Tag: Radiation

Do Nuclear Workers Get More Cancer?

Should we trust recent claims that low-dose radiation causes cancers? What is the truth? Do we really know?

Anti-nuclear groups in Australia have been given a new weapon for their arsenal of outdated fear campaigns. Recently published epidemiological studies linking cancers and heart disease to nuclear industry workers are being spread as established fact by Margaret Beavis, Climate Council, ACF and FOE and even the Labour Party.  

So much damage has been done by those who instil fear of ionising radiation in others. The “holier than thou” attitudes developed during the cold war are now very outdated. There are well-meaning groups of scientists, particularly epidemiologists, environmentalists and regulators who find it in their best interest to hang on to outdated information. Paradigms about radiation that began in the 50s and 60s have not changed despite all we have learnt about biological repair mechanisms and low dose radiation. It is a bit like comparing the safety of a modern aeroplane with the Hindenburg hydrogen airship. Why does this happen?

What is a Paradigm?

A paradigm is an interlocking set of assumptions about the operation of a complex system. It is a model of how the system works. Once accepted by the scientific community, a paradigm tends to channel attention and research funding into “acceptable” directions. Observations that fail to fit the paradigm may be ignored or suppressed. This is not a conspiracy but, instead, a reflection of human nature. When we believe something to be true, we discount alternative statements that contradict the “truth” as we perceive it. In general, a paradigm must be conclusively disproved before a new paradigm can be accepted.

It can really hurt to find out your beliefs of decades are not true.

Even twenty years ago, there were over 3,000 scientific papers published in reputable journals concluding that low dose irradiation is stimulatory and/or beneficial in a wide variety of microbes, plants, invertebrates, and vertebrates. Using the parameters of cancer mortality rates or mean lifespan in humans, no scientifically acceptable study was found which showed that less than 100mSv was harmful. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2477686/

A reward was even offered for any one report in English with scientifically acceptable evidence of harm (increased cancer death rate or decreased average lifespan) from low dose irradiation in normal (not immune deficient) humans or laboratory animals. The reward was not claimed.

In this blog, radiation levels greater than 100 mSv are not considered to be low dose. In some medical literature the term low dose is used for much higher levels of radiation. High doses of radiation have very different effects on living entities and can harm and kill. Repair mechanisms are overwhelmed.

Epidemiological Studies

In a classic science experiment, only one variable is changed at a time. All other factors remain the same. BUT this is only possible when working with simple systems such as in some basic physics or chemistry experiments. The real world is very complex, and biological systems are extremely complex. It becomes impossible to control all influencing factors – “confounding factors”. When confounding factors have more influence on the result then the variable under consideration, scientific evaluation becomes extremely difficult. This is the reason why it took so long to prove that smoking could cause lung cancer. The more complex the system studied, the more complex the mathematical statistics used becomes.

There are many types of epidemiological studies. When there is no control population used, and the data is simply observational and collected after the effects, a retrospective cohort study is the only choice. Cohort studies can never prove causation. They can only suggest a hypothesis for more detailed study. If data are collected after the fact, a cohort study becomes even more unreliable. When a medical effect is very rare, very large numbers of people are required for the study and statements of relative risk become almost meaningless. Attempts to discount confounding factors may be made. It is simply impossible to deal with all confounding factors.

To try and obtain a result, many mathematical manipulations are undertaken on the data. In studies about radiation, different groups sometimes publish completely opposite results because the mathematical formulae used on same data set are different.

For over 70 years, radiation epidemiologists have fallen into 2 camps. Those that fully support the Low No Threshold (LNT) Hypothesis to explain radiation health effects and those that spurn its use or simply accept the status quo for now for regularity purposes.

The LNT Hypothesis

The LNT Model was formulated on data from the 2 atomic bombs dropped on Japan at the end of WW2. It is based on the following assumptions:

  • Radiation exposure is harmful.
  • Radiation exposure is harmful at all exposure levels.
  • Each increment of exposure adds to the overall risk.
  • The rate of accumulation of radiation exposure has no bearing on risk.

No Hormetic Effect:

The model does not consider the possibility of any beneficial effects (hormesis) or stimulatory effects from low doses of radiation. It assumes that any increase in radiation exposure, however small, is detrimental. 

It Doesn’t Recognise Biological Repair Mechanisms:

Our knowledge of the biochemistry of molecule, cell and tissue damage and repair mechanisms has grown enormously since the 1950s.

Dr. Antone L Brooks, the Chief Scientist for the US Dept. of Energy’s Low Dose Radiation Research Program from 1998 to 2008 continues to publicize in his quiet manner that we knew better well over a generation ago that the assumptions of the LNT Model are not correct. He has stated many times that despite its simplicity when used for regulatory purposes, the LNT model overestimates the effect of radiation on living things and should not be used to estimate health effects. Many other voices say the same.

The LNT is used by many countries for regulatory practices. It is extremely conservative and hence standards for radiation protection are probably overly protective. For example, the US NRC and US EPA endorse the model, while other professional bodies such as the Health Physics Society and the French Academies of Science and Medicine deprecates it.

Unfortunately, this approach has led to unreasonable fear of radiation and excessive time and money costs. The LNT model works for high dose single exposures.

One of the organizations for establishing recommendations on radiation protection guidelines internationally, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) that previously supported the LNT model, no longer supports the model for very low radiation doses.

The Australian Radiation Safety and Advisory Council in their Position Statement to ARPANSA on the use of the LNT model in ionising radiation protection states that:

“The appropriate use of the LNT model has enabled effective radiation protection systems. However, the inappropriate use of the LNT model has inadvertently increased community fear of ionising radiation. The Council advises that extremely low doses of ionising radiation may be associated with no or an extremely low risk of harm.

Incorrect emphasis on potential risks associated with low radiation doses and dose rates can have negative impacts as it can prevent health, medical, environmental, social and economic benefits being realised. In adopting the LNT model it remains essential to balance the low risks of low-dose ionising radiation exposure against the benefits of the radiation.  https://www.arpansa.gov.au/sites/default/files/rhsac_-_position_statement_on_the_use_of_the_lnt_1_may_2017

Cellular Repair Mechanisms

When it comes to cancer, the main concern is DNA damage.  Living tissue is made up of cells. Cells are mostly water.   If a radioactive particle enters a cell, it transfers a portion of its energy to the cell mainly by breaking the chemical bonds that hold the water molecule together.  This creates highly reactive, free radicals which can disrupt the cell’s chemistry including damaging the cell’s DNA. But do you realise that almost all free radicals are created by our use of oxygen to turn our food into energy?

Most of the DNA damage is single strand breaks, in which only one side of the double helix is disrupted. Single strand breaks are astonishingly frequent, >10,000 per cell per day.  Almost all these breaks are caused by free radicals produced by the cell’s own metabolism.  These are repaired almost automatically by the clever structure of the DNA molecule itself, with the undamaged side serving as a template.

But occasionally we get a double strand break (DSB). It’s the DSB’s that can start the process that may result in cancer.  Cell metabolism generates a DSB about once every 10 days per cell.  Average natural background radiation creates a DSB about every 10,000 days per cell.

The Cellular Changes Needed to Initiate Cancer Have Not Been Observed at Low Dose Rates

At least 6 to 8 of specific cellular changes must occur for cancer to result. The “Hit Theory” of DNA mutation as a cause of cancer is way out of date. 

These changes are only seen at single high doses of radiation.

Some of these hallmark changes include avoidance of immune destruction, deregulation of cellular energetics and resisting cell death.  A simple diagram of the hallmarks of cancer is shown below. Knowledge of cancer mechanisms has progressed enormously since this diagram was first formulated.

https://www.cell.com/fulltext/S0092-8674(11)00127-9 This paper has been cited >81,000 times. For a more up-to-date and detailed view see https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35022204/

The INWORKS Studies

The International Nuclear Workers Study (INWORKS) is a large series of international epidemiological papers on workers in the nuclear sector. It was launched in 2011 and coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The study combines data from nuclear workers in the UK, US and France for pooled analysis. It seeks to gain greater knowledge relating to the risks of cancer and non-cancerous diseases linked to chronic exposure to low doses of ionising radiation at low dose rates.

INWORKS followed on from 15 Country Study published in 2007 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17388693/ (Among 31 specific types of malignancies studied, it was concluded that a significant association was found for lung cancer and a borderline significant association for multiple myeloma with  a strong healthy worker survivor effect in these cohorts.

The healthy worker survivor effect has been assumed repeatedly whenever an analysis has shown that the cohort studied indicated less risk to nuclear workers. Slight variations in the cohorts are analysed by different techniques or parts of the cohort left out of the calculations or different methods are used to define the radiation levels experienced by workers. Many confounding factors were not considered. One of the most important of these is the lack of consideration of different background levels of radiation. Nor were there records of medical exposure such as CT scans or cancer treatment.

