runs his own anti-nuclear company and makes a living out of producing these anti-nuclear reports." so is important to note that it is possible that Chris Busby (and possibly the others who run the LLRC) may have a vested interest in the field.[25]. In addition other scientsts in the field have attempted to recreate the work of Busby and have been unable to do so,[26] which implies that Chris Busby's hypothesis may be incorrect and even that data has been "wrongly manipulated" and that "numerous methododolgical problems" exist within Chris Busby's paper on the relationship between the proximety to the Irish Sea and cancer.

[edit] Disagreement with other greens

The LLRC is in disagreement with a "Greenpeace consultant (named Pete Roche) who is quoted as having stated an important report written by the The Low Level Radiation Campaign was "...was not included [in the CERRIE final report] because it was not factually correct". The LLRC publicly invited Pete Roche to enter into a debate (December 2004), but according to the LLRC to date "Mr. Roche has never responded".[27]

[edit] Chernobyl accident report

[edit] Busby's view of the TORCH report

Busby has been involved in the writing of a report on the health effects of the chernobyl accident, the report which he was the editor of can be read on line[28]. The LLRC condems the TORCH report on chernobyl as "a theoretical review of a small part of the evidence accrued in twenty years since the Chernobyl disaster" and he also comments on his web site that it "It reveals consistent bias in that it ignores or under-reports crucial developments in radio-biology".[29]

[edit] The other report

It is important to note that the Chernobyl book was edited by Busby and A.V.Yablokov of the Russian Academy of Sciences and consists of reviews of the Russian language literature on the subject of Chernobyl and health. The book has a photo of a child from Belarus suffering from thyroid cancer on the cover. Some might see this as an attempt to win sympathy from an audience and to divert attention from the content as it is common to use children within propaganda {a classic example would be the events on the Odessa steps shown in the Soviet propaganda film named The Battleship Potemkin (made by Sergei Eisenstein in 1925)}. But it should be noted that others publishing in this field tend to show photographs or diagrams on the front covers of their books/reports which may include humans or other objects associated with the event, so it is reasonable to assume that the use of the child's likeness upon the cover is not an attempt to win undue sympathy from the reader. For instance the IAEA report on the event in Cochabamba where a defective gamma radiography set was transported in a passenger bus as cargo (The gamma source was outside the shielding, and it irradiated some bus passengers) featured a photo of a bus on the front cover.

[edit] Radioactive marine pollution

[edit] Core thesis of C. Busby

One of the key areas which Chris Busby is campaigning on is the subject of radioactive releases from the nuclear industry into the world's seas. He has written at least one book on the subject. It was reasoned years ago that if any form of waste was added to the sea that the substance would be diluted to a very low concentration which would not be able to pose a threat to humans (or other organisms). Chris Busby argues that even if waste is added to the sea then it is likely to be reconcentrated by physical and biological processes and then pose a threat to humans and other organisms. This reconcentration thesis is not totally new, other scientists who are unconnected to Busby have found that some radioisotopes can be reconcentrated.

He then maintains that these radioisotopes are transferred onto the land where they then harm humans. While other workers have found that the reconcentration of elements, which had been initially diluted and dispersed, can cause harm to humans and other organisms Chris Busby disgrees with many workers according to the degree of the threat posed by the reconcentration of radioactive releases which have been made into the environment.

It is the case that Chris Busby does use some of the standard radioanayltical methods, for instance one is the method based on plastic sheet for the detection of alpha emitters.[30] This method uses a plastic sheet which is damaged by the action of alpha particles, after etching with sodium hydroxide (a strong base) the plastic is examined by optical microscopy. This method is one which is widly used for the measurement of radon gas and other alpha emitters.

[edit] Conparison with the findings of other workers (environmental radiochemistry)

[edit] Natural background

As much of Chris Busby's work involves a discussion of the levels of radioactivity within the environment it is important to note that that radioactivity is present everywhere (and has been since the formation of the earth). According to the IAEA, one kilogram of soil typically contains the following amounts of the following three natural radioisotopes 370 Bq 40K (typical range 100-700 Bq), 25 Bq 226Ra (typical range 10-50 Bq), 25 Bq 238U (typical range 10-50 Bq) and 25 Bq 232Th (typical range 7-50 Bq).[38] It is important to note that these values are average values and some soils may varry greatly from these norms.

