Discussion on low level radiation risks in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists biased

 
 

S & T » Science

May 24, 2012

Needless alarmist views on low dose radiation


 

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists did not offer an unbiased view

On May 1, this year, The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists published a Special Issue on low level radiation risks. Radiation risk has a bearing on dose limits to radiation workers, guidelines for evacuation of public from areas of contamination and in optimisation of radiation dose in medical radiation procedures.

The effects of high radiation doses are clearly known; at low doses there are uncertainties. The dilemma on the effect of low dose radiation continues.

The Special Issue contains seven articles and an editorial. Rather than offering an unbiased view, the Bulletin tried its best to show that radiation is riskier than what was thought of so far.

Dr Beyea, the Guest Editor reviewed three epidemiological studies including the 15 nation nuclear workers study covering years 1943-2000. They showed some increase in cancer rates at low doses. Each of these studies has infirmities.

Unlike his claim, the 15-nation study did not shock the radiation protection community. Currently, doses to nuclear workers are relatively low.

The present dose limits with the provision that the doses to workers should be As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) ensure adequate protection effortlessly.

Studies in the High Back Ground Radiation Areas of Kerala showed that there is no cancer risk attributable to radiation. Dr.Bayea did not agree.

“For a more positive view of these types of studies, see Boice et al. (2010),” Dr Beyea suggested. Dr Boice who heads the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements did not respond to my e-mail query.

The Bulletin which criticized others who held different views, seldom based it on science. It upbraided the French Academy of Sciences for the relationship of some of its members with the French nuclear industry and medical practice and Electric Power Research Institute with U.S. nuclear industry.

The Bulletin argued that the reports of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) would not say that some risk continues up to zero dose, as the Committee, a product of the United Nations, must be cognizant of national politics in UN countries! Some sort of conspiracy theory!

Protective mechanisms

A paper published in the European Heart Journal (2011) demonstrated that at low doses there might be protective mechanisms at work. In theProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2011),researchers showed that cell repair mechanisms were effective in dealing with exposure to low doses of radiation.

A contributor, Dr Colin Hill, University of Southern California skillfully highlighted genomic instability and bystander effects (phenomena which may increase radiation risk), put adaptive response on a low key and ignored the existence of cellular repair mechanisms.

Dr Beyea uncritically accepted the high per capita medical dose (often unwanted) in developed countries as a starting point for millions of people and worried about any exposure to radioactive releases from nuclear accident (Fukushima) as contributing to their delayed cancer risk. He ignored the risks from unwanted medical doses which are often much higher.

The hesitation

Based on one paper, Dr Beyea invoked the so called “supra-linear” concept to argue that low dose radiation is much more dangerous than what was thought of till now; though the authors themselves hesitated to do so.

Dr Hill and Dr Richardson, two contributors, did not respond to the queries of this writer. After protracted correspondence, Dr Beyea wanted me to consider quoting the following from his article.

“It should be noted that all of these cellular effects, including bystander effect, genomic instability, and adaptive response, some of which are thought to have effects working in opposite directions, could already be incorporated into the linear human dose-response curve (Morgan and Sowa, 2009), making the debate much ado about nothing.” The observations claiming enhanced radiation risks had many un-highlighted frailties.

The Guest Editor faced difficulties in compiling the Issue. “Yes, it should be no secret who was asked to contribute to the special issue.” Dr Beyea confided in response to my query.

Dr. John Boice did not have the time, given his new responsibilities. Dr Fred Mettler, Professor Emeritus at the University of New Mexico School of Medicine declined. Dr.Michael Stabin, Adjunct Professor of physics at the Illinois Institute of Technology refused. I was not surprised.

The criticism in this review applies only to the articles, which explain radiobiological concepts. The “sophisticated update” promised by Beyea in the Editorial became one sided. The Bulletin has been less than neutral in its approach; it did not provide the complete picture, particularly on low dose repair related studies.

A reader whose knowledge is confined only to the special issue will not be ready to join the debate armed with a broadbased view. The Issue served to preserve intact, the antinuclear power credentials of the Bulletin!