Most of the graphs shown have huge error bars yet excess relative risk is quoted with up to four significant figures. The slope of the LNT model is even used in some calculations. Many of the dozens of papers published are in the form of minimum publishable units, which makes it hard to fully understand exactly how some of the final analyses were undertaken and the conclusions reached. The INWORKS consortium has recently stated that they will not release their basic data so others can analyse it independently, claiming confidentiality problems. One of the basic tenets of the scientific method is reproducibility by others.

Some of the papers have been published recently in 2023 and 2024. A few of the relatively recent papers are:  https://www.bmj.com/content/382/bmj-2022-074520 https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-3026(24)00240-0, and on circularity issues: Radiation Research 188, 276–290 (2017) DOI: 10.1667/RR14608.1. Haematological malignancies https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11626443/ or the SELTINE study https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9817793/#:~:text=3.2.&text=Supplementary%20Table%20S1%20shows%20the,CI:%200.69%E2%80%930.73). Some information on the cohorts used is given in https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4703555/pdf/nihms723379.pdf

 It is the results on these studies that are being published ignoring the rest of the literature, particularly detailed criticisms of the work. The quoted error ranges are huge. Some of the graphs could even be used to suggest that low- dose radiation lowers the workers chance of cancer – a hormesis effect. For a more detailed critique of some of the studies see https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5974569/pdf/10.1177_1559325818778702.pdf

Government websites simply republish the “results” without interpretation or perspective. Usually, the way the results in the papers are given would be meaningless to most readers. However, I did read in one abstract today that the radiation attributable absolute risk of leukaemia mortality in this population is low (one excess death in 10 000 workers over a 35-year period) https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11626443/

So, should we trust recent claims that low-dose radiation causes cancers and other health issues? What is the truth? Do we really know?

Some epidemiologists have been trying to prove that low-dose radiation is harmful and that the damage does accumulate for decades, and they are still trying. It is certainly possible that a few people may be affected in some way, but the risk is so small, one must ask why not concentrate on protecting people in other industries where carcinogenic substances are far more common.

We do know that most cellular responses to low-dose radiation are protective and positive. There are a couple of changes that may be positive or negative depending on the state of a cell. Nothing in life is perfect but the more biochemistry we learn, the more impressive is the chemistry of life. It seems likely, based on recent research work that cells may even need some low-dose radiation to thrive. After all we did evolve with ionising radiation.

Is it time that we found a “healthy” middle ground?

For more information about background radiation levels: https://onewomanjourney.com.au/2024/12/30/background-radiation-how-much-radiation-do-we-experience-on-earth/

Please let me know if you would like more information on any of the topics in this blog.

Decommissioning a Nuclear Site

How can nuclear facilities be closed down in an environmentally friendly way once they have reached the end of their operating life? This video shows what it takes to decommission and restore a nuclear site.

https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/multimedia/videos/decommissioning-restoring-former-nuclear-sites

As Kris Kolasinski and Martin Klingenboeck wrote in the IAEA news:

Planning and innovation play crucial roles when it comes to the end of a nuclear reactor’s life. Decommissioning activities, set to increase in the coming years as ageing nuclear power plants are retired, include decontamination and dismantling of structures, leading to the removal of regulatory controls so that a facility and site may be reused. In this video, you will learn how decommissioning activities are carried out effectively and safely, including the example of one such project currently underway in the French town of La Hague, where a former fuel processing plant is being decommissioned.

This video was first published in 2023 for the International Conference on Nuclear Decommissioning.

Nuclear Power Radiation is Benign! Part 1

This is a copy of a Substack article by Robert Hargraves on April 6.  The full essay will be posted in several parts. https://substack.com/@roberthargraves1

Abstract

The root cause of nuclear power cost and opposition is excessive fear of radiation. This essay explores true observed radiation, effects, harm, and benefits, summarized here, proven later.

Doesn’t radiation from nuclear power plants causes cancer?

No, its radiation damage rates are slower than biological repair rates.

Isn’t the nuclear waste harmful to future generations?

No, we can store used fuel in ground-level casks as penetrating radiation decays away. You’d then have to eat the waste to get sick.

Don’t nuclear power plants cost too much?

Yes, because regulators’ rules were written using the precautionary principle, not today’s scientific observations.

Full Essay

Radiation is a weak carcinogen. After the WW II atomic bombings of Japan we all feared globally destructive nuclear war. To intensify that fear NGOs and nations exaggerated geneticists’ idea that even trivial amounts of radiation constantly degraded human genes through generations, even to birthing three-eyed monsters. When that fiction was disproven, the radiation fear of choice became cancer.

Governments and regulators strove to protect voters from the vague harm of invisible radiation, creating rules and procedures to keep people away from any radiation from nuclear power. These rules constantly became more strict and cumbersome.

These radiation exposure rules from worldwide regulators such as the US Environmental Protection Agency and Nuclear Regulatory Commission created the problem of high cost and long build times, making new nuclear power too expensive. In reality, nuclear power can be the least expensive reliable energy source, at $0.03/kWh, if we educate the public, politicians, and regulators.

Fear can kill. Radiation from the triple Fukushima nuclear reactor meltdown killed no one, but Japan’s fearful government killed over 1,600 people with hasty, unnecessary evacuations.

Nuclear power optimism is on the rise. Will people return to nuclear fear after the next failure leaks some radioactive material out? Perfection is impossible. Radiation releases will happen. Airplanes do crash. People still fly. They understand authentic risks and benefits.

Two Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear power reactors has been powered up in Georgia. Will these be the last commercial US nuclear power plants?

Radiation fear

Wisdom of a woman awarded two Nobel prizes.

Ionizing radiation harms by displacing electrons, breaking molecular bonds in cells. Radiation dose is measured in Sieverts (Sv) or Grays, which are watt-seconds (joules) of energy absorbed, per kilogram of tissue. These are the effects of intensive, brief absorbed doses of radiation.

  • 10 Sv is deadly,
  • 1 Sv risks non-fatal acute radiation sickness,
  • 0.1 Sv slightly increases future cancer risk.

Regulators mistakenly claim any radiation exposure is potentially harmful, so set unreasonably low limits, hoping to calm fearful people. Media headlines frighten people about any radiation leaks, no matter how small, in order to gain attention with headlines.

Nuclear power growth, now in vogue, will end with the next radiation release unless we replace today’s regulators with institutions that balance benefits against quantified radiation doses and observed effects.

The near century of concessions lowering 1934 radiation limits from 0.002 Sv per day to 0.001 Sv per year has not reduced harm. Lowered limits have increased public fear, along with evidence-free rulings that all radiation is potentially fatal.

Newspapers often highlight unsubstantiated claims of radiation harm, such as this New York Times fright about CT scans, “a 2009 study from the National Cancer Institute estimates that CT scans conducted in 2007 will cause a projected 29,000 excess cancer cases and 14,500 excess deaths over the lifetime of those exposed.” The correct number is likely zero.

Atomic bomb survivors

After the 1945 atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, people and nations became concerned about the destruction of possible world-wide nuclear war. In 1950 began a studies of the health of the atom bomb survivors. The work was undertaken to make people more aware of the possible long term effects of radiation on genetics, and to increase fear of nuclear warfare. The Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF) maintains the data and publishes papers that explore linkages between cancer and radiation exposure. Radiation doses, by individual, were estimated after asking people where they were at the time of the bomb explosions, five years before.

The US National Academies used REFR data to claim that the risk of solid cancer is directly proportional to absorbed radiation dose. They promote the LNT (linear no threshold) model of health effects of radiation, which maintains the chance of cancer is directly proportionate to radiation exposure, and thus there is no safe dose of radiation. They published this following chart of cancer risk for bomb survivors.

Excess cancer risk for people irradiated by the atomic bomb

However, the data point in the low dose range of exposures less than 0.1 Sv does not show evidence that such low doses case cancer. Few in the radiation science community endorse this LNT model of low dose radiation effects, but LNT remains the official policy of the US EPA, NRC, and many other organizations in the radiation protection industry.

National Council on Radiation Protection hides data refuting LNT.

A 2001 article by Jaworowski and Waligorski illustrated how many scientists were misinforming governments with information tailored to continue the simplistic LNT model. They misled people into fearing that even low level radiation was potentially deadly. The right side of their graphic shows the NCRP’s (National Council on Radiation Protection) seemingly linear relationship between leukemia mortality and radiation exposure for survivors of the atomic bombing, evidencing their support for LNT.

