The Health Effects of Radiation

1
The True Health Effects of Radiation

Presented by Y. C. Luan
on behalf of 14 authors from :
Nuclear Science and Technology Association
NBC contamination prevention Society
and three Universities

Presented in Moscow/Russia (July 2004)
2
Abstract
. Health effects of radiation depend on the
circumstances and the dose-rate of radiation
being received.
. Radiation can be classified into acute
radiation and chronic exposure radiation.
. Health effects of acute and chronic exposure
radiation are contradicting each other.
. Acute radiation is mostly harmful to people,
but chronic radiation is always beneficial to
people.
3
Introduction-1
1. The health effects of radiation depend on the
circumstances or dose rate of radiation being received.
2. Acute radiation is radiation received instantaneously:
a high dose rate in a short period of time.
3. Chronic radiation is the radiation received continuously:
a low dose rate during a long time.
4. Chronic radiation, although it is feared as much as acute
radiation, is actually beneficial to people.
5. Chronic radiation was repetitively observed to be always
beneficial to humans in the incident of Co-60
contaminated apartments in Taiwan.
4
Introduction-2
6. Health effects of acute and chronic radiation are
entirely different: 86,572 atomic bomb survivors in
Japan had a 5.4% increase in cancer mortality in 40
years; but 10,000 irradiated residents in Taiwan had a
97% decrease in cancer mortality.
7. 31 Chernobyl firemen and workers received acute
radiation from fission products and died; workers and
public outside of plant were benefited when fission
products diluted and decayed to chronic radiation.
5
Introduction-3
8. The chronic radiation such as experienced in Taiwan,
might be used in the prevention of cancers and
hereditary diseases.
9. Traditional radiation protection should be revised for
promoting the useful health effects of nuclear energy.
10. The fear of chronic radiation should be abolished, and
the spending of billions dollars for radiation protection
against chronic radiation should be saved.
6
The health effects of acute radiation
1. Deterministic effects (short term effects) : acute radiation can
cause radiation sickness and death.
2. Stochastic effects (delayed effects) : acute radiation can
increase cancer mortality as described in ICRP-60.
3. The LNT hypothesis is based on the theory that any level of
exposure to radiation is harmful, and that the effects of high
doses of radiation can be extrapolated to low doses of
radiation, based on LNT model.
4. The LNT model of ICRP is simple, logical, and conservative,
making possible calculations for governing radiation
protection.
5. But the LNT model is not appropriate for doses < 100 mSv.

7
The health effects of chronic radiation
1. Radiation from natural background is chronic radiation.
2. Radiation received by workers, and occasionally by public
from the nuclear power plants, is also chronic radiation.
3. Chronic radiation with doses received in a short lapse of time
(a few weeks) lower than 100 mSv, is less harmful
physiologically and pathologically than the same dose of
acute radiation.
4. Dr. Sternglass and many other scientists have claimed since
the 1960s that chronic radiation accumulated over time have
similar or even more harmful effects than acute radiation.
5. Chronic radiation is thus often feared by people.
8
The controversy of radiation health effects-1
1. LNT model was mainly derived from the leukemia
deaths at high doses of acute radiation: 905 leukemias
observed among 86,572 Hiroshima survivors (1%) :
- with dose >1 Sv, leukemia mortality increased 5 times.
- with dose >2 Sv, leukemia mortality increased 14 times;
cohort of 2,819 survivors (3.2% of total 86,572)
- A cohort of 32,915 (44.5% of total 86,572 survivors)
having received a dose in 5 mSv-100 mSv range, had
no excess, and even a decrease, in leukemia mortality.
9
The controversy of radiation health effects-2
2. The Hiroshima survivors that received doses < 100 mSv, had
no excess cancer deaths. This shows that the LNT model does
not apply to low dose acute radiation < 100 mSv.
3. Preston et al, 2003 RERF report, had more data, but no new
results obtained.
4. Dr Sohei Kondo, professor emeritus of Osaka University,
asserted low acute radiation from atomic explosion could
reduce the cancer mortality, and increase life span.
5. Both ANS and HPS had statements stating that 50 mSv/y or
100 mSv/life should not be taken in consideration to evaluate
the individual radiation risk.

