Health effects of radiation – items that caught my attention
A friend shared a link to a prize winning essay titled The path to reconstruction in Fukushima as seen through fieldwork in Eastern Japan. It was written by Jun Takada, Doctor of Science Professor, Sapporo Medical University. Here is a sample quote:
Following the nuclear accident in Fukushima that occurred as a result of the Great East Japan Earthquake of March 11, I carried out fieldwork in early April, June, July, and August. The low doses of radiation present there simply cannot be compared to the levels found after the accident at the reactor in Chernobyl, and I quickly came to the conclusion that no health hazards will be experienced even by the citizens of Fukushima Prefecture. The reasons for this were Japan’s highly earthquake-proof light-water reactors, strong containment vessels, and the lack of the graphite that was the cause of the fire at Chernobyl. It seems likely that the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) had implemented inadequate counter-measures against tsunamis, but in the future Japanese engineers will surely be able to develop technologies and measures to better guard against tsunamis. Hints for this can be obtained by looking at how the Onagawa nuclear power plant belonging to the Tohoku Electric Power Company, which was the closest plant to the epicenter of the earthquake, fared.
Following the incident, mass intellectual and psychological derangement broke out in Japan, centered on the Kan administration. Japanese society was also easily affected by this phenomenon, making me wonder what Japanese people have been studying all these years in spite of what happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
(Emphasis added.)
As a result of a comment from John ONeill, I came across a full text version of a paper published in the British Journal of Cancer titled Repair of radiation damage to DNA. It is a little challenging for a guy whose formal biology education ended with an Advanced Placement course in high school, but the conclusion is quite understandable.
Here, we have focused on some of the concepts and principles in the study of DNA replication, recombination, and repair (the three ‘R’s’). These processes, which can no longer be considered separately, form a new paradigm for the understanding of the cellular resistance to radiation treatment. Genetic mutations in recombinational processes that affect replication and DSB repair may not only promote genomic instability but also determine the response of tumours to combination therapies with DNA damaging agents. This concept may provide the framework for future pre-clinical and clinical studies that discover and test novel combination therapies and tailor these to individual tumours. While some of our considerations are speculative at the present time, we anticipate that the rapid progress in this exciting field of research will continue over the next few years and provide many of the answers. Finally, although the focus of this review has been the contribution of cellular radiation resistance to the clinical tumour response, it is clear that additional factors, such as the contribution of the tumour microenvironment, are at least equally important in determining the likelihood of achieving tumour control and cure.
Many wonderful people have added me to their private email lists for discussions about nuclear technology related subjects. Those lists provide plenty of food for thought and access to information that sometimes needs to be shared more widely.
This morning, I obtained permission from Dr. Robert Schenter and a correspondent of his to share a recent email. Bob is one of the leading experts in the United States on the use of fission reactors to produce specialized medical isotopes. He has made a career out of understanding the effects (both beneficial and negative) of radiation and radioactive materials on human biology. Many of his correspondents have substantial experience in the field. Here is the email:
Robert –
Three anecdotes.
1. Several years ago, NPR asked me to be on their phone-in radio show about medical isotopes.
A patient’s daughter, from Seattle, called in.
Her mother had failed conventional therapy for cervical cancer.
She found out about medical isotope therapy, and was treated.
She stayed at the hospital for a total of ONE AFTERNOON!
Her cancer went into remission.
That was four years prior to the show, and her mother remained in remission…
The reporter was stunned.
Not only could he NOT handle this information, after asking the daughter if this information were true – he asked us no more questions, abruptly hangin up on both of us.
2. With our MD, PhD nuclear medicine consultant from Scandinavia, between presenting and working in Manila, the Philippines, we decided to go north to visit Banaue and Sagada for the weekend.
This involved an overnight bus + van ride (on unpaved roads)from the capital.
An elderly lady from Sagada had collected artifacts from hill tribes in the region – everyday items like tools, textiles and cookware.
She displayed them in a small museum she opened, with the help of her family.
Ten years prior to our visit, she was diagnosed with cervical cancer.
She traveled to Manila, was treated, and returned to her village.
Cervical cancer is much more prevalent in Asia, per capita, than in the West.
3. NOTE: The Dean of the Asian School of Nuclear Medicine works at the the top teaching hospitals in the Philippines.
He asked for help in placing his top resident in a fellowship in the West.
His resident ended up at U. Pisa in Italy.
The nuclear medicine department at U. Pisa occupies its own three (it may have been four) story building, plus basement.