The left hand side shows the UNSCEAR (United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation) with much more detailed information about the effects of low dose radiation. There is clearly no evidence of increased leukemia mortality from radiation doses under 0.1 Sv (100 mSv). Clearly the LNT model is wrong.

A-bomb survivors’ exposures < 0.1 Sv caused no excess cancers.

The chart above uses bomb survivor cancer data to display that cancer rate increases from radiation, if any, are unobservable at doses < 0 .1 Sv. The leftmost, blue bar represents residents who happened not to be in the cities when the two atomic bombs exploded.

Part 2 will discuss regulation of nuclear facilities

Endnotes

A fully referenced version, with endnotes and URL links, is https://hargraves.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/Benign!+Nuclear+power+radiation.pdf

Whoops! He Bought Plutonium Online.

Many press stories were published onFri 21 Mar 2025 including this extract from Australian Associated Press.

“Homegrown scientist faces 10 years’ mail for importing plutonium.  His package delivery locked down his street as special agents in hazmat suits swooped. Now he will be the first person ever to be sentenced under a decades-old law.

Sydney ‘science nerd’ may face jail for importing plutonium in bid to collect all elements of periodic table

Emmanuel Lidden, 24, to learn fate after breaching nuclear non-proliferation laws by shipping samples of radioactive material to parents’ suburban home.

A “science nerd” who wanted to collect all the elements of the periodic table could face jail time after ordering radioactive material over the internet.

But Emmanuel Lidden, 24, will have to wait to learn his sentence after breaching nuclear non-proliferation laws by shipping samples of plutonium to his parents’ suburban Sydney apartment.

Lidden pleaded guilty to offences under Australia’s Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act that carry a possible 10-year jail sentence and is due to receive his sentence from the judge Leonie Flannery on 11 April.

The importation sparked a major hazmat alert, with Australian Border Force (ABF) officials, firefighters, police and paramedics all attending the scene in August 2023.

Far from there being any intention of building something nefarious like a nuclear weapon, Lidden’s lawyer John Sutton described his client as an “innocent collector” and “science nerd” who had been left flipping burgers after being sacked from his job because of the investigation.

“He did not import or possess these items with any sinister intent … these were offences committed out of pure naivety,” Sutton told Sydney’s Downing Centre district court on Friday.

“It was a manifestation of self-soothing retreating into collection, it could have been anything but in this case, he latched on to the collection of the periodic table.”

Lidden had also been a keen collector of stamps, banknotes and coins.

But prosecutors said describing the young man as a simple collector and science nerd was a mischaracterisation.”

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/mar/21/emmanuel-lidden-sydney-science-nerd-importing-plutonium-

An Earlier Press Report

David Southwell’s article for the Daily Mail Australia was published on 15 December 2024.

“A science enthusiast is facing 10 years’ jail for importing nuclear material even though it was found to be harmless. 

Emmanuel Steven Lidden, 24, was arrested in August 2023 when officers in full hazmat suits swooped on his parents’ Arncliffe unit in southern Sydney, blocking off the street and evacuating neighbours.

They confiscated plutonium and depleted uranium in decorative vials and polymer cubes that Lidden kept by his bedside after buying from a US science collectables website to complete a real-life periodic table.

Scientists found the samples were harmless, but Lidden pleaded guilty to importing nuclear material into Australia and possessing nuclear material without permission, which could land him in prison for over 10 years. 

Lidden’s lawyer John Sutton said the anti-terror laws were clearly not aimed at people like Lidden.

‘These laws were created to protect society from terrorists and people who intend to cause mass destruction, not naive young science fans,’ he told the Daily Telegraph.

The laws were created in 1987 and Lidden is the only person to have been prosecuted under them. 

Asked about the appropriateness of pursuing Lidden, a Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions spokeswoman said it ‘conducts all prosecutions in accordance with the Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth’.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14193785/Emmanuel-Steven-Lidden-plutonium-arncliffe.html?ito=native_share_article-nativemenubutton

The Online Store

 Lidden ordered the materials from an online store in the US. As the online store says Collecting elements is a fun way to learn about chemistry and nature in general. They have a range of display cases and element samples made to fit the different display cases. The cheapest one is shown below.

Originally, five radioactive elements were available for sale. The site warns – Don’t worry about their safety. Because of the small size samples their level of radioactivity is far too small to be hazardous to health so long as you keep these well out of the reach of children. Accidental ingestion, or particulates which are allowed to become airborne where they could be breathed in, do pose a serious health risk.

The more expensive kits use lucite cubes or glass vials. The containers used to hold the samples would have stopped any alpha rays. The uranium would have looked like this:

Many Elements are Radioactive

Most elements have one or more radioactive forms that occur naturally as a percentage of the whole. For example, potassium – 40 makes up about 0.012% or 120 parts per million of natural potassium. All our food is radioactive as are our bodies. Sleeping next to your spouse provides you with more background radiation. Potatoes are radioactive as are bananas. For more information on background radiation see my blog post. https://onewomanjourney.com.au/2024/12/30/background-radiation-how-much-radiation-do-we-experience-on-earth/

Interestingly, bismuth is not classified as radioactive and is sold as a treatment for travellers’ tummy wogs. Actually, it has no stable isotopes and a very, very long half-life.

Is Plutonium the Most Dangerous Substance on Earth?

As the late John Fremlin, professor of radioactivity at Birmingham University, famously advised a public inquiry, plutonium can be sat upon safely by someone wearing only a stout pair of jeans. At Harwell in the 1950s the newly-crowned Queen Elizabeth was handed a lump of plutonium in a plastic bag and invited to feel how warm it was.  https://www.neimagazine.com/uncategorized/the-drama-of-plutonium/?cf-view

Plutonium is radioactive, but it doesn’t seem that harmful at first glance. It looks like any other metal, with a silvery sheen that turns dull in contact with the air. Queen Elizabeth II held a piece during a visit to Britain’s Atomic Energy Research facility at Harwell in 1957. It was warm to the touch, but it didn’t hurt. 

According to some references the incidence happened in 1956 at the opening of the Calder Hall UK. A young Queen Elizabeth was invited to handle a lump of plutonium and feel the warmth of the extraordinary material, which she did. The shielding was a plastic bag and I presume the royal gloves. The Queen outlived almost all her contemporaries. (D Fishlock. ‘The Last Retort.’ Chemistry World 99, March 2005.)

According to the World Nuclear Association, even eating plutonium doesn’t really do any harm, although it’s definitely not recommended! https://www.space.com/what-is-plutonium

Galen Winsor

Galen Winsor worked with plutonium for over 3 decades in the US. In the video below he talks about his experiences. Then he talks about his utter dismay when the Hi-Level Waste Disposal Act of 1982 was passed as part of “The Nuclear Scare Scam”- (about 26minutes into the video). This is a fascinating video for those interested in plutonium.

Galen Winsor – What stopped the plutonium economy? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VvGw1tkT1Q

It is time Australia dealt with real risks appropriately rather than over-reacting to trivial issues. Fear of radiation is both costly and ignorant of the science.

Cognitive Dissonance and Low-Dose Radiation

Germany has more radon baths than any other country. Yet they fear nuclear power plants. They closed them down and opened up coal mines knocking down ancient forests in the process. Medical benefit payments are paid out to people who attend the radon spas for relief of muscular-skeletal ailments. The medical fraternity warns of the dangers of radon yet people in pain still seek relief.

People have been using radon baths for thousands of years.  Low dose radiation seems to lessen the pain and immobility of osteoarthritis. But not every patient benefits.

https://www.fau.eu/2019/01/17/news/research/the-healing-effect-of-radon/#:~:text=Thermal%20water%20that%20contains%20radon,Steben%20Health%20Spa%20Research%20Association).

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2477705/#:~:text=Radon%20Via%20Bath%20or%20Steam,for%20three%20or%20more%20weeks.

Many studies have shown that the more low dose radiation a population receives, the less cancer there is in the population. This effect is known as hormesis. I can also find studies that state that low dose radiation causes cancer.

 Is anything black or white or just shades of grey? Is anybody totally truthful? We all have our biases. To get a message across about cognitive dissonance I wrote “Low Dose Radiation is not Harmful and May Even Be Good for Us! Nobody Died from Radiation at Fukushima”

But panic and fear of radiation caused the unnecessary deaths of over a thousand Japanese people following the evacuation.

Every decision we make in life rests on our perception of the risk involved versus the benefits. That balancing act changes with circumstances. For example, the amount of radiation used for cancer treatment is huge. None of us would want to receive that much in ordinary circumstances. A medical specialist tells us it is our best chance of beating deadly cancer and we accept the treatment for 2 reasons. Firstly, the radiation will be applied under very controlled conditions to a limited area. Secondly, the whole balance of the situation has changed.