10
A radiological incident in Taiwan revealed chronic
radiation is always beneficial to humans-1
1. Epidemiological studies of people in the higher natural
background radiation areas in Kerala (India), Yangjing
(China) and Mountain States in USA, had lower cancer
deaths. And higher doses received by nuclear workers in
many countries result in lower cancer deaths. These results
are still not accepted until today by the regulatory
communities as human data proving that chronic radiation
is beneficial to people.
2. The Co-60 contaminated apartments incident, which
occurred 20 years ago in Taiwan, did not show harmful
effects to people, but only showed it was beneficial to them.
11
3. A Co-60 source was mixed in metal scrap, melted and
drawn into steel bars which were used in the construction
of 1700 apartments for about 10,000 residents in 1982-84.
The first apartment was discovered in 1992, its residents
were irradiated at least for 9 years, the other ones up to 20
years. The annual dose in the first year 1983 was from
about 50 mSv/y, high up to 600 mSv/y. The total averaged
dose was starting at 0.4 Sv, and high up to 6 Sv.
12
4. The total doses cumulated in 20 years were higher than the
average doses received by the atomic bomb survivors in Japan,
and the Russian recovery workers in Chernobyl accident. If
LNT model is appropriate for chronic radiation, the excessive
doses could induce at least 35 excess leukemia and 35 solid
cancer deaths in 20 years. Actually no such deaths were
observed. On the contrary, the spontaneous cancer deaths of the
residents should have been about 232 in 20 years based on the
vital statistics in Taiwan, but only 7 were observed (3% of the
232 that could be expected), as shown in the following curve
plotted by Luan et al since 1983.
13

14
5. It was also observed that radiation could reduce hereditary
malfunctions of the descendants of the residents: 46 based
on LNT and 21 on congenital, but in reality reduced to 3
(6.5% of the general public).
6. No harmful health effects chronic radiation were observed
in cytogenetic analysis.
7. As the doses received from the natural background and the
peaceful uses of nuclear energy are seldom bigger than the
doses received in the Co-60 incident, it means that chronic
radiation is usually always beneficial to humans.
15
8. The beneficial health effects of radiation observed in the
Taiwan incident was coincidental to the theory of Dr. T.D.
Luckey and his complete Dose-Response Curve: 100
mSv/y is optimum to human health, and 10 Sv/y is still in
the hormetic range if received in a continuous manner.
9. The fact that chronic radiation is always beneficial to
humans was discovered by a group of independent and
knowledgeable scientists their reports were published in
many international conferences and journals.
16
Most radiation is chronic radiation and
beneficial to humans
1. In nuclear power plants, and related facilities, usually
equipped with safety design and shielding, nuclear
workers and public can receive only chronic radiation.
2. The doses of chronic radiation received by nuclear
workers and the public would be never higher than 50
mSv/y, therefore it is always beneficial to them.
3. Populations living in the high natural background
radiation areas always have lower cancer mortality.
4. Beneficial effects of chronic radiation should be accepted
by scientists, communities and regulation authorities.

17
Out of control radioactive source is still risky
1. The health effects of chronic radiation from Co-60 incident
in Taiwan were repetitively observed beneficial to humans,
but incidents during which Co-60, Cs-137 or other isotope
sources come out of control can nevertheless be harmful
by causing acute radiation, and they even could kill people.
2. There were quite a few people killed in out of control
incidents in Mexico, China, Brazil, and in Thailand.
3. A big out of control incident of Co-60 occurred in Mexico
1984, but no people were killed and the contaminated steel
bars shipped to USA were shortly identified and recovered.
4. The out of control incident in Taiwan was a unique case to
show the true health effects of radiation.