[edit] Sea and river silt

It is well known that some plants are able to absorb and concentrate metals within their tissues (see hyperaccumulators for further detail) and it is known that iodine was first isolated from seaweed in France which suggests that seaweed is an iodine hyperaccumulator.

For instance a study on the radioactivity found in oysters found in the Irish Sea, these were found by gamma spectrscopy to contain the fission products 141Ce, 144Ce, 103Ru, 106Ru, 137Cs, 95Zr and 95Nb. In addition a zinc activation product (65Zn) was found, this is thought to be due to the corrosion of magnox fuel cladding in cooling ponds.[39] It is likely that the modern releases of all these isotopes from Windscale is smaller as the waste water is now routed via an ion exchange plant where the many of metal ions are removed from waste water using the Enhanced Actinide Removal Plant (EARP) and with faujasite (Zeolite X) in the Site Ion Exchange Efficient Plant (SIXEO).

For instance Busby quotes Garland et al. 1989 who reported the plutonium activity in Welsh inter tidal sediments which suggests that the closer a site is to Sellafield the higher the concentration of plutonium in the silt is. Some relationship cen be seen but the scatter of points is large (R2 = 0.3683) if the data is fitted to an exponential line.

A graph showing the plutonium activity in silt as a function of the distance from the Sellafield plant
A graph showing the plutonium activity in silt as a function of the distance from the Sellafield plant

In order to keep the levels of plutonium which are at the lower end of the concentration rage in the above diagram in perpective it is important to note that all materials (such as soils and silts) contain some natural alpha emitters. For instance a recent report on the sava river in serbia suggests that many of the river silts contain about 100 Bq kg-1 of natural radioisotopes (226Ra, 232Th and 238U).[40] Also according to the United Nations the normal concentration of uranium in soil is 300 μg kg-1 to 11.7 mg kg-1.[41]

[edit] Trinity glass

One interesting mineral sample which has been subjected to a in depth radiometric examination is the glassy trinitite formed by the first atom bomb has been examined to determine what actinides and other radioisotopes it contained. Again the mineral sample was found to have a similar concentration of 238U and 232Th to the silt samples from the sva river. A recent paper reports the levels of long lived radioisotopes in the trinitite.[42] The trinitite was formed from feldspar and quartz which were melted by the heat. Two samples of trinitite were used, the first (left hand side bars) was taken from between 40 and 65 meters of ground zero while the other sample was taken from further away from the ground zero point.

Levels of radioactivity in the trinitite glass from two different samples as measured by gamma spectroscopy on lumps of the glass. The americium content is the current content while all the other isotopes have been back calculated to shortly after the moment of detonation.
Levels of radioactivity in the trinitite glass from two different samples as measured by gamma spectroscopy on lumps of the glass. The americium content is the current content while all the other isotopes have been back calculated to shortly after the moment of detonation.

The 152Eu and 154Eu was mainly formed by the neutron activation of the europium in the soil, it is clear that the level of radioactivity for these isotopes is highest where the neutron dose to the soil was larger. Some of the 60Co is generated by activation of the cobalt in the soil, but some was also generated by the activation of the cobalt in the steel (100 foot) tower. This 60Co from the tower would have been scattered over the site reducing the difference in the soil levels. The 133Ba and 241Am are due to the neutron activation of barium and plutonium inside the bomb. The barium was present in the form of the nitrate in the chemical explosives used while the plutonium was the fissile fuel used. It is interesting to note that the 137Cs level is higher in the sample which was further away from the ground zero point. This is thought to be because the precursors to the 137Cs (137I and 137Xe) and the cesium to a lesser degree are volatile. The natural radioisotopes in the glass are about the same in both locations.