K.S. PARTHASARATHY

Former Secretary, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board

Nuclear accident risks

                     Your Right To Know

                     Thursday, May 17, 2012

 The link to the article is

http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=234424

Nuclear accident risks

K.S.Parthasarathy

Post Fukushima, every one is concerned about nuclear accidents. It added a new dimension. Rightly or wrongly more people characterize nuclear power plants as terribly unsafe. Similar perceptions prevailed over fifty years ago when governments attempted to commercialize nuclear power.
The myth of reactors exploding like nuclear bombs clouds the reality. Often, the public tend to be either pronuclear or antinuclear. Most of the operating nuclear power reactors depend on unforgiving technology. It is a complex technology. The complexity is to ensure safety. Nuclear operators must be eternally vigilant
Suppose a chemical plant handling large quantities of a highly toxic gas or a modern nuclear power plant is about to be involved in a serious accident. If you offer this writer a choice, he will remain near the nuclear power plant. It will not be foolhardy. He is confident that the containment will survive. Even if there is a radioactive release, he knows that he will have enough time to get away! The toxic gas release will kill its victims in seconds!
Can we estimate risks from nuclear reactor accidents? Nuclear industry has clocked over 14,000 reactor years of safe operation.
Fifty years ago, our knowledge about nuclear reactor risks was very scanty. Reactor designs were less robust. Can we ignore the gigantic strides in safety improvements taken by the nuclear industry which provides 13.5% of world's electricity continuously, reliably and exceedingly efficiently?
The US nuclear power industry learnt many lessons from the Three Mile Island accident. These led to making of US nuclear power plants efficient and safe. In 1980, the average capacity factor (the ratio of electricity produced compared with the maximum electric power a plant can produce, operating at full power all the year around) for US nuclear power reactors was 56.3%; it increased steadily and remained consistently above 90% for the past several years
The owners of TMI-1 modified the plant and revamped the training and operating procedures in light of the lessons of TMI-2.
Since then, TMI-1 clocked many creditable records. In October 1998, TMI employees completed three million hours of work without a lost-work day accident. In 2008, it clocked a capacity factor of 106.7%. In 2009, TMI-1 completed the longest operating run of any light- water reactor in the history of nuclear power worldwide -- 705 days of uninterrupted operation. NRC renewed the licence to operate TMI-1 till 2034.
In USA, with an average annual capacity factor of 91.5%, nuclear power plants are well ahead of coal (7%), natural gas (42%), wind (31%), hydro (27%) and solar (21%).
It was believed that the record performance of all US nuclear power plants post TMI may gradually remove the stigma attached to them because of the TMI accident. But the Fukushima accident is casting its shadow worldwide.
No one appreciates nuclear accident risks quantitatively. Recently, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Nuclear Energy Agency (OECD NEA) published a report titled "Comparing Nuclear Accident Risks with Those from Other Energy Sources." The analysis is meant to help policy makers understand how accident risks are managed at nuclear power plants and illustrate that with a comparison of risks from other energy sources (World Nuclear Association Release September 3, 2010).
The agency collected data on every accident causing five or more immediate deaths in the energy industry between 1969 and 2000. During that period, there were 1,870 such severe accidents worldwide resulting in 81,258 deaths. In the nuclear industry, there was only one accident, the one at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. Thirty one plant and emergency workers died in the accident. At Fukushima, nobody died due to the nuclear accident. Two workers died due to the tsunami and one worker died in a crane accident during the earthquake.
Possible long-term fatalities due to the accident at Chernobyl continue to be controversial. Based on reports by the World Health Organization, European Commission, International Atomic Energy Agency and Russian authorities, OECD estimated that the Chernobyl accident may eventually cause about 9,000-33,000 deaths over the next 70 years. Possible long-term deaths due to Fukushima accident will be much lower.
Specialists arrived at these numbers based on the controversial Linear No Threshold (LNT) concept which states that any radiation dose however small has a finite effect and it varies linearly with dose. The concept has not been proved irrefutably. It was a practical concept accepted to enforce radiation protection.
The report cautioned that if the same logic is applied, the background radiation to which every one is normally exposed will cause 50 million deaths in the same population in 70 years. "There is no way to definitely confirm these figures for Chernobyl," the report added.
According to OECD, the estimated latent potential death rate for the Chernobyl accident is the same as the immediate deaths resulting from the largest dam failure (the Banquiao/ Simantan failure in China in 1975 claimed 29,924 lives). Many assume potential deaths as real deaths
Premature deaths caused by particulates from fossil fuel generation are thought to be around 288,000 annually worldwide (OECD Environmental outlook).
"Overall, the likelihood of an accident and radiological release is 1,600 times lower than it was when the first reactors were built," the report concluded. This is primarily because of engineering safety improvements among other factors
The report added that more than 2,500 people are killed annually in energy-related severe accidents. Though nuclear power was perceived to be high risk, it caused far fewer deaths than any other energy source.
Public confidence in nuclear operations will increase if trust in the regulators increases. There is also a direct correlation between public trust and awareness of the technology. "Openness and transparency in government decisions about the use of nuclear power and in the licensing process are vital elements in improving public confidence," the OECD report concluded. Unfortunately, in public debates including those by lawmakers, no one highlighted the enhanced safety levels achieved in the operation of nuclear power plants after the Chernobyl and TMI accidents.

