Fungi that live off radiation at Chernobyl

Fungi that live off radiation at Chernobyl

It was shown how ionising radiation encourages growth of melanised fungi

Like chlorophyll, melanin uses a part of the electromagnetic spectrum to benefit the fungi

The phenomenon may be useful to astronauts, who may harvest the fungi as a food source

Occasionally, the lowliest of the lowly beings get global attention by being at the most unexpected places.

This was what happened to some microorganisms including Cladosporium sphaerospermum (CS). This tongue-twisting name belongs to a type of humble fungus.

Five years ago, Dr. Arturo Casadevall, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, U.S., read in the web that a robot sent into the still highly radioactive damaged reactor at the Chernobyl nuclear power station, returned with samples of black fungi, which were growing on the reactor’s walls. (PhysOrg.com, May 23, 2007).
Habits revealed

It appeared that these fungi were feeding on radiation. They can no longer keep their radiation feasting habits away from the prying eyes of researchers.

These fungi contain melanin, a high molecular weight pigment, the same colouring agent in our skin.

Until now, the biological role of melanin has been a mystery (PHYSICS.ORG, 2007). In a 13-page paper in the Public Library of Science Journal (PLoS ONE, May 23, 2007) Dr Casadevall and other researchers explained the physico-chemical tests and in vivo experiments with three genetically diverse fungi and four measures of cell growth; they demonstrated lucidly how ionising radiation brings about changes in melanin and encourages the growth of melanised fungi.

An elegant and simple hypothesis may explain the behaviour of melanised fungi.

“Just as the pigment chlorophyll converts sunlight into chemical energy that allows green plants to live and grow, our research suggests that melanin uses a different part of the electromagnetic spectrum to benefit the fungi containing it”, Dr Ekaterina Dadachova, one of the co-authors of the paper, explained.
Providing energy

Dr Casadevall admitted that it is pure speculation but not outside the realm of possibility that melanin could be providing energy to skin cells. They grew some melanised fungi and others without the pigment and exposed them to gamma radiation.

The dark fungi grew better when irradiated (The New Zealand Herald May 27, 2007).

Certain types of fungi grew significantly faster when scientists exposed them to ionising radiation levels nearly 500 times more than the background; they gained more dry weight biomass.

People despise fungi because they assume that the main job of fungi is to decompose matter into other chemicals!

The melanin-containing microorganisms are often the dominating species in certain extreme environments (PLoS ONE 2007) such as the abandoned contaminated regions at Unit 4, the stricken reactor at Chernobyl.
Living happily

They live happily in soil contaminated with radionuclides, at high altitudes and in hostile Arctic and Antarctic regions!

There are indications that melanins are ancient pigments that have probably been selected as they enhance the survival of melanised fungi in diverse environments and, perhaps incidentally in many hosts (PLoS ONE, 2007).

Casadevall and his co-workers believe that despite the high prevalence of melanotic microorganisms in radioactive environments, it is unlikely that they synthesise melanin for the purposes of protection (shielding) from ionising radiation.

They noted that in the high altitude regions inhabited by melanotic fungi, the background radiation levels are about 500-1,000 times higher than at sea level.

Since most fungi, whether melanised or not, can withstand 17,000 times more energy, the authors consider that there is apparently no need for melanin to remain as a radio-protective agent.

But biological pigments play a major role in photosynthesis; they convert light energy to chemical energy.
Properties changed

Since melanin can absorb visible and UV light of all wavelengths, the authors suggested that exposure to ionising radiation would change the properties of melanin and affect the growth of melanized microorganisms.

They could convincingly demonstrate their expectations. The capability of fungi to live off radiation and make biomass may be useful to astronauts, who may be able to harvest the fungi as a food source.

The fungi can produce food by using enhanced levels of ionising radiation present in outer space.
Nature’s capriciousness

Nature is very capricious in revealing its resourcefulness. Lowly beings such as fungi can teach enterprising humanity a lesson or two in harnessing energy while surviving in unendurable environments.

K.S. PARTHASARATHY

Former Secretary, AERB
ksparth@yahoo.co.uk

© Copyright 2000 - 2007 The Hindu

Routine use of CT to screen for lung cancer risky

Routine use of CT to screen for lung cancer risky

Routine use of this unique tool on symptomless individuals is potentially hazardous

Photo: K.R. Deepak



Need for caution: Population based screening for lung cancer is not recommended and may, ultimately put the patient at risk for further complications. — .