[edit] Mururoa (French nuclear testing site)

Busby in his book (Wolfs of water) has written that hot particles (plutonium) have been found in the Irish sea and that these particles are important. It is interesting to note that the IAEA report on Mururoa states on page 43 (chapter 4) that some particles containing 1 mg (100 kBq) of plutonium are present on the island that was used for French nuclear experiments.[43] On page 220 it indicates that such a particle could deliver a dose of between 1 and 300 Gy per hour to a worm which lives in the silt. From an examination of the book by Busby it is likely that the hot particles which he has reported are smaller than those reported at Mururoa, but Busby suggests that the Irish sea hot particles could still have a very bad effect upon the health of a human.

[edit] Americium in smoke detectors

One article by Rose Tilly, which is reprinted[31] on the site, suggests that the gamma rays from the americium present in smoke detectors is a grave threat to the general public. She claims that a count rate of 500 events per second can be recorded near a smoke detector using a scintillation counter. The LLRC reply that they have repeated her measurements and have been unable to observe such a high radiation level, they have obsvered a smaller increase of radiation when a smoke detector is placed one inch away from a detector. They suggest that the smoke detectors used by Rose should be subjected to a more detailed radioanylsis to determine if the radioactive sources within them contain some additional radioisotopes. It is interesting to note that the article by Rose has a clear error which suggests other errors might be present in the article, this error is her assertion that americium is a fission product, americium is an activation product of plutonium and hence is very different to the fission products.

[edit] The Second Event theory

One of the major ideas presented by Busby in the web site is the idea that a manmade fission product or an anthropogenic form of a natural radioisotope (TENORM) is more able to exert a baneful effect upon cells than a radioisotope if it is able to engauge in several radioactive decays in quick succession rather than a single radioactive decay. For instance 241Am and 239Pu decay to a long lived radioisotope (237Np and 235U) so on a human timescale it is only able to emit a single alpha particle while an atom of 218Po is able to emit a series of alpha and beta particles in quick succession. This theory is related to the self-repair processes which are responsible for the fact that fractionation of a dose reduces its ability to cause death. The "The Second Event theory" states that the self repair processes of the DNA in cells is defeated by the fact that a second radioactive decay is possible within a short time of the decay of strontium-90 or tellurium-132.

The decay of tin-132 and its decay products (daughters)
Element Isotope decay mode half life (minutes)
Sn 132 β 40 seconds
Sb 132 β 2.8
Te 132 β 3.2 days
I 132 β 2.3
Xe 132 - stable

It is noteworthy that in the decay chain of radium-226/radon-222 a large number of shortlived radioisotopes exist which could subject a cell to repeated radioactive events. This is because the daughters of radon oftein become attached to smoke and dust particles and hence are able to lodge in the lungs.[32]

The decay of radon-222 and its decay products (daughters)
Element Isotope decay mode half life (minutes)
Rn 222 α 3 days
Po 218 α 3.1
Pb 214 β 27
Bi 214 β 20
Po 214 α 0.164 seconds

[edit] Reactions to the theory by other scientists

Busby's views are often seen as controversial. The NRPB published a counterblast against the second event theory in which they suggest that it is a theory which is unlikely to be correct.[44] [33]. Busby in an open letter to the editor published a rebutal of this paper which can be read on line.[45], this in turn resulted in the NRPB writing a letter of their own to the journal in which they rebut the rebutal letter (Again this can be read on line).[46]

In addition the CERRIE committee concluded in their Scientific Briefing on the CERRIE Report that the second event theory was not supported by the available scientific evidence. For example, the evidence substantially contradicted the SET. The Report found a lack of biological plausibility for the basic preconditions of the SET; a lack of supporting evidence in the proponents’ reviews of the SET; weakness in the few studies cited in support of the SET; and no supporting evidence from experimental studies in an independent review of commissioned by the Committee.

The LLRC have stated that the CERRIE committee were unduely affected by "legalistic threats from Departmental lawyers right at the end of its two-and-a-half year deliberations" and then engauged in self-censorship of their findings.

[edit] Timing of DNA repair

According to Goodhead (UNSCEAR) as quoted in the book Radiochemistry and Nuclear Chemistry (G. Choppin et. al.) a gamma ray passing through the cell nucleus is likely to cause about 70 ionizations which result in 1 DNA single strand break. While an alpha particle passing through a cell nucleus is able to cause about 23000 ionizations, which cause 200 single strand breaks and 35 double strand breaks. The single strand breaks can be repaired in about ten minutes while the double strand breaks require hours to be repaired. Hence if Goodhead is correct then it is less reasonable for the low LET radiation (beta/gamma) to be affected by the second event theroy than the high LET radiation resulting from the decay of radon daughters (or some other alpha emitter).