A few years ago, I didn’t agree that Australia should have a nuclear power industry. Did we plan long term enough? Did we plan carefully? Were we just too Gung-ho?

I am now watching the destruction of Australia’s wonderful unique biodiversity as we lose forest and mountain ridges to wind turbine projects in Queensland in the “fight against climate change”. Is the balance, right? Do we have to destroy nature to save the planet?

Ecologists, Barry W. Brook and Corey J. A. Bradshaw ranked 7 major electricity-generation sources (coal, gas, nuclear, biomass, hydro, wind, and solar) based on costs and benefits. They published a paper in 2014 called:  Key role for nuclear energy in global biodiversity conservation. https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cobi.12433.

This study still stands out. It used multicriteria decision-making analysis and ranked 7 major electricity-generation sources based on costs and benefits. It then tested the sensitivity of the rankings to biases stemming from contrasting philosophical ideals. Irrespective of weightings, nuclear and wind energy had the highest benefit-to-cost ratio.

The Integrated Life-cycle Assessment of Electricity Sources undertaken by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe which concentrated on Carbon Neutrality in the UNECE Region has been extensively quoted by Oscar Martin on LinkedIn. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/4020227?ln=en&v=pdf

Nuclear scored far better than wind power (and all other electricity generation types) on nearly all rankings with the exception of water use and of course radiation. Public and occupational exposures to radiation from electricity generation was far higher from coal and even geothermal systems than from conventional nuclear power plants. Likewise, every other of 22 assessed electricity generation types were more carcinogenic than conventional nuclear power.

Potential impacts such as specific biodiversity-related impacts, noise or aesthetic disturbance were not assessed under the land use analysis. Nuclear had the lowest lifecycle impacts on ecosystems, followed by various forms of wind and solar power. Under the land use assessment, renewable technologies were assumed to be readily built on various land types without heavy modifications such as land sealing, mountaintop removal, and flooding.

The assessment of land use which was used in the assessment of ecological impact for wind projects only considered the directly disturbed land (turbine pads, access roads) and assumed the surrounding land could be used for other purposes such as agriculture. For disturbed forests this leads to massive underestimation of the impact. Research in far northern Queensland is finding that impacts from wind turbines on some species in forests can extend 3 km or more from a turbine.

Nature is doing over half the work of reducing carbon dioxide levels worldwide. We can save nature and the planet. With a carefully planned mix of nuclear and other energy sources, we can preserve our biodiversity.

Yes, nuclear power is not 100% safe and clean. Nothing ever is. The benefits to humanity and nature are too great to ignore and far greater than the risk.

Australians for Nature and Nuclear!

The Effect of False Fear of Low-Dose Radiation – Fake Graph of Fukushima

Japanese Tsunami March 2011

A magnitude 9.0 earthquake, centred to the east of Sendai caused  a wave 10m high travelling at 800 kph .  The highest wave hitting the coast of Japan was 23m. It travelled inland for 10 km in some places. The Hawaiian Islands had waves over 3 metres high. As many as 19,500 lives were lost from both the earthquake and tsunami.

Misinformation

The following figure, with the added title “FUKISHIMA RADIATION HAS CONTAMINATED THE ENTIRE PACIFIC OCEAN AND ITS ONLY GOING TO GET WORSE!” was repeated over and over again on the web by various “green” groups.

Yes, the figure was produced by NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the US Government). BUT it is a graph of WAVE HEIGHTS after the tsunami. NOAA does not measure radiation levels.

A similar graph has been used for years by Helen Caldicott including during a presentation to Teals before the last election. Helen’s graph had a logo from a company in Australia that does undertake radiological measurements. The company stated on their website that it was not their work and that their logo was falsely included. She must have known for nearly ten years that the graph was false. I am also horrified by nuclear war and nuclear bombs and admire her work in this area but not at the cost of truth about low dose radiation.

Nuclear power plants and nuclear bombs are very different. I hate nuclear weapons. However, the use of falsified information when advocating for the banning of nuclear weapons or nuclear power is not OK. It is particularly abhorrent when scientific data is used in a way that the author knows to be untrue. I was told to use this technique in an environmental campaigning course by a famous international “Green” organisation.

These types of fear peddling are totally unethical, particularly when they pretend to be scientific in nature.

Why Do the Media call the Tsunami, the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster?

How many deaths could have been avoided if suggestions for evacuation or shelter in place standards suggested by the IAEA had been used. But Fear and Panicked Evacuation of about 100,000 people was responsible for 2313 disaster-related deaths among evacuees from Fukushima prefecture.

An old nuclear power plant overdue for decommissioning was damaged at Fukushima Daiichi by a wave 13-15m high. The placing and tsunami protection of the Daiichi plant assumed a 3m wave.

Eleven reactors at four nuclear power plants in the region were operating at the time and all shut down automatically when the earthquake hit. Subsequent inspection showed no significant damage to any from the earthquake itself.

The residual heat cooling systems worked for 8 out of the 11 power plants. At Fukushima Daiichi, electrical power from all 6 external sources stopped and the generators turned on until the tsunami flooding disabled 12 0f 13 backup generators running the cooling systems. Switching gear was also damaged.

Heat built up causing steam in the cooling systems. Hydrogen was produced by the steam reacting with exposed Zircaloy cladding. The containments were filled with inert nitrogen, which prevented hydrogen from burning in the containment. However, the hydrogen leaked from the containment into the reactor buildings, where it mixed with air and exploded. 3 of the 4 reactor buildings were damaged by hydrogen explosions. This was not a nuclear explosion. It was simple chemistry. To prevent further explosions, vent holes were opened in the top of the remaining reactor buildings. All reactors were stable within 2 weeks.

Three Tepco employees at the Daiichi and Daini plants were killed directly by the earthquake and tsunami. There have been no deaths or cases of radiation sickness from the nuclear power plant incident. One man from the plant died of cancer died soon afterwards but it is thought to be unrelated.

But in contrast there were 2,300 deaths caused by fear of radiation that triggered the evacuation.

Government nervousness to this day has delayed the return of many evacuees to their homes. Concerns about radiation in the sea caused panic even in the USA and some people made themselves sick with overdoses of iodine.

Tritium.

About 18 months ago, South Korea and China advised their citizens to stop eating seafood. Water used to cool the Fukushima reactors had been decontaminated and stored in large tanks and was finally to be released to the sea by Japan. The IAEA carefully monitored the releases. Korean fishermen were suffering loss of income as a result of the bans. After Korea monitored the sea water, they reversed their advice. China has only recently lifted their ban as they could not detect any contaminants. I followed the data for a while. Sometimes the tritium levels were so low in the discharge, the discharge water was diluting the tritium levels in the the sea water.

Tritium is created every day in our atmosphere and comes down in the rain, ending up in the sea. This natural process is the overwhelming source of tritium in the ocean.

For more of my blogs about tritium, see https://onewomanjourney.com.au/2023/08/25/tritium-trivia/

https://onewomanjourney.com.au/2023/08/31/its-raining-i-might-get-tritium-in-my-hair/

https://onewomanjourney.com.au/2023/09/06/the-iaea-and-fukushima-water-release/

https://onewomanjourney.com.au/2023/09/09/south-korea-monitors-fukushima-release/

False Fear of Low-Dose Radiation – Strawberries – A Personal Experience

Radioactive Strawberries?

In 2008, David presented a paper in the International Mine Water Association conference in Karlovy-Vary (Karlsbad, Czech Republic). As part of our conference trip, we included a field trip to Hamr-Stráž, an area where uranium deposits had been exploited by the USSR with little regard for the environment or the health of workers. As part of the field trip we learnt about one of the huge legacies left for the Czech people to clean up. Technical details of the current chemistry and radiology were presented along with technological details needed for the rehabilitation of the ground water. Following the presentation we visited the extensive site where I spotted wild strawberries.

I decided to eat some and bent down and picked a few. Suddenly, I was the centre of attention. “Do you think you should eat them. Aren’t you scared of the radiation in the strawberries?” I looked at the men around me and said “You have seen the data, yes I will eat them.” Once I ate one, suddenly the atmosphere changed and many others joined me. The strawberries were wonderful. We had been given much more data than appears in the reference below yet fear came first, not data and rational thinking.

Remediation of consequences of chemical leaching of uranium
in Stráž pod Ralskem – https://www.imwa.info/docs/imwa_2008/IMWA2008_036_Muzak.pdf

Photographs in Hamr-Stráž by Dr David Jones

Next time: the effect of false fear of low-dose radiation – Fukushima

The Animals of Chernobyl

In the first few years after the Chernobyl Catastrophe, most of the attention was focused on human health. The general impression was that any animals living nearby were either killed or badly maimed and the forest was quiet. Some farm animals were born malformed with extra limbs and a few forest creatures were also seen to be mutated. It is no surprise that in those early years very high levels of radiation either killed or maimed. Creatures in utero or in the period of rapid cell growth and organ differentiation were particularly vulnerable. Expectations for the future were very pessimistic.