Years ago (ten?), the chief developed a THIRTY MINUTE (he now says that he can do it in under 20 minutes) OUTPATIENT procedure to remove accessible, confined, single node LUNG cancer!
He makes an incision BETWEEN the patient’s ribs. Conventional lung surgery cuts THROUGH the patient’s ribs, cracking open the chest.
A gamma probe, smaller than a magic marker, goes through the incision down to the tumor and localizes the tumor after the injected radionuclide compound concentrates in the tumor.
The surgeon cuts around the tumor and removes it when the Geiger counter detects no more signal = tumor gone!
The main cancer research center in Europe does the same thing for confined breast cancer. They probably treat over 4,000 breast cancer patients per year.
Patients recover faster and more easily (and keep their breast far more often) when therapy like this is available.
The foregoing is not, to my knowledge, available in the USA.
NOTE: The surgeon doesn’t even have to SEE the tumor to remove it!
After the band-aid type dressing was applied at U. Pisa, the lung cancer patient sat up on the operating table, and received his shirt – brown plaid, short sleeved. He put on his shirt.
The surgery nursed helped him put on his shoes as his feet dangled over the side of the table.
She took the patient’s arm to steady him as he hopped down from the surgery table.
The patient walked out of the operating room under his own steam…
Rod,
Thanks again! This is exactly the type of information that calms fears. It was your record of the medical benefits of and lack of harmful effects of radiation that led to my own AHA moment a few years ago.
Interesting stuff Rod. I have never depended on anecdotal reports, even if they support my leanings.
More importantly, this shows that there are many years of data waiting to be mined, by comparing survival rates for conventional vs. unconventional therapy. Let us know if you come across such studies.
@Bill
There is a difference between “depending” on anecdotes and sharing them as items of interest. One of the communications challenges that many technically trained people have is their reluctance to tell stories that help their audience connect and understand the technology on a human level.
When I bear witness to the incredible experiences that I had living in an all nuclear world, do you consider that “anecdotal” evidence that nuclear energy can directly replace oil?
BUTTERFLIES mutations from 311
http://bit.ly/S3UOsy
known since 1927
http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2012/08/17/fukushimas-butterflies-known-since-1927/
and the damage of Cesium alone to the heart tissue (all organs, but in this ex, heart)
we can rightly consider the Cesium-137 in relatively small doses (20-30 Bq/kg); a breach of the regulatory processes in the body: PAGE 2 – 3: http://chernobyl-today.org/images/stories/BANDAJEVSKI_UNSCEAR_-_REUTERS_Sept_22nd_2010_Eng_V2.pdf
Death Rates among 15-19 year old, especially of cardiovascular disease
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=471633416186919&set=a.344023565614572.103593.286163761400553&type=1&theater
No amount of propaganda can hide the truth – the increase of radioactive contamination from Fukushima is unprecedented and deadly – worst for Japan – but all the world is receiving fallout from Fukushima http://www.ctbto.org/verification-regime/the-11-march-japan-disaster/
Radioactive isotopes have ben used to treat cancer for over 40 years. This is not news, However, comparing a medical use radioactive isotope to a Nuclear Power Plant, is ridiculous. Jun Takeda talks of the strong containment vessel at Daichi. Doesn’t he know that the containment vessel was breached and all 4 reactors continue to spew radioactivity on every living thing for miles? Only time will tell how many get sick and/or die. I have a feeling that the people will be on the losing end…
The “breach” in the containment vessel you state Scooter is in the RPV, PCV, or concrete containment?
Looking at TEPCO opening up reactor 4 (see link below), that is a lot of steel and concrete in which to rupture through. Interestingly they show what earthquake damage was done to the reactor in photo numbers 9 and 10. Some scuff marks, scary stuff.
If you’re going to assert a breach can you show me the scientific modelling that was conducted with the stresses (thermal and physical) that caused the specific grade of steels and concretes that failed? Otherwise it’s anecdotal without proof. Then if it is used as reason to promote an agenda in it’s current context (“spewing out nasties, you’ll all die!!!”), it’s fear mongering.
Hydrogen gas vented through the systems in place and blew out the cover over the containment areas because it wasn’t neutralised efficiently, considering the stresses the engineers just went through I can see why they didn’t prioritise it.
What I cannot see, unless modelling or real measurements dictate otherwise, is how the meltdowns (partial or full) caused the RPV, PCV, and the concrete hatch to rupture as shown in the following pictures. Look how thick the steel is!