18
The health effects of radiation from the
Chernobyl accident-1
1. The Chernobyl accident was the source of both acute
radiation and chronic radiation,
2. The Chernobyl accident was described to be a
catastrophe, and it frightened people everywhere in the
world; but it was also a good opportunity to observe the
health effects of both chronic and acute radiation.
3. The meltdown of highly radioactive fission products
released high doses of radioactivity abruptly into the
reactor hall. As a result, 31 firemen and workers received
high doses of acute radiation in a short time, similar to
the acute radiation received by Hiroshima bomb victims.
19
The health effects of radiation from the
Chernobyl accident-2
4. The radiation received in Chernobyl accident continued
over a longer period of time than Hiroshima and
consisted of not only gamma, but also beta and alpha.
The dose rate was about 1 Gy/hr on April 26, 1986, high
enough to kill people.
5. When fission products dispersed and deposited on large
areas of ground, highly diluted in space and decayed over
time to one tenth every seven-fold time lapses, it would
decrease to about 1%, 10 mGy/hr, only 49 hours later .
6. So that, within a few days after the accident, the initially
dangerous (on site) acute radiation from fission products
became chronic radiation, and beneficial to the public
(off site) and even to recovery workers (on site).
20
The chronic radiation from the accident is
harmless-1
1. 200,000 Russian workers were engaged in the
decontamination process and received an average dose
of about 100 mSv, followed-up by the International
Chernobyl Project (ICP) under the supervision of the
IAEA and WHO.
2. The ICP predicted 150 leukemia deaths in the ten years
after the accident, based on LNT model. But none of
such results were observed and reported in the decade
after Chernobyl, at the conference co-sponsored by the
EC, IAEA and WHO, held in Vienna in 1996
7

3. There were also no such results described in UNSCEAR
2000 annual report to the General Assembly.

21
The chronic radiation from the accident is
harmless-2
4. These reports meant that emergency workers and the
evacuated public suffer no excess solid cancer deaths,
though they had received quite increased amounts of
radiation.
5. A severe nuclear accident like Chernobyl could only harm
only few workers in the reactor hall. It could not harm
workers and the public outside the power plant.
6. Both reports indicated highly increased numbers of
thyroid cancer incidences observed among the children,
but no proper control cohort for exact comparison of
thyroid cancer deaths of the children under the ages of 18.
22
Most radiation from accident is chronic
radiation and beneficial to people-1
1. Russian specialists from the National Science and
Medical Academy followed the health results of the
workers with their own RNMDR system, and the
summary report sent to IAEA as a letter to the IAEA
BULLETIN editor ( IAEA BULLETIN 42/4/2000). They
found that cancer deaths among the emergency workers
were statistically lower than the control group of the
general public: 48 leukose cases verified among the
180.000 emergency workers in 14 years (1986-2000).
23
2. Assuming Russian workers in working age had the same
spontaneous leukemia mortality of the Japanese of the same
age (the cancer of total population is usually found similar
for males in the ages of 20-50), the spontaneous leukemia
deaths of the workers should have been about 118
(180,000/86,572x162 x14/40 =118). Only 48 were observed.
3. And assuming they had a similar cancer mortality as the
population in Taiwan: 200 persons/100,000 person-years
(ages in 34-64), and leukemia in about 2.6% of all cancers,
The Russian workers number of leukemia should be at least
131 (200/100,000 x 180,000 x 0.026 x 14 = 131). But only 48
were observed.
24
4. Even if all 48 cases of leukoses meant leukemia death, it
would still be lower than expected for Russian workers.
5. The lower cancer death rate described in the Russian
paper was attributed to the healthy worker effect and
better medical care.
6. What do healthy worker effect and better medical
care mean ? If these could be clarified as not dominant,
or the cancer deaths of the workers were statistically
significant, it could be concluded that the chronic
radiation from Chernobyl accident is beneficial to the
emergency workers, and to public in the fallout areas in
the world.
25
Follow-up study of Chernobyl workers revealed
chronic radiation also beneficial-1
1. 65,905 emergency workers with external doses averaged
in 100 mSv were followed by the Russian Academy of
Medical Science and reported in 2001 HPJ.
2. The report indicated that the death rate of Chernobyl
workers was 0.6-0.9, lower than the general public death
rate of 0.82.
3. The cancer mortality of the workers in 1998 was 110
persons /100,000 person-years, and the total cancer
deaths were 515 observed in 8 years (1991-1998).
4. There was no comparison with Russian public reported.
Assuming the workers had same cancer deaths as the
Japanese, the cancer deaths should be about 1102
(65,905 / 86,572 x 7244 x 8 / 40 = 1102)
26
chronic radiation might be also beneficial-2
5. Assuming the workers ( in ages of about 36-66) have the
same spontaneous cancer mortality as the general
Taiwan population, i.e. 200 persons/100,000 person-
year, the cancer deaths of the workers should have been
about 1054 ( 200 /100,000 x 65,905 x8 =1054)
6. 515 cancer deaths among 4995 total deaths in 8 years,
was only 10%, seemed too low, compared with most
countries of about 25 %. It should be over 1000.
7. Peter Fong predicated in his paper to the Chernobyl
conference after one decade in 1996: 3,000,000 cancer
deaths might be prevented (not officially disclosed).
27
chronic radiation might be also beneficial-3