Few researchers expected what then happened!

Ecologists have found the land surrounding the damaged nuclear power plant, which has been largely off limits to humans for three decades, has become a haven for wildlife, with lynx, bison, deer and other animals roaming through thick forests. This so-called Chernobyl Exclusion Zone (CEZ), which covers 2,800 square km of northern Ukraine, now represents the third-largest nature reserve in mainland Europe and has become an iconic – if accidental – experiment in rewilding.

Contamination Levels in the CEZ

The contamination levels within CEZ vary considerably. The highest levels are in the “Red Forest”. Around the destroyed nuclear power plant and in the nearby city of Pripyat, the radiation caused the leaves of thousands of trees to turn a rust color, giving a new name to the surrounding woods. Workers eventually bulldozed and buried the radioactive trees. What these levels actually are vary from source to source but they are still very high.

The levels of contamination by iodine 131 dropped quickly in the first year as it has a half-life of 8 days. Similarly cesium 134, with a half-life of 2 years, has almost disappeared. The isotopes cesium 137 and strontium 90 remain mostly tied up by the clay in the soil. Fungi can have relatively high levels of cesium 137. Recent radiation levels in most of the CEZ vary from less than 1 to over 800 mSv /year.

Cesium 137 and strontium 90 have half-lives of about 30 years. Thus the radiation levels will have now halved since the disaster. In about 200-300 years there will be very little radiation left. Cesium is not easy to absorb. Clay binds to it strongly. The cesium that is absorbed has a biological half-life of 90 days. Similarly strontium is also bound to clay but once in a vertebrate, it is bound into bones and stays there for a long time as it is not excreted. It should also be remembered that both isotopes are toxic chemically as well as being radioactive.

The Animals of Chernobyl

Top predators like wolves that ate other contaminated animals were assumed to be particularly vulnerable.

The reality has been that larger mammals have thrived. These include Eurasian lynx, gray wolf, wild boar, brown bear, European bison, elk, red deer, red fox, roe deer, raccoon dog, and Przewalski’s horse. Thirty horses were introduced in the late 1990s. Cameras traps now indicate that there are over 100 of this special breed.

Top: European Lynx (U.K. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology), Brown Bear and Bison (Sergey Gaschack), then below Fox (AP PHOTO / Sergui Chuzavkov), Black Grouse (Nick Beresford), Raptor (REUTERS/Vasily Fedosenko).

Other commonly observed animals include moose, black grouse, snakes, owls, raccoon dogs, foxes, pine martens, and badgers. There have been suggestions that foxes may not be reproducing as fast as other animals. Perhaps the lack of farmers’ chicken pens has reduced their feed source!

Domestic cats have now bred for many generations without the presence of farming families. There are lots of rodents as a food source. Dogs left behind vary in their quality of life with the situation being complicated by human activities.

The monitoring of animals has become much more sophisticated and some creatures are now being tagged. Recent work includes genetics, and biochemistry of blood and tissue samples.

I have included the following video. The story is great and the animals shown wonderful. Some of the ideas may be outdated but the video is fascinating. I loved watching it. There are lots of other videos on the web. They vary in quality and degree of bias. The pictures of mutated animals appear to have been taken prior to 2000.

Ecological Studies

Unfortunately no scientists or other visitors are allowed to enter the CEZ at the current time due to the war. So studies are on hold. Scientists tend to be very conservative and continue to ask each other difficult questions. Early studies did not examine the health of the animals seen.

Two evolutionary biologists teamed up to study the area’s birds. They were Anders Møller of University Paris-Saclay in France and Timothy Mousseau of the University of South Carolina. Their early surveys showed that certain bird species tended to have more genetic mutations, smaller brains and less viable sperm in sites with higher radiation levels. And in 2007, they counted 66 percent fewer birds and 50 percent fewer bird species in highly radioactive places compared to background-level sites.


In dozens of studies, the pair also documented that, with higher radiation levels, there were significantly lower numbers of soil invertebrates and a lower abundance of certain insect species and such mammals as hares and foxes. Working with collaborators in Finland, they also documented a range of health effects in bank voles.

Over the last 10 to 15 years much more detailed studies have started and early pessimistic authors are now also finding that the creatures are adapting well to higher levels of radiation including Møller and Mousseau. By 2014, in a paper they published with others: Chronic exposure to low-dose radiation at Chernobyl favours adaptation to oxidative stress in birds.

We found a pattern radically different from previous studies in wild populations, showing that GSH levels and body condition increased, and oxidative stress and DNA damage decreased, with increasing background radiation. Thus, when several species are considered, the overall pattern indicates that birds are not negatively affected by chronic exposure to radiation and may even obtain beneficial hormetic effects following an adaptive response. Analysis of the phylogenetic signal supports the existence of adaptation in the studied traits, particularly in GSH levels and DNA damage. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1365-2435.12283

Attitudes were changing.

When other scientists reanalyzed early data by Møller and Mousseau on a dozen mammal species, they found that radiation had indeed caused declines in abundance, but only at higher doses than the pair had originally reported. No account had been made of the radioisotopes already within the bodies of the mammals. This is Science in action.

Dr Ismael Galván, of the Spanish National Research Council said “Previous studies of wildlife at Chernobyl showed that chronic radiation exposure depleted antioxidants and increased oxidative damage. We found the opposite – that antioxidant levels increased and oxidative stress decreased with increasing background radiation.” The species surveyed were: Red-backed shrike, great tit, barn swallow, wood warbler, blackcap, whitethroat, barred warbler, tree pipit, chaffinch, hawfinch, mistle thrush, song thrush, blackbird, black redstart, robin and thrush nightingale. “Chronic exposure to low-dose radiation at Chernobyl favors adaptation to oxidative stress in birds.” https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2435.12283

A Recent Study on Wolves

So far the findings from this important study are only available as an abstract from 2024. A full paper has not yet been published, probably because of the pause in research. Polygenic adaptation and co-regulatory dynamics in Chernobyl wolves: Unveiling immune and oncogenic stress interactions with implications for human cancer resilience. https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7445.AM2024-7322

Gene signature variations in CEZ wolves reveal a distinct immune profile, likely shaped by prolonged radiation exposure. These findings, along with evidence of polygenic selection, suggest adaptation to multigenerational radiation exposure (an oncogenic stress). Notably, the enrichment of genes with positive prognosis in human cancer overexpressed in CEZ wolves present a valuable model to explore genetic underpinnings of cancer immunity and advance our understanding of cancer resilience in humans.

In other words, the wolves in the CEZ are a unique population of gray wolves that have adapted to survive levels of radiation six times higher than the legal limit for humans. They are the subject of scientific research that aims to understand how animals can survive in these conditions. The research so far suggests that the wolves have developed genetic mutations that make them resistant to cancer. The wolves are thriving. Their population in the CEZ is seven times denser than in low radiation protected areas in Belarus.

Next time: what has happened to the humans that live and work in the CEZ?

How Much Radiation Causes Cancer and Heart Disease?

Why Do We Fear Radiation 6

Ref: Wade Allison Emeritus Prof of Physics lecture 2018, Dun School of Pathology, Oxford

There are many articles on the web that link cancer treatment with heart disease. An example from the Cleveland Clinic states “Radiation heart disease is a side effect of radiation therapy for cancers in the chest and includes a wide range of heart conditions. Because it can occur many years after exposure, close monitoring is essential.“

There is no doubt that high doses of radiation can cause cancer. This has been well known since the Second World War when two nuclear bombs were dropped on Japan. Medical journal articles linking radiation treatment for cancer to later heart conditions have been around for at least 4 decades. It is important to read the full papers as the term “low dose” radiation often actually refers to quite high radiation doses well above 100mSv.

But How Much Radiation Causes Cancer and Heart Disease?

By the early 1980s, it was becoming widely known that radiation treatment for cancers of the chest increased a wide range of heart problems. Medical studies of the period described how patients receiving more than 30 grays during treatment had a high risk of developing heart issues in coming years. Just how much is 30 grays? 30 grays is 30 sieverts that is 30,000 mSv. This is an enormous amount of radiation! These 1980 studies have been quoted over and over again in medical review documents. Unfortunately, the radiation dose levels are not often discussed leaving some readers in doubt that very high doses of radiation are the cause. Personally I am still astonished at the amount of radiation used for cancer treatment.