The American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) oppose the use of low dose computed tomography (CT) for general screening of lung cancer (EurekAlert, September 10).One hundred multi-disciplinary panel members developed and published the new evidence-based guidelines in a supplement to the September issue of CHEST, ACCP’s peer reviewed journal.

Mortality unaffected

Dr. W. Michael Alberts, Chief Medical Officer, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida, cautioned that even in high risk populations, currently available research data do not show that lung cancer screening alters mortality outcomes.

“Population [based] screening for lung cancer is not recommended and may, ultimately, put the patient at risk for further complications,” said Dr.Gene L. Colice, Director, Pulmonary, Critical Care and Respiratory Services, Washington Hospital Center, Washington DC and vice chairman of the ACCP lung cancer guidelines.

He clarified that during screening, physicians may commonly find nodules; however, to determine whether they are cancerous or not requires fairly invasive and extensive additional testing. The patient may have to face needless risk, both physically and psychologically.

‘Diagnosis and Management of Lung Cancer: ACCP Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (2nd Edition)’ contains 260 of the most comprehensive recommendations related to lung cancer prevention, screening, diagnosis, staging, and medical and surgical treatments. Some of these apply to computed tomography screening.

“There is little evidence to show that lung cancer screening impacts mortality in patients, including those who are considered at high risk for the disease” an ACCP press release asserted.

CT screening of symptom-free individuals is controversial. Peter B. Bach and his co-workers analysed lung cancers in 3,246 asymptomatic current or former smokers screened for lung cancer from two academic centres in the U.S. and one in Italy and found that screening for lung cancer with low dose CT may increase the rate of lung cancer diagnosis and treatment, but may not meaningfully reduce the risk of advanced lung cancer or deaths from lung cancer (JAMA, March, 7).

They argued that until more conclusive data are available, asymptomatic individuals should not be screened outside clinical research studies that have a reasonable likelihood of further clarifying the potential benefits and risks.
Conclusions opposed

These results contradict the conclusions of the International Early Action Lung Cancer Programme, which claimed that CT screening of high risk individuals could prevent 80 per cent of lung cancer deaths (New England Journal of Medicine, 2006).

After reviewing these two papers, Drs William C. Black and John A. Baron concluded thus: “Although expensive and time consuming, rigorous trials for cancer screening are far more cost-effective than what might be the alternative — widespread adoption of costly screening interventions that cause more harm than good” (JAMA, March, 7, 2007).

The unambiguous ACCP guidelines must settle the issue. The ACCP Thoracic Oncology NetWork, the Health and Science Policy Committee, the Board of Regents, and external reviewers from the journal CHEST reviewed and approved these guidelines.

The American Association for Bronchology, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American College of Surgeons Oncology Group, American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology, Asian Pacific Society of Respirology, Oncology Nurses Society, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and the World Association of Bronchology also endorsed them.

Over 2,200 CT scan units are used in India. These are beneficial tools only in clinically indicated diagnostic tests.

Each CT scan exposes patients to radiation doses equal to a few hundreds of chest x-ray examinations. Routine use of this unique tool on symptomless individuals is potentially hazardous.
Panel of specialists

Professional associations in India must develop robust guidelines. In the absence of such efforts, the Health Ministry must urgently set up a panel of specialists with representatives from Indian Council of Medical Research, the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board and professional associations to review the ACCP recommendations and other similar guidelines.

The panel may be asked to examine the applicability of these guidelines in the Indian context and make appropriate recommendations.

K.S. PARTHASARATHY

Former Secretary, AERB
( ksparth@yahoo.co.uk)

© Copyright 2000 - 2006 The Hindu

Safety factors considered in nuclear powerplant location

Safety factors considered in nuclear power plant location

A detailed analysis revealed that a postulated fault at Kalpakkam did not exist

The AERB Code of Practice on Safety in Nuclear Power Plant Siting prescribes 48 criteria

The doses to public due to radioactive releases during normal operation are within AERB limits

While addressing a public meeting organised by the Rotary club in a metro city, one of the speakers asked the audience whether they prefer to have a cattle farm or a nuclear power plant in their backyard.

The voice vote clearly favoured a cattle farm! The reasons for the “Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) view” are not far to seek. Public distrusts nuclear industry.
Previous accidents

The accidents at the nuclear power station at Three Mile Island in the U.S. in 1979 and that at the Chernobyl nuclear power Station in Ukraine in the former Soviet Union in 1986 did not help.

The discerning public may blame the nuclear establishment, if the NIMBY attitude continues. NIMBY will become In My Backyard (IMBY), if the public realises the steps taken to ensure safety in nuclear power plants.