The writer is a former Secretary, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, India.

E-mail: ksparth@yahoo.co.uk

Dirty bombs: May Cost Billions

Posted on May 3, 2012

“Dirty bombs may cost billions in direct and indirect costs”.
Recently, Risk Analysis, a peer reviewed journal published details in a paper titled “Assessment of the Regional Economic Impacts of Catastrophic Events: CGE Analysis of Resource Loss and Behavioral Effects of an RDD Attack Scenario”.
I got particularly interested in this  paper because, one of the authors Dr Paul Slovic, is a veteran in decision research. His articles taught me a few important points in risk communication.
You can access the paper at:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01567.x/pdf
For the past many years, it has been fashionable for many to portray vividly the consequences of a dirty bomb attack on a prominent target. Accepting many assumptions, some of the elite faculty and researchers of think tanks maximize the impact.
On February 13, 2004 The Hindustan Times carried a scary news item. Kishore Kuchibhotla and Matthew Mckinzie at Henry L. Stimson Centre, Washington, estimated the possible effects of a dirty bomb. The original report gives many helpful hints to the would-be terrorists!
The scholars chose cobalt -60 as the radioactive material, five pounds of TNT  as the explosive and Lutyen’s Delhi as the location to estimate the impact.
In a day or two, Mr H K Dua, then Editor in Chief of The Tribune requested me to write an OP/ED on the topic. This may be accessed at:
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20040225/edit.htm#7
OR at:
www.dae.gov.in/press/dirtybomb.htm, the official web site of the Department of Atomic Energy, India
I got the impression that these think tanks give very many helpful hints to the would be terrorists!
Since the world is weird and the behaviour of terrorists unpredictable, we must communicate with people during peace time and get them ready to face the challenges posed by terrorism. Ignorance can help to magnify the impact of even minor events involving radioactivity.
I wrote many things about mitigating the consequences  from exploding  a Radiological Dispersal Device (RDD). Now I realize more than ever, tackling radioactive contamination, though important,  is only a minor part of  such a dastardly event

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged cost of mitigation, Dirty bombs | Leave a comment | Edit

I have just published a commentary on the catch phrase " Too cheap to meter" which has been continuously used by anti nuclear activists to show nuclear power in poor light. I found that most of  such critics used it prolifically in their articles. These and other details you can  read in the article which has been published in "The Daily Star" on April 26, 2012.

This article can be accessed at:

 http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=231626

 

The Daily Star

Thursday, April 26, 2012

OP-ED

Will nuclear power ever be too cheap to meter?