Modern radiotherapy for cancer treatment has taken giant strides. Many cancers are treated with radiopharmaceuticals. These agents combine relatively short-lived radioisotopes with biological compounds that target the radiation much more precisely to the cancer cells avoiding as much radiation to nearby healthy cells as possible. Doses need to be high enough to kill the cancer cells. The doses are much lower than they used to be but they are still levels like 3 gray or 3,000 mSv. Chemotherapy is often used to make the cancer cells more sensitive to ionizing radiation.

Ref: https://www.arpansa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021_ionising_radiation_and_health.pdf

“There have been many large studies on people developing cancer from radiation exposure. Scientific evidence shows that the increased risk of developing cancer occurs at exposure levels of 100 mSv or higher. However, it is worth noting that outside of radiotherapy treatments, which is the targeted use of radiation to destroy cancer cells, the risk of being exposed to radiation doses at 100 mSv or higher is extremely low.“

“For radiation exposures less than 100 mSv, the scientific evidence for increased health risk is more limited. This is because the risk of developing cancer from low radiation dose is very small compared to the overall cancer rates, which makes it very difficult to measure, even with a very large study. It is plausible that health effects could occur at levels below 100 mSv.“

These statements from ARPANSA mirror a very wide range of scientific literature I have read over many years.

The only way to pick up health effects at levels under 100mSv has been to use epidemiological approaches. Unfortunately, these studies do not always agree with each other. I have seen two camps undertake complex calculations on the same data and come to totally opposite conclusions.

The amount of radiation used in medical diagnoses is also rather high but only exceeds 100mSv when used over and over again on large area scans such as whole body CT scans. Again the amount of radiation used has dropped considerably over time with new techniques as the use of targeted radiopharmaceuticals such as Technetium-99m compounds.

Since some of the earliest life appeared on Earth, living things have had the ability to repair radiation damage. More on this topic in future blogs.

ANSTO highlights that some members of the public fear that external radiation can build up in the body until it gets to a point where it kills you. This is not the case. Ionising radiation does not build up in your body any more than light which falls on you builds up. The radiation that reaches you is gone a fraction of a second later. https://www.ansto.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-01/What%20is%20radiation%20brochure%202018%20final%20eVersion.pdf

This raises the question of how radiation does cause any harm. I plan to address this issue in a later blog.

Background Radiation: How Much Radiation Do We Experience on Earth?

Why Do We Fear Radiation? 5

Australia experiences low background levels of nuclear radiation.

The most variation in background levels in Australia results from higher levels of radon due to the geology of an area. ARPANSA has produced a map that can be easily accessed for those wanting to know more. https://www.arpansa.gov.au/understanding-radiation/radiation-sources/more-radiation-sources/radon-map

Some areas of the world have much higher background levels, some patches being one hundred times higher than the world average. In general terms, multiple studies have suggested that long term residents of these higher background areas do not suffer from higher rates of cancer or heart disease. They may even develop extra protective measures. I will provide more information on this topic some of which can be controversial, in later blogs.

Background Radiation Dose Rate in mSv/day. Graph by Jack Devaney

Not all background data is easily available in mSv. Some interesting facts may be shown in other units such as grays. For X-rays, gamma rays and beta emitters, the gray is numerically the same value when expressed in sieverts, but for alpha particles one gray is equivalent to 20 sieverts, as a radiation weighting factor is applied accordingly. Alpha particles are easy to stop but once in the body, they inflict more damage.

When radiation is measured using instruments like a geiger counter, the unit is becquerels (Bq). One becquerel is equal to one nuclear decay per second.  Conversions from becquerels to mSv can be done accurately for a single radionuclide but mixtures are very complex. For reference to the figure below, there are one thousand trillion becquerels in a Petabequerel, an almost unimaginable number. The overall message is clear. Human influence on background levels is small. As large as the effect of the dreadful nuclear bomb testing was, it is relatively tiny fraction of the total and diminishes every year.

I first saw this posted by Robert Hargraves and again recently on a post by Oscar L Martin on LinkedIn.

Why Do We Fear Radiation? 2 Blog by Pamela Jones

Nuclear Radiation 101

How much do you know about nuclear radiation? Here is an opportunity to learn about it in an easy manner. Many of you will know far more about radiation than shown here. However, you too can enjoy these great video segments.

Yes, Earth is a radioactive planet. But just how radioactive is the zone in which we live? Is it dangerous and harmful? And if it is, when is it harmful? In order to really examine these questions, it is important to understand the basics.

There are lots of units used in the nuclear radiation field and it is important to understand what these units mean. Scientists have become very clever at measuring extremely low levels of everything from chemicals to radiation . Just because something can be measured does not tell us whether something is harmful to life or critical for its existence .

In order to illustrate some basic concepts and the language used, I am showing some parts of a few video presentations which describe these concepts in a clear manner in this blog and the next. Each video segment is about 6 minutes long. The full videos are available on YouTube

What is Radiation by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

Types of Radiation by Dr Don Lincoln of Fermilab 2017

Is Radiation Dangerous by Dr Don Lincoln of Fermilab 2017

Enough for today! Each new blog will provide more information such as the variability of background radiation on our planet.

But before you go, I would like you to consider the following question. I am about to hand you a kilogram of a radioactive substance. I have 2 choices. One has a very short half-life and one has an extremely long half-life. Which one is the safest?

It’s Raining! I Might Get Tritium in My Hair?

True or false?

True, and this blog will tell you why it happens.

We all have trouble looking at very big or small numbers and understanding their size and importance. I am one of those lucky people who have less trouble than most. This has had its downsides too.  As a child I loved mathematics and algebra. I saw the patterns in numbers easily and it was all a big game to me until I was bullied at a small country school for being different. I was tied to a post, day after day, mocked at, spat at, and even pummeled with food scraps.

Now I am a senior, maths is not so easy, but I will try and make some numbers about radiation levels easier to understand.

Tritium is a natural substance.

Tritium is formed in minute quantities every day in our atmosphere. Cosmic rays from space hit the gases in the air, mainly nitrogen, forming tritium. Tritium is a type of hydrogen atom with 2 extra neutrons in its nucleus. Tritium quickly becomes part of a water molecule.  Instead of a water molecule with 2 atoms of ordinary common hydrogen with one atom of oxygen (H2O), a few molecules of water are HTO. The chemistry of both is virtually identical.  The mixture comes down as rain.

Just how many water molecules have tritium in them? Well, this is where the big and little numbers come in, making the situation hard to visualize. A new unit was created to help scientists assess the meaning of various concentrations.  1 TU or tritium unit equals 1 tritium atom in 1018 atoms of hydrogen. 1018 is 1 followed by 18 zeros. I find that hard to visualize. Let’s try. There are 8 billion people on Earth, that is 8,000,000,000 people. That is only 8 with 9 zeros. So, we have to imagine the same number of planets as there are people on the earth, with populations similar to earth to be in the right ballpark.  So TUs are like one tritium or one person out of all those people on all those planets put together.  I still find that hard to visualize, but it does tell me that finding 1 tritium atom in all those ordinary hydrogen atoms looks impossible.  Yet scientists around the world can and do measure tritium levels in rain, river and ocean water and ground water. In Australia, ANSTO publishes some of this data.

So how high are tritium levels in rain? It is seasonal and dependent on rainfall patterns. In Australia it is 2 to 3 TU. Most numbers vary from 1 to 10 TU.  Nuclear bomb testing increased tritium levels in rain for a time but still at levels in the same sort of range, definitely measurable but extremely small.

So, what does this actually mean? What are the chances of one tritiated water molecule falling on your head? 18 g of water (3 big teaspoons) contain 6 *1023 molecules of water. There would be a million tritium atoms in this rainwater.

Yes, if it rains on your hair, you will get natural tritium in your hair.

So the answer is TRUE.

Tritium Trivia

Before I write about the mechanisms all life on Earth uses to repair itself from any harm caused by low dose radiation, I feel I must present some information about tritium and the current political uproar about release of water at Fukushima in Japan.

Japan’s biggest seafood customer, China, has decided to ban seafood from Japan, followed by South Korea. New Caledonia has decided to ban swimming in the ocean.

Japan has been storing treated water from the damaged Fukushima nuclear power plants in large tanks. There are about a thousand tanks containing 1.2 million tonnes of water.

Japan has begun releasing treated wastewater used to cool down the nuclear reactors damaged by the tsunami in March 2011.  The water has been treated to remove radioactive material, but small quantities remain. Tritium is hard to remove as it forms part of a few of the water molecules.  There are very small quantities of carbon 14 and there may be even smaller quantities of strontium and iodine isotopes.  Most of the latter were dispersed by May 2011.

Tritium is formed naturally every day in our atmosphere and added to the oceans and land as rainwater. Any taken into our bodies comes out fairly quickly in our urine. Radiation from tritium is weak beta rays. These rays do not travel far and are stopped by skin. Unless the dosage is extremely high, our bodies quickly repair any damage caused.