Chris Busby disagrees with the views of Goodhead, he claims that DNA repair requires 8 to 15 hours and that during this time the cell is very susceptible to further radiation damage. Chris does not on the LLRC comment on the difference between single and double strand breaks within the second where he is discussing the second event theroy.

[edit] Alpha emitters

Due to the low LET of a beta particle or gamma photon it is unlikely that the majority of the energy due to both radioactive decays of a fission product (mainly beta/gamma) will be deposited in the same cell. It has already been shown that the damage caused by alpha particles is more able to cause dire damage to DNA such as double strand breaks, this has been seen in some radiobiology experiments. The published work of Chris Busby includes an assertion that a hot particle of 239Pu is able to subject the biologcal tissues to a series of alpha particles. He suggests that this is one of the reasons why hot particles are able to cause health effects.

[edit] Preexposure to radiation with regards to acute health effects and other good effects

Some stuides have suggested that preexposure to radiation exerts a protective effect upon cells. Azzam, E.I., Radiation Research, 1994, 138(1), S28-S31. In mice it has been shown that a 200 mGy X-ray dose protects mice against both further X-ray exposure and ozone gas.[47]

It has been shown that preexposure to radiation (50 to 100 mGy) results in four hours time in a small reduction of the ability of a 8 Gy dose to damage DNA in intact cells due to a shift in the cell cycle[48]

While it is clear that a large single exposure to plutonium dioxide powder is able to cause a fatal lung cancer in monkeys (and thus it is likely that PuO2 powder is carcinogenic in humans),[49] some studies have shown that moderate internal exposure to plutonium results in a reduction of the risk of getting cancer,[50]. Other studied have suggested that a small dose of radiation may be good for you.[51] However one explanation for this effect is the fact that the majority of radiation workers are subject to greater number of health checks than the general population, and thus as a result any sign of disease is more likely to be seen at an early (curable) stage. Also see the "healthy worker hypothesis". In plants radiation hormesis has been observed[52] However the existence of radiation hormesis in humans has been questioned, it is reasonable to state that for late effects (such as cancer) that the scientific community has not come to a agreement regarding this matter.[34] But in one recent case it was claimed (In Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons) that the persons living in a appartment block in Taiwan which was constructed using concrete which contained rebar contaminated with cobalt-60 experience a better state of health than the average person.[53]

[edit] Cadmium poisoning as a model

It is known that many toxic metals can induce oxidative stress in tissue which may result in free radical induced damage. Also it is known that prior exposure to a small dose of cadmium can mitigate the effects of a second larger dose, this suggests that the first lower dose of the poison stimulates the DNA repair processes in the exposed tissue.[54][55][56] and[57]