These include the choice of the right site; construction of reactors of proven technology; institution of sound quality assurance measures; provision of diverse and redundant reactor control and protection systems of high reliability; defence-in-depth philosophy; proven operating procedures by qualified and trained staff; continuous review and feedback of operating experience; well rehearsed emergency prepared plans among others.

The AERB (Atomic Energy Regulatory Board) Code of Practice on Safety in Nuclear Power Plant Siting prescribes 48 criteria; thirty of them are mandatory; seven are desirable. Eleven criteria belong to the rejection category.

The AERB reviews the effect of natural events such as earthquakes, winds, floods, tides, slope instability, etc and man-induced events such as air-crash, oil slick, blasting, mining etc. on the plant.
Outright rejection

A few seismic criteria prescribe outright rejection of certain sites. Other factors include prescribed grade elevation above tide level, location of airfields, military installations storing ammunition, architectural or historical monuments and pilgrimage or tourist centres. Sites will be acceptable only if they satisfy AERB Codal requirements.

The desirable parameters specified by AERB Code include distance from the site to the facilities, if any, handling/storing inflammable, toxic, corrosive or explosive material and any mining activities, the terrain features and the population density within specified distances.

A site selection committee of specialists appointed by the Central Government chooses the sites for locating nuclear power plants from the sites proposed by the State Governments.

AERB issues siting clearances valid for a specific period after reviewing the recommendations of its Site Evaluation Committee (SEC) and a senior level Advisory Committee for Project Safety Review (ACPSR).

Recently, the SEC recommended installation and operation of a five-station micro earthquake monitoring network at the Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor (PFBR). It is operational now. AERB recommended a detailed analysis and field check to ascertain the status of a postulated fault at Kalpakkam.
Coastline stable

The study revealed that the fault does not exist. On the recommendation of SEC, National Institute of Oceanography (NIO) studied the shore line stability at Kalpakkam. NIO found that the coastline was stable. A detailed study for evaluation of tsunami hazard in Kalpakkam area is in progress.

Nuclear power reactors produce large amounts of radioactivity during their operation.
Design features

Design features and safety measures ensure that the radiation doses to workers are well within the limits prescribed by the AERB. AERB may argue that there is scope for reduction.

The doses to public due to radioactive releases during normal operation are too low to be measured directly and are within AERB limits.

They are within the variations of the natural background radiation present everywhere even in the absence of nuclear power plants. The safety performance of Indian reactors is reassuring.
Recent survey

A recent survey in the U.S. organised by the Nuclear Energy Institute, a nuclear advocacy group, among 1,100 adults, revealed that 71 per cent would be willing to see a new reactor near them (World Nuclear News, August 21), a probab le response in France, as it generates 78 per cent of its electricity from nuclear reactors.

The French are very proud of their nuclear programme. If the recent awareness on nuclear issues is an indication, NIMBY attitude among the Indian public will hopefully turn into IMBY during the next few years!

K.S.PARTHASARATHY

Former Secretary, AERB
ksparth@yahoo.co.uk

© Copyright 2000 - 2006 The Hindu

Spin offs from radiation studies

Date:09/08/2007 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/seta/2007/08/09/stories/2007080950151500.htm Sci Tech



Spin-offs from radiation studies

Hiroshima and Nagasaki became the targets of atomic bombings on 6th and 9th August 1945 respectively. On November 18, 1946, the U.S. President Harry Truman authorised the National Research Council to set up an organisation “to undertake a long range, continuing study of the biological and medical effects of atomic bomb on man.”

The Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission (ABCC), the organisation established for the purpose and its predecessor, Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF), carried out and is carrying out priceless research on biomedical effects of radiation from June 1947 to date.

Studies pioneered by RERF at Hiroshima are making their impact on epidemiology, molecular and cellular biology, genetics, immunology and a range of other health sciences. From the 280,000 survivors in the two cities, the RERF researchers established fixed cohorts or sub-cohorts to provide epidemiological and clinical data on the health status and mortality of survivors and their children.

RERF researchers found that grip strength is a simple but useful measure to predict subsequent health of Japanese adults. Dr Hideo Sasaki, an expert panel member of RERF and other researchers followed up for 25 years, the survival status of 5,000 Adult Health Study participants (ages ranged from 35 to 74 years) who underwent grip strength testing between 1970 and 1972.
Low mortality

Total disease mortality was low among those with high grip strength. From 2002, RERF is focussing on the study of life-style related diseases such as hypertension, diabetes mellitus, myocardial infarction, stroke etc., that are not observable at birth but start to appear after middle age. On February 28 this year, RERF stated thus: “when multi-factorial disease in children were combined, no evidence suggesting increased risk associated with parental radiation exposure was observed.” In males, the study revealed that the prevalence rate of multi-factorial diseases decreased when paternal dose increased. “… Careful interpretation of this finding is necessary” RERF cautioned (RERF, February 2007)
Cancer incidence

Since 1950, RERF followed up the mortality of about 120,000 members of the Life Span Study cohort and carried out the cancer incidence studies since 1958.