The release from Japan into the Pacific Ocean can be made to sound bad and scary. “But it actually isn’t. Similar releases have occurred around the world for six decades, and nothing bad has ever happened.

“The radioactivity in the Fukushima water is almost entirely tritium, a type of hydrogen. For scale, the Pacific Ocean contains 8,400 grams of pure tritium, while Japan will release 0.06 grams of tritium every year. The minuscule amount of extra radiation won’t make the tiniest jot of difference. A lifetime’s worth of seafood caught a few kilometres from the ocean outlet has the tritium radiation equivalent of one bite of a banana.” according to Nigel Marks is a Professor in Physics at Curtin University

Tony Hooker, Director of the Centre for Radiation Research, Education and Innovation at The University of Adelaide says: “I would like to reiterate that the release of tritium from nuclear facilities into waterways has and is undertaken world-wide with no evidence of environmental or human health implications. “

Tony Irwin, an Honorary Associate Professor at the Australian National University is also Technical Director of SMR Nuclear Technology Pty Ltd and Chair of Engineers Australia Sydney Division Nuclear Engineering Panel: “There is an understandable perception that all radioactive materials are always and everywhere dangerous, particularly liquid waste, but not all radioactive materials are dangerous. The Fukushima water discharge will contain only harmless tritium and is not a unique event. Nuclear power plants worldwide have routinely discharged water containing tritium for over 60 years without harm to people or the environment, most at higher levels than the 22 TBq per year planned for Fukushima.

“For comparison the Kori nuclear plant in South Korea discharged 91 TBq in 2019, more than four times the planned Fukushima discharge and the French reprocessing plant at La Hague discharged 11,400 TBq in 2018 into the English Channel, more than twelve times the total contents of all the tanks at Fukushima, again without harm to people or the environment.

“It is important that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has carried out an independent and transparent review of the procedures and equipment for discharges and its comprehensive report issued in July 2023 confirms that the release will have a negligible radiological effect on people and the environment. The IAEA will maintain a continuous on-site presence on site to independently monitor discharges.

“More tritium is created in the atmosphere than is produced by nuclear power reactors, and it then falls as rain. Ten times more tritium falls as rain on Japan every year than will be discharged. The discharge limit for release of radioactive water at Fukushima is 1/7th of the World Health Organisation standard for drinking water. The discharge is ultra-conservative.”

Thanks to https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-comment-on-release-of-waste-water-from-fukushima-into-the-pacific/ 

A paper was published in August 2021 by seven Chinese authors with assistance from authors in the Netherlands, Ukraine, South Korea, and Spain with scary looking figures of their modelling of potential release scenarios by Japan. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X2100549X

On closer examination problematic zones were about 0.1 Becquerel(Bq)/m3 of sea water. These scenarios were all assuming much faster dumping of the water than Japan actually plans. The paper itself gives the background concentration of tritium in the surface water of the North Pacific Ocean as around 50 Bq/m3 (0.2% increase, less than natural variation). Good luck monitoring any difference during the release except at the actual release point.

Japan plans to dilute the water in the tanks before release  with a maximum concentration of tritium in the release of 1,500 Bq/l. The WHO drinking water standard is 10,000 Bq/l.

The IAEA will monitor the release at various points in the dilution and release system. The data is available at

https://www.iaea.org/topics/response/fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-accident/fukushima-daiichi-alps-treated-water-discharge/tepco-data

To understand the monitoring system watch https://twitter.com/iaeaorg/status/1694605862621380652

As I write, the tritium concentration of the discharge is 207 Bq/l. This is way less than the tough standard Japan set itself of 1,500Bq/l. The gamma ray monitoring ensures the water does not contain other radioactive contaminants.

Mixed Feelings

Sometimes I can hold two opposing viewpoints in my head about the same topic. I used to blame this on my birthdate as I am a Pisces. Some people believe Pisces people are best represented by two or even three fish with their tails tied together trying to swim in different directions. I now know the term for this phenomenon, and we can all suffer from it. It’s called Cognitive Dissonance and can arise when our behavior does not match our values or when fears generated in our primitive emotional brain argue with our rational brain.

We have all been fed false fears about low dose radiation since the 1950s. This is sad because these fears fight with the scientific knowledge we have now about ionizing radiation. Nowhere is this seen more clearly than in Japan and Germany.

From a Japanese tourist brochure: Misasa Onsen is an old hot spring with a history of over 850 years. Its spring quality is one of the highest radon contents globally and has excellent healing effects on the body and mind. People have loved it for a long time, including those who come to the hot spring for medical treatment.

“Radon,” which is a weak form of radiation, is produced when radium is decomposed. The body’s metabolism becomes more active when exposed to radon, and the immune system and natural healing power are enhanced. In addition, when inhaled or drunk radon, it increases the antioxidant function and helps prevent aging and lifestyle-related diseases.

Misasakan Hotel pool in Misasa Onsen Japan

Radiation killed nobody at Fukushima, but the tsunami killed about 20,000 people. Yet the press keeps describing it as the Fukushima nuclear disaster.

Germany has more radon baths than any other country. They are also particularly popular in Eastern Europe.  There are an increasing number of scientific studies looking at doses and ailments treated.  Pain relief from muscular skeletal diseases is well studied.

Despite all their spas which are being used more and more:

The German Solution – Close Nuclear Power Stations, Knock Down Ancient Forests to Mine  Coal.

The figure below shows a proposed mechanism of action when radon is used to treat patients with chronic musculoskeletal diseases (mostly ankylosing spondylitis, osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis).

If you are interested in digging deeper, try this German 2020 review paper about Radon Spas: Radon Exposure—Therapeutic Effect and Cancer Risk     https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33396815/

There Is Already So Much Good Information on the Web

I have been having so much trouble writing this blog. There are so many people out there who can communicate in a clearer fashion than I can. Why would my blog make any difference to a world that needs so much help? Both you dear reader, and I need to remember that if we even educate or influence one other person, we have helped to change the world for the better.

It is impossible to share with others everything that I have learnt on this nuclear journey of mine, but I must try. Without nuclear power, we will find ourselves going back to the dark ages which was such a cruel world.

Renewable energy technologies can only take us so far. There are three major reasons for this. The first is energy density. Wind and solar power cannot provide enough energy to both manufacture themselves, mine the materials they require, recycle some of their components and still produce electricity for other purposes.  Nuclear can. Secondly, the resources to make enough wind and solar for both the developed and the developing world don’t seem to exist. Basic physics ensures that the energy required to completely recycle components is enormous.

Finally, the land requirements for wind and solar are huge but not impossible. Unfortunately, to find enough land, we destroy or badly harm biodiversity of all types including forests, wetlands, mangroves and our precious and diminishing arable soils. Nuclear power requires less space despite the stupidity about radiation caused by fear.

Nuclear Now is a 2022 American documentary film, directed and co-written by Oliver Stone. It is a film that I would like everybody to watch. It is very long film and really has too much information for one sitting. I have provided a link to the film below. Do make use of the link while it still works.

There is also a book that I would love everybody to read. Jack Devaney makes some points that I believe should be considered by regulators in every country. The book is finally available as a paperback from a number of sources. It is a big book but even reading the beginning chapters and the final chapters is more than worthwhile.

The book is not as negative as the title “Why Nuclear Power has been a Flop”suggests. The book supplies many fascinating insights.

“Jack Devanney is the principal engineer and architect of the ThorCon molten salt reactor power plant. Since 2011 he has pursued his idea of using shipyard construction technology to mass-produce safe, inexpensive power plants that can bring the benefits of electricity to all the world, with no CO2 emissions. He married the advanced nuclear technology developed and demonstrated by Oak Ridge Laboratory with his own engineering experiences with ships, power plants, and energy.” – Amazon.com

Jack also speaks on Decouple and has lots of information and fascinating ideas on his Geordian Knot News.  http://jackdevanney.substack.com

Fear of Low Dose Radiation

We have nothing to fear but fear itself.

Low dose radiation has harmed few people, but the fear of radiation has killed thousands. I will back up this statement in future blogs.

Why do we fear radiation? Is it because we can’t see it, we can’t smell it, we can’t hear it? Yet many types of radiation are all around us and have been since the beginning of life on earth.

There are most types of radiation form a spectrum, yet evolution has only provided a very narrow window for our senses. We often call this window the visible spectrum, the colours of the rainbow, the light our eyes can see. Yet, if it was so important for our health that we needed to avoid all forms of radiation, why hasn’t evolution given us the tools to measure its intensity?

Advances in man’s technology have now provided the tools to measure the smallest amounts of low dose ionising radiation, tools such as Geiger counters and scintillation counters. I used scintillation counting extensively when I worked in biochemical and medical research.