K.S. Parthasarathy

Is there an easy method to identify whether the author of an article on nuclear power is antinuclear or not? Look for the well known catch phrase "too cheap to meter" in the article. If you find it, the writer is most likely anti-nuclear!
According to Wikipedia, " 'too cheap to meter' describes a concept in which a commodity is so inexpensive that it is more cost-effective and less bureaucratic to simply provide it for a flat fee, or even free, and make a profit from associated services."
Did any prominent pro-nuclear advocate ever promise that nuclear power will one day be too cheap to meter? If he did, the idea is too good not to be referred to! Since it is an impossible objective, anti-nuclear critics can convincingly argue that nuclear power has failed to deliver on its promise. This taunt is very effective in demoralising the pro-nukes.
Who gave this unattainable promise on nuclear power? Or was it an attribution made totally out of context?
Nuclear energy began with very high hopes. Walter Marshall, one of its pioneers in the United Kingdom, told Britons it would provide energy "too cheap to meter." It was going to usher in an era of abundant, clean power, and an end to the filth and smoke of coal-fired power plants, Alex Kirby, BBC environment correspondent, wrongly attributed the phrase to Walter Marshall, former Chairman, Central Electricity Generating Board, (BBC News, June 15, 2000).
There is convincing evidence that Lewis Strauss, Chairman of the US Atomic Energy Commission, while addressing the National Association of Science Writers, made the relevant statement on September 16, 1954
He stated thus: "Our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter," he declared. "It is not too much to expect that our children will know of great periodic regional famines in the world only as matters of history, will travel effortlessly over the seas and under them and through the air with a minimum of danger and at great speeds, and will experience a lifespan far longer than ours, as disease yields and man comes to understand what causes him to age" (The New York Times, September 17, 1954).
A Google search, with "Walter Marshall" and "too cheap to meter" as keywords, gave 681 references. When the search was repeated, with "Lewis Strauss" in place of "Walter Marshall," I got 81,100 references. These numbers change slightly, but their order is the same. Surely Strauss is the winner! The quote can be attributed to him
Ramachandra Guha, a well known Indian historian, cast his net far and wide when he wrote: "Back in the 1950s, when nuclear energy was all the rage and scientists the world over were claiming that it would soon be 'too cheap to meter'…." (Anthropologists among the Marxists and other Essays). In this instance, he was less than accurate!
"It has been repeatedly inflicted on the public, because it's cute, catchy and empty of substance," Morgan Brown, Atomic Energy Canada Limited, wrote about the catch phrase in RADSAFE news group. He compiled a number of quotes from the time period before and after Strauss' speech; none indicated anything but a rational technical approach to the economics of nuclear power. Morgan's review provided abundant evidence that few people in the industry at the end of 1950s really believed that nuclear power would be very cheap.
Strauss did not refer to nuclear energy in his speech. Some argued that he was talking about energy from fusion rather than fission. Strauss knew about Project Sherwood, the USA's secret programme on controlled nuclear fusion.
Chris Anderson of WIRED BLOG network did his own research on the origin of the "too cheap to meter" phrase. He also thought that Strauss was talking about "fusion" because Strauss knew that fission would probably be more expensive than coal.
Anderson clarified that "too cheap to meter" didn't mean free -- it just meant too cheap to monitor closely. He noted that some buildings built around that time, including the World Trade Center, were designed without light switches in each office; the building managers could just turn whole floors on and off , like a Christmas tree.
Is there anything too cheap to meter? "Today, we have three technologies -- processing power, digital storage capacity and bandwidth -- that touch nearly as much of the economy as electricity, and they really are becoming too cheap to meter," Anderson added.
Nicholas Carr of roughtype.com says that Amazon's S3 storage waived monthly charges for backing-up the hard drive of a software engineer; the bill was for $ 0.01. The credit card company refused to process the bill!
Google searches with the names of well known antinuclear critics, Praful Bidwai, M.V.Ramana, Rosalie Bertell, Arnie Gundersen and Arjun Makhijani, with the phrase "too cheap to meter" for each, registered 804, 2,240, 1,410, 3,630 and 44,700 references respectively. It indicates how prolifically they benefited from using this catch phrase in their articles!
Anti nuclear activists mostly use "too cheap to meter" out of context. Nuclear power is unlikely to become too cheap to meter.

The writer is a former Secretary, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, India.

E-mail: ksparth@yahoo.co.uk

Lung cancer: CT screening only for heavy smokers

S & T

April 25, 2012 

 Lung cancer: CT screening only for heavy smokers

The Hindu CAUTION ADVISED: Low-dose CT screening produces large false-positive results. Photo: K.R. Deepak 

Low dose CT screening for lung cancer is recommended only for 55-74-year-olds who have smoked a pack daily for 30 years
 

On April 23, 2012, the American Lung Association (ALA) released its interim guidance recommending low dose computed tomography (CT) screening for diagnosing lung cancer among smokers. The recommendation is based on the first report of the ALA lung cancer screening committee, chaired by Dr. Jonathen Samet from the University of Southern California.

The recommendation

ALA recommends screening only for a limited group. These are current or former smokers, aged 55 to 74 years with a smoking history of at least 30 pack-years and no history of lung cancer.

Smoking history of 30 pack years means smoking a pack of cigarettes daily for thirty years or two packs daily for 15 years etc.