Radiation-associated cancer risk increased significantly for oral cavity, stomach, colon, liver, lung, skin, breast, ovary, bladder system and thyroid. Rectum, gall bladder, pancreas, prostate or kidney did not indicate statistically significant increase in cancer risk. For the first time, the researchers found that the risk of cancer of the oesophagus was significant and radiation exposure at ages less than 20 years might increase the risk of uterus cancer. (Radiation Research, Ju ly 2007).

Physicians appointed by the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission, examined 76,626 infants conceived and born in Hiroshima and Nagasaki over a period of six years starting from 1948.

Preliminary study did not reveal any discernible birth defect with radiation exposure. Follow up study on mortality, serum proteins and chromosome abnormalities did not reveal any radiation effect.

RERF continues with the study of a group of 3,600 persons through their middle and old age. Atomic bombing exposed them to radiation as they were then in their mothers’ wombs. One of the inputs to prescribe radiological protection standards emerged from the unparalleled epidemiological study at Hiroshima. Radiation protection specialists review the results periodically. They confirmed the robustness of these standards.

K.S. PARTHASARATHY

FORMER SECRETARY, AERB
K

© Copyright 2000 - 2006 The Hindu

Are Indian nuclear power plants earthquake resistant?

Date:26/07/2007 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/seta
/2007/07/26/stories/2007072650021500.htm



Are Indian nuclear power plants earthquake-resistant?

Indian nuclear power plant design follows internationally accepted seismic safety criteria

The plants at Kakrapar, Narora, and Rawatbhata operated normally during the Bhuj quake

Nuclear power plants are the most seismically hardened structures in the country

Earthquake resistance of nuclear power plants (NPPs) received well deserved attention worldwide because the epicentre of the recent (July 16, 2007) earthquake in Japan was 19 km from the seven-unit Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power station. The units which were operating (3, 4 and 7) shut down automatically as per the design intent.

The media ‘storm’ rightly covered the delay in releasing the information and some inaccuracies in the reports on the minuscule releases of radioactivity and other dramatic events (waste drums toppled, exhaust ducts displaced etc.) which in reality had a limited impact on safety.

Two reassuring facts

However, nobody noticed two reassuring facts: the plant creditably withstood the earthquake which had twice the power of its design basis; the reactor, turbine building structures or major components did not suffer any damage.

The nuclear power plants at Kakrapar, Narora, and Rawatbhata operated normally during the Bhuj earthquake (6.9 on the Richter scale) on January 26, 2001.These plants experienced levels of vibration much below those for which they have been designed (Warudkar, NuPower, 2001).

The public may have concerns about Tarapur Unit 1&2 which were designed as per earlier standards. Specialists re-evaluated the seismic safety of these reactors and remedied the shortfalls by following the practices and guidelines in the Safety Report Series No 28 titled ‘Seismic Evaluation of Existing Nuclear Power Plants’ of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA, 2003). Specialists are re-evaluating the seismic safety of other older reactors

Safety review is a continuous process. IAEA recommends reassessment if there is any evidence of higher seismic hazard than considered for the design of the plant. Re-evaluation will cover systems, structures and components required for safe shutdown, for maintenance of the plant in safe shutdown state, for removal of decay heat generated and for confinement of radioactive materials. The designers of Indian nuclear power plants follow internationally accepted seismic safety criteria and guidelines.

The plants shall withstand maximum credible earthquakes at their sites. The designers followed seismic safety principles even when a high intensity event has a low probability of occurrence.

Seismic sensors

The Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) has installed seismic sensors at all plants as stipulated by the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB)

The Earth is made up of a mosaic of tectonic plates which move constantly. They may collide with each other. Strains develop gradually over a large mass of rock at the plate boundaries (Bhardwaj, NuPower, 2001); when accumulated strain exceeds the strength of the rocks, the rock masses rupture suddenly releasing stored energy which gets transmitted as seismic waves. The vibrations generated get attenuated as they travel through the intervening media.