We now know that our planet is bombarded from space by cosmic rays every day. The core of our planet is radioactive, and this helped to make life on earth possible by making the planet a little warmer. No matter where we live, radiation comes from the rocks below us. It is in the food we eat and the water we drink. The background levels in some places on earth are much higher than those in Australia.

Potassium is very important for the health of our bodies. All of this potassium contains a proportion of the radioactive  form of potassium, potassium 40. So, every time we eat a banana or a potato or indeed get enough veggies or protein in our diet, we take in potassium 40.

Uranium, a word that puts fear in many people’s hearts, is absolutely ubiquitous in our world. It is everywhere. At one stage of my career, I had a team of people and a laboratory truck that travelled all over the Northern Territory sampling streams and ground water. The lowest concentrations of uranium we ever saw were in waters downstream of Ranger and Jabiluka mine sites. Our radiological standards in Australia are pretty tough but even so the drinking water standards are tougher still. Uranium is far more dangerous as a heavy metal then as a source of radiation. Heavy metals do damage to our kidneys.

Instead of protecting us by making ionising radiation visible to us, evolution has protected us with biochemical mechanisms that prevent, and repair damage created by low dose radiation. When life began on earth, the radiation levels were at least four times greater than they are now and may have even been even 10 times greater.

We now know far more about the effects of low dose radiation on people and other forms of life than we do about most chemicals in our environment. I will share some of that information in future blogs.

2g Human Health and Nuclear Power

One of the greatest fears about nuclear power, is that radiation causes cancer. I am currently trying to get a copy of the book “Low Dose Radiation” by Antone Brooks. Dr Antone Brooks served as Chief Scientist for the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) new Low Dose Radiation Research Program from 1999 to 2008. The slide below is taken from a presentation he gave in 2014 in Las Vegas.  I have many references from other authorities that agree with his group’s research.

LNTH stands for Low-No-Threshold Hypothesis which is still used to set many radiation safety standards but is out of date. It was first proposed using high dose data when nuclear bombs were dropped on Japan at the end of the Second World War over 70 years ago. Dr Antone Brooks has also stated in another recent lecture that fear and excessive radiation protection kills people and is very expensive.

There have been over a dozen studies in Germany, trying to prove that nuclear power plants cause leukemia in children. I did not find the papers I could read very convincing. Then I came upon the study below published in 2007. The study tried to take into account confounding issues.

Something inside me said, this is Germany, and it manufactures many chemicals and plastics. A GP had noticed that a much higher level of leukemia was occurring in his young patients. With the help of Google, I discovered that a new chemical plant had been set up in the area the year before. Again, with the help of Google I found that most of the leukemia cases were much closer to this new chemical plant than to the nuclear power plant. This does not prove anything, but it is suggestive that much more work would need to be done to determine the cause of the leukemia cluster. It certainly left many unanswered questions.

This is not the first time that I have noted that blame is often quickly and incorrectly placed on radiation as the cause of illness. During my time as a regulator for Ranger Uranium Mine, Aboriginals that used a billabong downstream of the mine for food gathering and recreation became ill. The mine was blamed. Careful investigations measured almost non-existent levels of uranium or other contaminants in the water, except for very high levels of bacteria. The source, untreated sewage, was traced and treated and the illness disappeared.

I like the graph above as I can be sure it includes Chernobyl in its data.

The message is clear, nuclear is a very healthy way to generate power.

1d Nuclear Radiation

Cosmic rays are extremely high-energy subatomic particles – mostly protons and atomic nuclei accompanied by many forms of electromagnetic emissions – that move through space, eventually bombarding the Earth’s surface. They travel at nearly the speed of light.

Cosmic rays are of two kinds: galactic and solar. Galactic cosmic radiation comes from the remnants of supernovas, which are powerful explosions during the last stages of existence of massive stars.

Solar cosmic radiation is composed of charged particles emitted by the Sun, predominantly electrons, protons and helium nuclei. Some of this radiation is continuously emitted from the Sun’s corona and known as ‘solar wind.’ The remainder comes from solar particle events – sudden and sporadic outbursts of electrically charged particles accompanied by electromagnetic emissions that occur when magnetic fields on the Sun’s surface stretch and twist. Like a rubber band, the Sun’s fields can snap, suddenly releasing enormous energy and presenting potential health concerns to astronauts in space. Although rare, strong solar flares can create radio blackouts and impact modern communication and navigation technology on ground.

The Earth is shielded by a magnetic field that makes the charged particles bounce from pole to pole, creating two gigantic donut-shaped belts populated by energetic electrons and protons. This field protects us from most of the cosmic rays. Passengers on aeroplane flights do receive higher doses of cosmic rays particularly at high altitude over the poles.

Ref:  IAEA https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/cosmic-radiation-why-we-should-not-be-worried

The background radiation levels originating from rocks in the earth’s crust, vary considerably. There is increasing evidence that people who live on granite areas have evolved stronger repair mechanisms to cope with the higher radiation levels.

Radon gas is the most insidious of background radiation sources. The gas is breathed into the lungs. Radon concentrations can build up to elevated levels in basements and tunnels or even houses built of granite. Ventilation goes a long way to solving the problem.

Potassium 40 levels can be surprisingly high in many foodstuffs such as bananas and potatoes. No harm has been measured from these sources.

There are quite a few different units used when describing nuclear radiation/radioactivity. The table above shows many of these units. Throughout this series, I have chosen to use millisieverts. This unit has both weighting factors for the type of radiation and also uses weighting factors for the tissue affected when appropriate. This standardisation makes comparisons easier.

Most of Australia has low natural background levels at 1.5 mSv per year. Surprisingly high background levels occur in some parts of the world. Many can be as high as 20 mSv per year. Recent studies are showing little evidence of increased cancer levels in these zones. Our cells divide and divide at enormous rates every day of our lives. Errors can occur. These errors are detected during the process of mitosis at several points in the cell division process and corrected by our wonderful biochemistry. It has been estimated that over 10,000 cancer cells are generated in our bodies every day. Our immune systems detect these cells and destroy them with incredible efficiency.

Australians double their exposure to radioactivity using medical diagnostics. A CT scan of the chest or abdomen delivers about 10 mSv. The levels of radioactivity used during radiation therapy for cancer are extremely high but are carefully aimed at the troubled tissue. Methods of delivering radiation therapy are becoming more sophisticated and more targeted.

Much of our knowledge about high doses of radiation and its effects, come from detailed studies of the impact of the nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Standards set for acceptable levels of radiation are extremely conservative and evidence is building up that these standards are far too low. Instead of protecting the general public, the standards have caused unnecessary fear and inappropriate actions that led to mental health issues and other health issues.

Statistics from the US show a lifetime risk of having some form of medically diagnosed cancer as 1 in 3 (33%) and death from cancer as 1 in 5 (20%). An acute dose of 100mSv has a cancer risk of only 0.4%. An accumulated dose at this level would be lower still as the body has a chance to repair itself.

I have noted that radiation doses and their effects vary from source to source but they are not dissimilar and the slides shown above provide a reasonable concept.

Recently, five ex-Prime Ministers of Japan sent a letter to the EU claiming children in Fukushima province were still suffering from thyroid cancer because of contamination from the nuclear power plant following the 2011 tsunami. The Governor of Fukushima Province was irate over this and said the information was not based on science. The inflammatory letter was probably based on two viewpoints. Many children had all, or part of their thyroid glands removed because of a large screening exercise for thyroid abnormalities following the impact of the tsunami and now some will need thyroid hormone substitution all their lives. Six of these children are currently suing Tokyo Electric Power Company, the Daiichi Power station operators for damages.

The first signatory to the letter, Koizumi Junichiro, is an advisor to a private organization that promotes zero nuclear power and renewable energy.

 The large screening exercise was undertaken on hundreds of thousands of children using a new advanced ultrasound technology capable of picking up a range of abnormalities not usually seen and panic set in. When control screening was undertaken on children in 3 prefectures far from any possible contamination, the same extent and types of abnormalities were found. They did not lead to thyroid cancer. It is sad that so many children were overtreated. A wait and see approach would have been better and not led to further illness.

 Some references on thyroid cancers:

https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20220203_11/ –   NHK WORLD-JAPAN is the international service of Japan’s public media organization NHK.

https://www.science.org/content/article/mystery-cancers-are-cropping-children-aftermath-fukushima – Mar 2016

There is an optimum amount for most substances in biological beings. Too much is toxic, too little can often be harmful too. The optimum range is not the same from organism to organism and can be different at various times. For minerals, the optimum level ranges are often like those in the environment where the species evolved. Does this same concept apply to radiation?