8. The study by the Russian Medical Academy indicated
also the lower mortality might be attributed to
the Healthy worker effects and the incomplete data
collection. If these uncertainty factors could be
clarified as not dominant, the health effects of chronic
radiation from accidents should be globally recognized.
9. A nuclear accident might be only harmful to the workers
inside the reactor hall, but beneficial to the workers and
public outside the reactor. The public should therefore
not fear nuclear accidents.

28
Conclusion and remarks-1
1. Chronic radiation differs from acute radiation and was
always beneficial to humans in the Taiwan observations.
2. The cancer mortality induced to humans by acute
radiation is hard to discern from the spontaneous
cancers, which are often in big number and have long
latent period; but people have a high cancer death rate,
so as the chronic radiation could strongly protect from it,
it could be easily identified in an epidemiological study.
3. The incident of the Co-60 contamination has incidentally
indicated that chronic radiation could effectively prevent
against cancers, somewhat like a vaccine.
29
4. There was no evidence indicating that hereditary defects
could be caused by acute radiation; but chronic exposure
to radiation could prevent the defects.
5. The beneficial health effects of chronic radiation
observed in Taiwan was limited to the low LET gamma
radiation to whole body exposure. High LET radiation
from radioactive material or internal contamination of
Alpha and Beta also have beneficial effects observed in
animal tests.
30
6. Atomic bomb explosion in Japan produced also big
quantity of radioactive substances (fission products), but
evaporated immediately to the stratosphere, and became
global fallout, then gradually deposited on the ground in
the world, which is also known as chronic radiation, and
beneficial to people.
7. Dr Peter Fong ever studied the fallout from the US
atmosphere nuclear tests which did not increase but
prevent millions of cancer deaths of Americans.
31
8. Chronic radiation exposure to the workers and the public
from nuclear power plants is similar to the radiation
exposure to the residents in the Co-60 contamination in
Taiwan, only in smaller doses, so that it is surely also
beneficial to them.
9. People receive the natural background radiation every
day, and people in higher natural background areas often
receive higher doses than the nuclear workers, so that
natural radiation is essential to human beings.
32
10. The public in the vicinity of nuclear power plants, should
not fear radiation, but welcome it, even in case of
accident.
11. Governmental radiation protection measures should not
be strictly conducted based on LNT model, and nuclear
energy should be considered as the safest energy.
12. A nuclear accident could occasionally occur, only its
acute radiation could harm a few workers, and they
could be avoided with some reasonable procedure.

33
13. Cancer deaths and hereditary defects are disastrous and
miserable sicknesses, it is now known that it could be
prevented by chronic radiation in proper doses.
14. Numerous animal tests in many countries indicate that
dose rates > 1mSv/hr were beneficial to the animals. And
authors in our study have purposely tested the health of
mice with dose rates >1 mSv/hr which showed also
healthy results to mice.

34
15. The incident of Co-60 contamination in Taiwan showed
that many residents living in 1 mSv/hr apartments in
1983 are still healthy.
16. This paper tentatively suggests <1 mSv/hr as the
acceptable dose rate limit of chronic radiation. If a
person lives all year in such radioactive environment, he
might receive many Sv in one year, which is still in the
beneficial range of Luckeys dose-effect curve, though it
might not be the optimum dose rate to health.