ALA notes that while CT screening for lung cancer may save lives, it should not be recommended for everyone due to many known and unknown risks that may be associated with the screening and subsequent medical evaluation and follow-up. Radiation risk is one of them.

In spite of this caution, Auntminnie.com, a trade journal, stated that the move is a major step toward the development of a population-based CT screening programme in the U.S.

The U.S. National Cancer Institute's National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), found that low-dose CT can reduce mortality by at least 20 percent compared to chest x-ray, and other reports have pushed the estimated mortality gains even higher. The ALA guidelines followed the results of NLST of smokers at-risk, released in November 2010.

Even in this high risk group, 320 persons had to be screened with CT to prevent one lung cancer death.

The benefit of CT screening for lung cancer cannot be easily estimated for populations with risk profiles that are different from those of the NLST participants.

Can cause cancer

According to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, screening with CT scans is not risk-free. Radiation exposure from repeated CT scans is cumulative and can lead to cancer.

Average effective radiation dose in “low dose” CT in NLST was 1.5 mSv as against 7 mSv in a full diagnostic helical CT.

Specialists have criticised low-dose CT screening due to the large number (as high as 25 per cent) of false-positive results, meaning that the positive finding did not prove to be lung cancer following diagnostic investigations. People who receive false-positive results may be subjected to unnecessary testing, including more radiation exposure, invasive diagnostic and surgical procedures, complications, and even death, diminishing the benefit of early cancer detection.

Over-diagnosis due to screening must have revealed indolent cancers which may never progress into full blown cancer. They may end up undergoing an invasive intervention that they would not otherwise need.

According to ALA, individuals should not receive a chest X-ray for lung cancer screening as it has low sensitivity.

ALA Committee suggested that ALA should ask hospitals and screening centres to: establish ethical policies for advertising and promoting lung cancer CT screening services; develop educational materials to assist patients in having careful and thoughtful discussions between patients and their physicians regarding lung cancer screening and to provide lung cancer screening services with access to multidisciplinary teams that can deliver the needed follow-up for evaluation of nodules.

Smoking, major cause

Lung cancer is a fatal disease. Currently, specialists believe that smoking causes up to 80-90 per cent of lung cancer cases.

The significance of the guidance is evident as the five-year survival rate for lung cancer presently stands at 15.6 percent as compared to an over 90 percent survival rate for breast, colon and prostate cancers.

ALA recommendation may lead to many undesirable developments. Hospitals may start direct-to-consumer advertising to recruit patients who might have resources to pay out-of pocket for low-dose CT screening.. “…the promotion of such services should not prey upon the public's fear of lung cancer while leading them to believe that low-dose CT screening will eliminate all risk from lung cancer,” ALA warned.

“Unfortunately, even before the NLST results were released, CT screening for lung cancer was being offered by some institutions and subsequent to the release an increasing number of well-respected medical centres throughout the country are offering lung cancer screening to their constituents at markedly reduced prices.” ALA observed.

Public cautioned

“Never starting smoking and quitting smoking still remains the best way to prevent lung cancer”, Dr Norman H. Edelman, Chief Medical Officer, American Lung Association cautioned the public.

Individuals have to take their own decisions on screening based on inputs from all

reputable sources. Do not trust advertisements glorifying CT screening.

K.S. PARTHASARATHY , Former Secretary, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board

(ksparth@yahoo.co.uk)  Keywords: computed tomography, lung cancer screening

Nuclear renaissance may continue

Nuclear renaissance may continue

Travails of medical imaging of bulky patients

Travails in medical imaging of bulky patients

Share  ·   Comment   ·   print   ·   T+  

The constraint: Some obese patients are too large to image using even X-ray films of large size. They need multiple cassettes. Photo: AFP

Keen observation and analysis of case sheets of patients proved rewarding for Dr Raul Uppot, a young radiologist at the Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH), in Boston, U.S. He realised that a tiny fraction of patients are denied medical imaging facilities simply because they are bulky. Radiologists could not provide optimum image quality and accurate diagnoses in their cases.

Dr. Uppot and his co-workers reviewed the radiology reports filed between 1989 and 2003 labelled as “limited by body habitus” meaning limited in quality due to the patient's size. They found that over the 15-year period, the percentage of such reports nearly doubled from 0.10 in 1989 to 0.19 in 2003. It correlated strongly with the increase in obesity in Massachusetts State from 9 per cent in 1991 to 16 per cent in 2001.