[edit] External links

[edit] References

  1. ^ Busby, C. Scott Cato, M. 2000 Increases in Leukemia in Infants in Wales and Scotland Following Chernobyl: Evidence for Errors in Statutory Risk Estimates. Energy and Environment Vol. 11 2000, No. 2 127-139
  2. ^ Martin TONDEL, Peter Hjalmarsson, Lennart Hardell, Göran Carlsson and Olav Axelson Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 2004;58:1011-1016 Increase of regional total cancer incidence in north Sweden due to the Chernobyl accident?
  3. ^ Rooney C, Beral V, Maconochie N, Fraser P, Davies G. Casecontrol study of prostatic cancer in United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority employees. BMJ 1993;307:1391-7
  4. ^ Cancer risk has no effect on mortality W D Atkinson, M Marshall, B O Wade BMJ 1994;308:268-269 (22 January 1994)
  5. ^ Busby C and Creighton JA (1982)' Factors influencing the enhancement of Raman spectral intensity from a roughened silver surface'. J.Electroanal. Chem. 133 183-193
  6. ^ Busby CC and Creighton JA (1982)' Efficient silver and gold electrodes for surface enhanced Raman spectral studies' J. Electroanal Chem 140 379-390
  7. ^ Busby CC (1984) J.Electroanal Chem 162 251-262
  8. ^ Busby CC (1984) 'Voltage Induced intensity changes in surface Raman bands from silver electrodes and their variation with excitation frequency'. Surface Science 140 294-306
  9. ^ Busby C C and Howard CV (2006) ‘Fundamental errors in official epidemiological studies of environmental pollution in Wales’ Journal of Public Health March 22nd 2006.
  10. ^ Busby CC (2005) Does uranium contamination amplify natural background radiation dose to the DNA? European J. Biology and Bioelectromagnetics. 1 (2) 120-131
  11. ^ Busby CC (2005) Depleted Uranium Weapons, metal particles and radiation dose. European J. Biology and Bioelectromagnetics. 1(1) 82-93
  12. ^ Busby CC and Coghill R (2005) Are there enhanced radioactivity levels near high voltage powerlines? European J. Biology and Bioelectromagnetics. 1(2) Ch 7.
  13. ^ Busby Chris and Bramhall Richard (2005) Is there an excess of childhood cancer in North Wales on the Menai Strait, Gwynedd? Concerns about the accuracy of analyses carried out by the Wales Cancer Intelligence Unit and those using its data. European J. Biology and Bioelectromagnetics. 1(3) 504-526
  14. ^ Busby Chris and Morgan Saoirse (2005) Routine monitoring of air filters at the Atomic Weapons Establishment Aldermaston, UK show increases in Uranium from Gulf War 2 operations. European J. Biology and Bioelectromagnetics 1(4) 650-668
  15. ^ Busby, C. C. and Cato, M. S. (2000), ‘Increases in leukemia in infants in Wales and Scotland following Chernobyl: evidence for errors in risk estimates’ Energy and Environment 11(2) 127-139
  16. ^ Busby C, and M. Scott Cato, (1997)`Death Rates from Leukemia are Higher than Expected in Areas around Nuclear Sites in Berkshire and Oxfordshire’, British Medical Journal, 315 (1997): 309.
  17. ^ Busby C.,(2000), ‘Response to Commentary on the Second Event Theory by Busby’ International Journal of Radiation Biology 76 (1) 123-125
  18. ^ Busby C.C. and Cato M.S. (2001) ‘Increases in leukemia in infants in Wales and Scotland following Chernobyl: Evidence for errors in statutory risk estimates and dose response assumptions’. International Journal of Radiation Medicine 3 (1) 23
  19. ^ Busby Chris and Cato, Molly Scott (1998), ‘Cancer in the offspring of radiation workers:exposure to internal radioisotopes may be responsible.’ British Medical Journal 316 1672
  20. ^ Busby, C. (1994), `Increase in Cancer in Wales Unexplained', British Medical Journal, 308: 268.
  21. ^ Busby C.C (2002). ‘High Risks at low doses.’ Proceedings of 4th International Conference on the Health Effects of Low-level Radiation: Oxford Sept 24 2002. (London: British Nuclear Energy Society).
  22. ^ Busby C and Fucic A (2006) Ionizing Radiation and children’s health: PINCHE conclusions Acta Paediatrica S 453 81-86
  23. ^ Van den Hazel P, Zuurbier M, Bistrup M L, Busby C, Fucic A, Koppe JG et al (2006) Policy and science in children’s health and environment: Recommendations from the PINCHE project. Acta Paediatrica S 453 114-119
