Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

bananas

(27,509 posts)
Wed Jul 15, 2015, 11:43 PM Jul 2015

Large study of nuclear workers shows that even tiny doses slightly boost risk of leukaemia.

"it scuppers the popular idea that there might be a threshold dose below which radiation is harmless"

"The study confirmed that the risk of leukaemia does rise proportionately with higher doses, but also showed that this linear relationship is present at extremely low levels of radiation."

"Epidemiological studies suggest that radiation exposure has health effects beyond cancer."


http://www.nature.com/news/researchers-pin-down-risks-of-low-dose-radiation-1.17876

Researchers pin down risks of low-dose radiation

Large study of nuclear workers shows that even tiny doses slightly boost risk of leukaemia.

Alison Abbott
30 June 2015 Corrected: 08 July 2015

For decades, researchers have been trying to quantify the risks of very low doses of ionizing radiation — the kind that might be received from a medical scan, or from living within a few tens of kilometres of the damaged Fukushima nuclear reactors in Japan. So small are the effects on health — if they exist at all — that they seem barely possible to detect. A landmark international study has now provided the strongest support yet for the idea that long-term exposure to low-dose radiation increases the risk of leukaemia, although the rise is only minuscule (K. Leuraud et al. Lancet Haematol. http://doi.org/5s4 ; 2015).

The finding will not change existing guidelines on exposure limits for workers in the nuclear and medical industries, because those policies already assume that each additional exposure to low-dose radiation brings with it a slight increase in risk of cancer. But it scuppers the popular idea that there might be a threshold dose below which radiation is harmless — and provides scientists with some hard numbers to quantify the risks of everyday exposures.

<snip>

The data also challenge an ICRP assumption that accumulated low-dose exposure gives a lower risk of leukaemia than does a single exposure to the same total dose (based on the idea that the body has time to recover if the assault comes in tiny, spread-out doses). But such details are unlikely to change the overall ICRP recommendations, which are deliberately conservative, says Thomas Jung, from Germany’s Federal Office for Radiation Protection in Munich.

<snip>

Epidemiological studies suggest that radiation exposure has health effects beyond cancer. The IARC-led consortium is now looking at the effect on solid cancers, and also on diseases such as heart attack and stroke. Other studies are under way to study the long-term impact of low-dose radiation on different cohorts. One, the Epi-CT study, is recruiting one million people from nine European countries who had CT scans as children; its analysis will be complete by 2017. In another, the Helmholtz Center Munich is analysing heart tissue from workers who died in the Mayak uranium mines in the South Urals, Russia.

<snip>

6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Large study of nuclear workers shows that even tiny doses slightly boost risk of leukaemia. (Original Post) bananas Jul 2015 OP
The "popular idea" of a safe threshold was popularized by nuclear industry PR. bananas Jul 2015 #1
It was based on a few things, though. Igel Jul 2015 #5
That isn't what has been going on. kristopher Jul 2015 #6
Yep libodem Jul 2015 #2
Shocking, not... nt Mnemosyne Jul 2015 #3
Gee, we have not been told that working in nuclear plants is safer than bananas or djean111 Jul 2015 #4

bananas

(27,509 posts)
1. The "popular idea" of a safe threshold was popularized by nuclear industry PR.
Wed Jul 15, 2015, 11:50 PM
Jul 2015

Proving once again you just can't trust the nuclear industry.

Igel

(35,332 posts)
5. It was based on a few things, though.
Thu Jul 16, 2015, 09:24 AM
Jul 2015

Default hypothesis, first off. They couldn't find any effects from low doses, and the easiest explanation was there was no effect from low doses. Where to set the low dose? This was a serious discussion perhaps 10, 20 years ago. Perhaps longer; I think I was in Oregon when I followed it, and I left there in '91. And, you know, I don't recall the "nuclear industry" being much involved in it.

We're always exposed to some radiation. Yet nobody found a difference in illnesses based on the variation in background radiation by location. This goes back to the first para. In fact, it seemed that the cutoff was above what could be measured, but it was close and error bars obscured things.

It makes sense that if the dose is small enough, given the fact that life's been around for a billion years or so and there are lifeforms on Earth remarkably resistant to effects of radiation, that there's some mechanism for repairing damage from low-level doses.

And, of course, if we didn't like the study we'd be saying the right thing: Replication. But since we like it, it must be true. That's the base on which the coffin to house critical thinking's corpse is built.


After that bit of confirmation bias, the rest is just ad hominem. "We don't like them, so they must be lying. Of course, the reason we don't like them is that they lie." That kind of reasoning really is bananas.

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
6. That isn't what has been going on.
Thu Jul 16, 2015, 09:11 PM
Jul 2015

Nuclear industry shills have been viciously attacking any scientist that endorses any policy based on, or even the legitimacy of the linear no threshold model. The nature of the 'discussion' tactics of the industry shills have been worse than shameful.

ETA: Note that those dissenting are all stakeholders in the well-being of the nuclear industry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model#Controversy

libodem

(19,288 posts)
2. Yep
Thu Jul 16, 2015, 12:48 AM
Jul 2015

My father in law worked for the INEL out in Arco and died of if after he retired. He was gone 3 weeks after his Dx.

 

djean111

(14,255 posts)
4. Gee, we have not been told that working in nuclear plants is safer than bananas or
Thu Jul 16, 2015, 06:00 AM
Jul 2015

flying in airplanes yet. But it is early.
Thing is, someone, somewhere, sat in an office and calculated how much sickness and death was acceptable for someone else's profit.
Keep waiting for a massive new push for nuclear. Wonder if ALEC is working on that, while working to stifle solar.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»Large study of nuclear wo...