He presented the study at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA-2004). RSNA appreciated his paper and awarded him the 2004 Research Fellow Trainee Prize of $ 1,000.

Dr Uppot observed that in the 15-year-old retrospective study of radiological exams at MGH, the diagnostic information of 0.15 per cent of the five million studies was limited by the body weight of patients. They did not include patients whose examinations were cancelled because they could not fit on the table.

Obesity adversely impacts on simple x-ray and other life saving procedures such as CT scans, ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

The issue was so important that the RSNA held a special focus session on “Obesity: The Impact on Radiology” during its Annual convention (RSNA 2005) at Chicago. It continues to be important.

In a recent review in Vascular Medicine (December 2011) Philip C. Hawley of the Grant Medical Centre, Columbus and Miles P. Hawley, The Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus, recommended further research on both imaging and outcomes in the area.

In Radiology Rounds, a newsletter for Referring Physicians, published by Massachusetts General Hospital, Janet Cochrane Miller noted that fat affects ultrasound images to a greater degree than any other medical imaging modality. At the frequency range normally used (3 to 7 MHz) for abdominal imaging, one cm of fat attenuates 50 per cent of the beam intensity. At lower frequencies attenuation is less; image resolution is also less.

Miller estimated that 20 patients in 1,000 may not get the benefit of ultrasound scans because of excess body weight. Corresponding data for MRI scan is one in 1,000; abdominal CT: 4 in 1,000; chest x-ray: 5 in 1,000.

Some obese patients are too large to image using even x-ray films of large size. They need multiple cassettes. “When they exceed the weight limit for x-ray tables, patients can sometimes be imaged while standing”, Miller wrote.

To a question whether he expects that the issues he raised in the U.S. will be applicable to India, Dr Uppot who is currently assistant professor, Harvard Medical School, clarified that the issues start with ultrasound imaging at 250 pounds.

“Census data in India may need to identify the percentage of Indians who reach more than 250 pounds”, he added.

Relevance to India

“Has he got any suggestions for the Indian medical community? “The Indian medical community should be aware of the issue. In India, as in other Asian and European countries there is great reliance of ultrasound for medical imaging.

Of all the imaging modalities, ultrasound is the most sensitive to obesity. Indians who have excessive subcutaneous fat will present challenges to physicians who rely on ultrasound to make diagnosis”.

To the query on improvements in producing optimal images of obese patients, Dr Uppot stated that “manufacturers of imaging equipment have tried to address the issue by: (1) Increasing weight limits and gantry/bore diameters of their equipment so that patients can fit. (2) Used technology to improve the image quality such as harmonic imaging for ultrasound and (3) and used technology to try to decrease the increased radiation doses for CT in obese patients”.

The Lancet (November 20, 2010) reported that currently in India, almost 1 in 5 men and over 1 in 6 women are overweight. In some urban areas, the rates are as high as 40 per cent. But I do not know of any Indian publication on the difficulties of imaging obese patients.

The medical community in India must appreciate the issues and be prepared to face the challenges of imaging overweight patients

K.S. PARTHASARATHY

Raja Ramanana fellow, Department of Atomic Energy

(ksparth@yahoo.co.uk)

Keywords: medical imaging, bulky patients

Why nuclear power is not the dream that failed?

On March 10, 2012, The Economist magazine published an article titled " Nuclear power: the dream that failed". The article was one sided and ignored many developments which may prove to be a game changer. For instance, Republic of Korea entered into a contract with UAE to construct four nuclear power reactors in UAE. Some specialists observed that Korea may complete the project on time and within budget, Korea has beaten French industry which is currently recalibrating its approach to commercial nuclear power. 

 You can access the article at:
http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/slide-show-1-why-nuclear-power-is-not-the-dream-that-failed/20120321.htm

My articles: Is the edifice of radiation protection built on a lie?

My articles: Is the edifice of radiation protection built on a lie?

Is the edifice of radiation protection built on a lie?

S & T

Published: January 26, 2012 01:39 IST | Updated: January 26, 2012 01:39 IST

Is the edifice of radiation protection built on a lie?