Link: http://photo.tepco.co.jp/en/date/2012/201209-e/120924-01e.html
The Butterflies study has no bearing on human mutations and has been shown to have a dubious sample size. Anti-nuclear advocates love to smack down the mice exposed to 400x safe levels of radiation and had no ill effects because they are mice, so why not butterflies?
http://nucleardiner.com/archive/item/radioactive-mutant-butterflies-really
Cesium-137 is known to deposit in mussel tissue, such as the heart, however the paper provided as a source attempts to dispute a body made up of professors and doctors whose speciality is radiological effects on the body (link 1). Also we know the lifetime risk, that is shown in an Argonne National Labratory publication on risks of radiological agents (link 2). Also Cesium can be flushed out of the body by consuming Prussian Blue.
1) http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications.html
2) http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/ANL_ContaminantFactSheets_All_070418.pdf
The death rates in cardiovascular disease can not be only attributed to radiation. The United States and Australia have heart disease as a major cause of fatalities. One has Nuclear Plants the other doesn’t. Fatty foods and lifestyle have much more of an effect on heart disease than Radiation ever will.
The radiation fall out is 1/10th of what Chernobyl released and in most areas comparable to places like Denver in Colorado. The risk of cancer is negligible.
There is higher risk of an individual consuming some tasty Kobe beef in Fukushima prefecture every day and having an increased risk of bowel cancer than from the accident at Fukushima-Daiichi and the amount of Cesium deposited.
Also lets not forget the routine exposure to radiological dies that assist doctors in diagnosing and locating issues within our vascular system, and to treat cancers.
Propaganda is showing one side of the debate to influence the public. Ignoring the mountains of academic literature and professionals who study radiological effects on the body that state that radiological agents in low doses pose no threat is dangerous and negligent to the mental health of those effected. As the UNSCEAR showed in it’s Chernobyl report. Don’t mention Yablokov report either, it was endorsed by Greenpeace and included their logo. Greenpeace has an anti-nuclear agenda, the report is to be taken with a grain of salt when compared to an independent professional body such as UNSCEAR.
Aside, is it just me or is there a surge of Japanese anti-nuclear activity online?
By the way, the Canadian healthcare system is still using Caesium 137 but has stopped purchasing it because it is hard to manage and has a long half life. It has proven to be very effective for radiotherapy over the years and has saved many lives.
It is being replaced in some procedure, not all, by Iridium 192. It has a half live of 70 days and is a Beta emitter.
Thank you for that link. Those were some neat photos.
It should be pointed out that those photos are from Fukushima Daini, not Daiichi. I don’t think they are anywhere close to opening up any of the reactors at Daiichi.
Good eyes. However they did also open up reactor 4 at Daiichi as well, this is where my oversight most probably arose from.
http://photo.tepco.co.jp/en/date/2012/201209-e/120913-02e.html
@ Pete51,
Do not forget that out of the six reactors at Daiichi, two have been relatively left undamaged.
They are ready to be started back. TEPCO has indicated it is part of their wish to do so.
As I remember, Unit 4 at Daiichi was defueled when the earthquake hit. Therefore the reactor head was probably already off and laying on the refueling deck. But it is good they have progressed far enough to start removing these pieces.
You can see here the reason why Saudi Arabia is building nukes. They will start being oil importers in 2030.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ambroseevans-pritchard/100019812/saudi-oil-well-dries-up/
So these guys can anticipate basic supply and demand gaps and see that nuclear is the only way to go. (They do have a lot if sun and did not choose that route)
Who is sleeping on the job in the western world ? That’s right and this is what the ‘all of the above’ strategy is based upon. Not doing what is right, not having the courage to look at the performance of wind and solar in the last 10 years.
Want to know where China, Russia, Czech Republic, England, India, Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and France will be in 2030?
There is a difference between “depending” on anecdotes and sharing them as items of interest.
Right, that is why I began my comment with, “Interesting stuff Rod.”
When I bear witness to the incredible experiences that I had living in an all nuclear world, do you consider that “anecdotal” evidence that nuclear energy can directly replace oil?
No, fission has been replacing large quantities of fossil fuel for decades. There is a vast accumulation of data that proves that; it is irrefutable.
Claims that cold fusion cells or LENR will provide unlimited supplies of cheap, clean, dispatchable energy have been made by many people based on anecdotal evidence. I’m waiting for long term independent test results.
People have claimed cancer cures from apricot pits, carrot juice, aroma therapy, gene therapy, meditation etc. In those cases where alternative methods have been used on a large number of people, and claims of high success rates are made, I think it would be unethical to not compile enough data to verify or refute the claims.
No ‘N’ word on the presidential debate.
Are you surprised?
The C word was used.