  24. ^ Koppe JG, Bartonova A, Bolte G, Bistrup ML, Busby C, Butter M et al (2006) Exposure to multiple environmental agents and their effects. Acta Paediatrica S 453 106-114
  25. ^ Van den Hazel P, Zuurbier M, Babisch W, Bartonova A, Bistrup M-L, Bolte G, Busby C et al, (2006) ‘Today’s epidemics in children: possible relations to environmental pollution’ Acta Paediatrica S 453 18-26
  26. ^ "British scientists exclude 'maverick' colleagues, says report" (2004) EurekAlert Public release date: 16-Aug-2004
  27. ^ Brian Martin, "Suppression Stories" (1997) in Fund for Intellectual Dissent ISBN 0-646-30349-X
  28. ^ See also Juan Miguel Campanario, "Rejecting Nobel class articles and resisting Nobel class discoveries", cited in Nature, 16-Oct-2003, Vol 425, Issue 6959, p.645
  29. ^ Juan Miguel Campanario and Brian Martin, "Challenging dominant physics paradigms" (2004) Journal of Scientific Exploration, vol. 18, no. 3, Fall 2004, pp. 421-438
  30. ^ See also: Sophie Petit-Zeman, "Trial by peers comes up short" (2003) The Guardian, Thursday January 16, 2003
  31. ^ Ayala, F.J. "On the scientific methods, its practice and pitfalls", (1994) History and Philosophy of Life Sciences 16, 205-240.
  32. ^ Bunge M (1983) Demarcating science from pseudoscience Fundamenta Scientiae 3:369-388, 381
  33. ^ Wolfs of water, chapter three, C. Busby
  34. ^ Thagard (1978)op cit at 227, 228
  35. ^ Lilienfeld SO (2004) Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology Guildford Press (2004) ISBN 1-59385-070-0
  36. ^ Peer review and the acceptance of new scientific ideas (Warning 469 kB PDF)*Peer review – process, perspectives and the path ahead; Lilienfeld (2004) op cit For an opposing perspective, e.g. Peer Review as Scholarly Conformity
  37. ^ Ruscio (2001) op cit.
  38. ^ Generic Procedures for Assessment and Response during a Radiological Emergency, IAEA TECDOC Series number 1162, published in 2000 [1]
  39. ^ A. Preston, J.W.R. Dutton and B.R. Harvey, Nature, 1968, 218, 689-690.
  40. ^ Z. Vukovic, V. Sipka, D. Todorovic and S. Stankovic, Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, 2006, 268, 129-131.
  41. ^ United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, 1993, Report to the General Assembly, with scientific annexes, New York
  42. ^ P.P. Parekh, T.M. Semkow, M.A. Torres, D.K. Haines, J.M. Cooper, P.M. Rosenberg and M.E. Kitto, Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 2006, 85, 103-120
  43. ^ ]http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1028_web.pdf]
  44. ^ A. A. Edwards and R. Cox, International Journal of Radiation Biology, 2000, 76, 119-125
  45. ^ [2]
  46. ^ [3]
  47. ^ Y Miyachi, The British Journal of Radiology, 2000, 73, 298-304.
  48. ^ Cramers P; Atanasova P; Vrolijk H; Darroudi F; van Zeeland AA; Huiskamp R; Mullenders LH; Kleinjans JC [4]
  49. ^ Hahn, F.F. ; Brooks, A.L. ; Mewhinney, J.A., Radiation Research, 1987, 112(2), 391-397
  50. ^ Kendall GM et al. Mortality and occupational exposure to radiation; First analysis of the National Registry for Radiation Workers. Brit Med Jour 1992; 304: 220
  51. ^ [5]
  52. ^ Atkinson, G.F., 1898. Report upon some preliminary experiments with Roentgen rays in plants. Science, 7: 7.
  53. ^ [6],[7]
  54. ^ Wahba, Z. Z., L. Hernandez, H. J. Issaq and M. P. Waalkes. 1990. Involvement of sulfhydryl metabolism in tolerance to cadmium in testicular cells. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 104:157-166.
  55. ^ Waalkes, M. P. and A. Perantoni. 1986. Isolation of a novel metal-binding protein from rat testes: characterization and distinction from metallothionein. J. Biol. Chem. 261:13079-13103.
  56. ^ Waalkes, M. P., S. Rehm, C. W. Riggs et al. 1988. Cadmium carcinogenesis in male Wistar (Crl:(WI)BR) rats: dose-response analysis of tumor induction in the prostate and testes, and at the injection site. Cancer Res. 48:4656-4663.
  57. ^ Rugstad, H. E. and T. Norseth. 1975. Cadmium resistance and content of cadmium-binding protein in cultured human cells. Nature 257:136-137.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/The_Low_Level_Radiation_Campaign_25c8.html"