35
18. Many studies indicated beneficial health effects of
chronic radiation could be useful in cancer therapies,
enhancement of immune system, activation of gene p53,
against diabetes, AIDS, for pain relief, etc. Such studies
are valuable to human beings, should be further studied.
36
Recommendation-1
1. The findings in the Co-60 incident could be regarded as
more important than the findings obtained in the atomic
bomb explosion in Japan, but they need more studies by
the international scientists and communities, especially
on the mechanism of the beneficial effects, and
communicate the entire world of the results to the
medical and nuclear energy applications.
2. From the experiences obtained from the incident of Co-
60 contamination, and the beneficial effects observed in
the Chernobyl accident, the conventional radiation
protection should be revised for elevating application of
nuclear energy.

37
Recommendation-2
3. This paper tentatively recommended the 1mSv/hr and
1 Sv/y as the acceptable hourly and annual dose rate limit
for the nuclear energy workers and the public. The 50
mSv as the optimum annual doses to people,
4. The emergency plans for the nuclear reactor accidents
and for out of control of radioactive sources of course
should be also revised.
5. As cancers and hereditary defects are miserable sicknesses,
the medical scientists and communities should design
appropriate radiation irradiators, and use the optimized
doses in preventing these miserable sicknesses

38
Profile of the authors (I)
W.L. Chen
Ph. D.
Director, Department of Medical Radiation Technology,
National Yang-ming University; Head, Radiation
Protection Department of AEC, and former Head, Health
Physics Division of INER
Y.C. Luan
Senior Scientist and Manager of Radiation Protection,
NUSTA; consultant to NBC Society, and former Manager,
Radioactive Waste Management Plant and Manager,
Cobalt-60 Irradiation Plant of INER, AEC
M.C. Shieh
Ph. D.
General Secretary, NUSTA; Professor of National Chung-
Kung University, and former Manager, Uranium
Conversion Project of INER, AEC
S.T. Chen
MS
Senior Scientist and Head, Nuclear Reactor Engineering,
NUSTA, and former Director, Nuclear Engineering
Division of INER, AEC
H.T. Kung
MS
Senior Scientist and Nuclear Material Manager, NUSTA,
and former Manager, Nuclear Fuel Fabrication Plant of
INER, AEC

39
Profile of the authors (II)
K.L. Soong
Ph. D.
Senior Scientist, NUSTA, and former Senior Scientist and
Leading Scientist, Geology and Mineralogy Research
Project of INER, AEC
Y. C. Yeh
Ph. D.
Secretary General, Chinese Nuclear Society; Senior
Scientist, NUSTA, and former Director, Analysis Center of
INER, AEC
T.S. Chou
Ph. D.
Head, Radiation Research Group, NBC Society; Professor
of Feng Chia University, and former Head, Chemical
Engineering Division of INER, AEC
S. H. Mong
MS
Head, Protection Research Group, NBC Society; former
NBC consultant to Saudi Arabia, and Commandant, Army
NBC School, Taiwan
J.T. Wu
M.D.

Biology Consultant, NBC Protection Society, Taiwan;
Professor of Pathology, School of Medicine, University of
Utah, USA, and Medical Director, Special Chemistry and
Reagent Development Laboratory at ARUP
40
Profile of the authors (III)
C.P. Sun
Ph. D.
Board member of NBC Protection Society, and Associated
Professor of Social Risk Analysis, National Chiao-Tung
University.
W.P. Deng
Ph. D.
Associated Professor, Biological Material Institute, Taipei
Medical University. And former Associated Professor,
Graduate Institute of Biological Material, Harvard
University, USA.
F.M. Wu
Ph. D.
Professor of Pathology and Director of Animal Testing
Center, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University,
Taipei
M.L. Shen
Ph. D
Professor, Biometry Division, Department of Agronomy,
National Taiwan University, Taipei

The Health Effects of Radiation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Health Effects of Radiation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

The True Health Effects of Radiation

You might also like