The Linear No Threshold concept assumes that the risk from radiation exposure varies linearly with total dose with no threshold

Recently, Edward Calabrese, an environmental toxicologist at the University of Amherst found out that Dr Hermann J. Muller, famous radiation geneticist knowingly lied in his Nobel Prize lecture when he claimed that there was “no escape from the conclusion that there is no threshold.” Calabrese described his discovery in September in Archives of Toxicology and Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis

In 1927, Muller discovered that x-ray irradiation produces mutations in male fruit-fly germ cells. For this, he received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1946. Many believe that Muller's assertion became a corner stone of radiation protection. This is the Linear No Threshold (LNT) concept which assumes that the risk from radiation exposure varies linearly with total dose with no threshold and any dose however small has an adverse effect.

Expert bodies accepted this model because of its simplicity in the management of radiation protection programmes.

“However, it has done much damage to speak of ‘no safe level of radiation' in scaring not only the public, but also those professionally involved in peacetime health physics who have not been involved in high levels and emergency situations,” Allen Brodsky, Adjunct Professor of Radiation Science, Georgetown University responded to an e-mail query.

In response to an e-mail query Calabrese disclosed that a reviewer of his article on the history of dose-response argued that he had not done a good job on the Muller section and key early radiation mutation studies. Calabrese found that a paper from the University of Rochester by Curt Stern and Casper on fruit-fly irradiation and germ cell mutation was published in 1948 but it was actually completed in August of 1946.

“This study was very important because it did not support a linear dose response and because it was the strongest study to date...using the lowest dose rate etc. I knew that Muller gave his Nobel Prize lecture on Dec. 12, 1946. So the question was whether Muller was aware of the new findings before his major speech,” Calabrese replied

By reviewing Stern's correspondence with Muller, Calabrese established that Muller knew of the findings which contradicted his theory a month prior to the Nobel Lecture.

Calabrese asserts that Muller's passionate beliefs influenced the way government and society viewed the risks of low doses of radiation. The 1956 recommendations of the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) BEAR (Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation) I Committee reflected these views. Regulating ionizing radiation as if there was no safe dose began!

James Schwartz, a biographer of Muller, Kenneth Muller, Hermann Muller's grandson and Elof Axel Carlson, Muller's former student do not agree with Calabrese. Some feel that Calabrese, a supporter of radiation hormesis (beneficial effect) has conflict of interest. The balance of evidence shows that the edifice of radiation protection is not built on a lie.

Dr Evan B. Douple, Associate Chief of Research at the Radiation Effects Research Foundation, Hiroshima, does not think that the LNT hypothesis would have lost its applicability if Professor Muller would not have made the passionate statement in his speech.

“……. by the time the BEIR (Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation) committees of the National Academy of Sciences began updating the risk estimates, the mutation risk was superseded by the risk of cancer. Having been intimately involved with the BEIR VI and BEIR VII studies, I can assure you that the voluminous data reviewed by the committee members that related to supporting or refuting LNT, was not swayed or overly influenced by the shape of a dose-response curve in the mutation work of Muller,” Douple responded. (Dr Douple was Director, Board on Radiation Effects Research, National Research Council)

He is not even sure that Calabrese's interpretation and assessment that Muller was deceptive in his presentation is necessarily accurate or fair.

“Although somatic mutations became a dogma for radiation carcinogenesis, the LNT for carcinogenesis was based on (a) analyses of cancer induction in rodent models, (b) biophysical characteristics of energy deposition, ionizations, and DNA damage in cells, and (c) the early epidemiological studies of cancer in the Japan A-bomb survivors,” he clarified in an e-mail.

He does not think that the conjecture and personal interpretation of an untestable accusation will have significant impact among the radiation protection community.

Prof Ludwig E. Feinendegen, Heinrich-Heine University, Germany thought that “the new revelations on low-dose effects in the realm of biological responses are making an impact on the radiation protection community — as it appears currently from the defensive manner of their arguments for keeping the LNT model, at least for the time being. Calabrese has done us a great favour by his new paper on Mueller's mistake.”

That there is no safe level of radiation continues to be a useful assumption in radiation protection. It is yet to be proved as a scientific fact.

Douple believes that the exhaustive efforts of those who claim that demonstrating hormesis (beneficial effect) or the presence of thresholds will revolutionize the radiation protection field are misguided.

“We need to educate the public regarding the importance of ‘acceptable levels of risk'—levels that are believed to include risks, but risks for adverse effects that are so small that one would not be able to observe and measure an excess of the effects with a realistic study. Only then will the fear and paranoia associated with radiation effects gradually become less and less and sources for energy production can be fairly and objectively be evaluated,” Douple proposed as a realistic way forward.

Regulators want dose limits for enforcing radiation protection. What is the threshold dose value they will accept for enforcement? Calabrese and his followers have not yet responded to my query.

The French Academy of Sciences, the only scholarly body which has views closer to those of Calabrese on hormesis conceded that on the basis of present knowledge, it is not possible to define the threshold level (between 5 and 50 mSv) or to provide the evidence for it. The dose limit for workers recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) is 20 mSv per year averaged over five years with no year exceeding 50 mSv. The dose levels to radiation workers achievable are so low that the risk from them is negligible. Negligible risk is no risk at all. That we cannot rule out beneficial effects of radiation is also a comforting thought.

K.S. Parthasarathy

Raja Ramanna Fellow, Department of Atomic Energy (ksparth@yahoo.co.uk)

Keywords: radiation exposure

www.indoeuropean.in

Printable version | Jan 26, 2012 8:32:36 AM | http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/article2831847.ece

© The Hindu

Anti nuclear activists are lying or are ignorant

With malice towards none, and knowledge for all!

Those keen to sift facts from fiction may read the following note:

There is widespread wrong information about the status of nuclear power in USA after 1979, the year in which the accident occurred at the Three Mile Island nuclear power station.

Many anti nuclear activists state that since 1977, USA has not built any new nuclear power plant. There is a little confusion here. It is true that USA has not issued any new licence to construct a nuclear power plant. Government approved  up-rating the power of existing reactors by 6000MW from 1977 to 2011. From 2011 to 2015, 3211 MWe will be added.

Electric companies connected 50 out of the 104 currently operating nuclear power plants in USA to the grid after 1979, the year in which the Three Mile Island accident occurred. Nineteen of them after 1986, the year in which the Chernobyl accident occurred. Fifty three out of the 59 French reactors came on line after 1979.

The net capacity factor  of a power plant is the ratio of the actual output of a power plant over a period of time and its potential output if it had operated at full  capacity the entire time.

The capacity factor of nuclear power reactors in USA averaged about 57 % in 1980. It increased gradually. From 2004 till 2010 (the latest data)it averaged over 90%. Twenty two US nuclear power reactors out of the 104 exceeded  a capacity factor of 100%. In 2010 the capacity factors of other modes of power generation in % were: Biomass 85.5;.Geothermal 71.6;Coal (Steam turbine) 65.4;Gas(Combined cycle) 45.8;Hydro 29.4; Wind 29.1;Solar 17.7;Gas (Steam turbine) 12.9; oil (steam turbine) 8.9

Anti-nuclear critics claim that Russia stopped constructing nuclear power after 1986, the year in which the accident occurred at the Chernobyl nuclear power station.

What is the factual position?

 Russian power utilities started commercial operation of eight nuclear power reactors after 1986 . One of them in May 1986 a month after the Chernobyl accident. The last one of 950 Mgawatt became critical on November 11, 2011 and is operating at 50% power as one December 13, 2011.

Russia currently has an installed nuclear power capacity of 24,164 MWe from 33 reactors. It has started construction and  planned and proposed to erect 53 nuclear power reactors with a total capacity of over 50,000 MWe

China operates 15 reactors with a total capacity of 11,881 MWe starting from 1994. Nuclear power reactors under construction and  planned number 77 with a total capacity of 85,750MW.

Additional reactors are planned, including some of the world's most advanced, to give a five- or six-fold increase in nuclear capacity to at least 60 GWe by 2020, then 200 GWe by 2030, and 400 GWe by 2050. 

Until March 2011, Germany generated 25% of its electricity from nuclear energy using 17 reactors.In 1998, Germany decided to phase out nuclear power; in 2009 Government cancelled this policy but shut down eight reactors post Fukushima even before the factual position about the accident was known.

 French and Czechs are happy going to their banks. To compensate for the power generated by the seven reactors, Germany imports power from France and Czech Republic. France’s share of export to Germany increased by 50% in the first half of the year; Czech’s share went up by a whopping 673%(The Sydney Herald, November 26, 2011)

According to the paper, at peak times, up to four nuclear power stations in France and the Czech Republic are running just to cater to the demands of Germany