Earthquake vibrations contain a mixture of frequencies. They are rich in the frequency range of 1 to 15 Hz. Above 15 Hz the energy reduces continuously and is very less beyond 33 Hz (Warudkar, NuPower, 2001). The force induced in a structure gets amplified if the excitation frequency is close to its natural frequency.

Earthquake magnitude

The effect of earthquake-induced vibrations depends on the magnitude of the earthquake, the depth of focus, the distance from the epicentre and the strata on which the NPPs stand.

Specialists accept a site for constructing a nuclear power plant after analyzing the seismic inputs from agencies such as the Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC), National Geophysical Research Institute (NGRI), India Meteorological Department, and Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and Research. NPPS shall not be constructed at sites falling above Zone 4. AERB also prohibits construction of NPPs at sites with a fault located within 5 km.

Seismic parameters

The designers estimate the seismic parameters for nuclear power plant structures conservatively. The analysis and design of these structures follow internationally accepted standards.

They subject the designs to the requirements of vigorous quality assurance and safety review at multiple levels (Warudkar, NuPower, 2001)

I know that the nuclear power plants are the most seismically hardened structures in the country. Only the ignorant will call me foolhardy, if I rush to a nuclear power plant to save myself from an imminent earthquake!

K.S. PARATHASARATHY
FORMER SECRETARY, AERB

( ksparth@yahoo.co.uk)

© Copyright 2000 - 2006 The Hindu

India's tryst with fusion technology

India has joined the ITER project and thus the elite group of countries with interest in fusion technology. This step will help India to leapfrog in time when the fusion reactor will start delivering electric power a few decades from now.

DAILY EXCELSIOR

http://www.dailyexcelsior.com/web1/07july22/toc.htm

India's tryst with fusion technology

By Dr K S Parthasarathy

On July 5, 2007 a meeting of the Union Cabinet chaired by Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh approved the country's participation in the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) project at an estimated cost of Rs. 2,500 crore. This project aims at demonstrating the scientific and technical feasibility of fusion power. The partners in this venture are: European Union (represented by EURATOM), Japan, the People's Repulic of China, India, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation and the USA.

ITER is a tokamak to demonstrate the scientific and technological feasibility of fusion power. It may cost $ 5 billion to construct it over a period of 10 years. Its total operating costs over 20 years may be of a similar order. Europe will bear half of the total expenditure and the other six partners will each contribute up to 10 per cent, leaving 10 per cent cost towards some contingency. ITER will be located at Cadarache, in the South of France.

The reactor which will produce a fusion power of 500 MW for a burn length of 400 seconds is sufficient to demonstrate the physics of the burning plasma in a power plant environment.

India will contribute equipment worth 500 million dollars to the experiment and will participate in its subsequent operation and experiments. Specialists have noted that the sheer magnitude of the investments being committed by the ITER partners demonstrates their belief and commitment in the future of fusion energy.

Since the partner countries have been carrying out the most advanced fusion energy research work for several decades, they will be able to address the complex issues related to the field promptly. Their effort will certainly produce a viable fusion energy source at the end of the project.

India will supply nine items including a 28 m dia, 26m tall SS cryostat, which forms the outer vacuum envelope for ITER, the vacuum vessel shields made of 2 per cent boron steel and occupying space between the two walls, eight 2.5 mega watt in cyclotron heating sources, complete with power systems and controls and cryo-distribution and water cooling subsystems (Nuclear India, May/June 2006).

Do we derive any benefit by joining this seemingly expensive project?

According to Dr P.K.Kaw, Director, Institute of Plasma Research, the Indian nodal agency for the project, the opportunity that participation in ITER offers us, is enormous (Nuclear India, May/June 2006). He listed several advantages. This is the first time that we shall be full partners in a prestigious international experiment. We shall have to come to international standards of quality, safety, time schedule maintenance etc. immediately.

Indian scientists and engineers will get direct hands-on experience in design, fabrication, and operation etc. on the latest fusion technologies. They will get access to many fusion technologies on the scale relevant to fusion reactors for the first time.

"If we backup the ITER INDIA effort with an aggressive, well focused national programme, it will allow us to leapfrog by at least a couple of decades" he said. India can legitimately claim that by accepting it as a full partner, international community has recognized India's fusion research activities.

According to Dr. M.R.Srinivasan, former Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission, Indian industry is well poised to secure some of the contracts for ITER project (The Hindu, July 27, 2005).

We have developed many sophisticated technologies during the construction of the two fusion devices Aditya and Steady State Superconducting Tokamak 1 (SST1) . This helps us to contribute various systems and components needed to construct ITER. Professor S.K.Mattoo, Institute of Plasma Research, confirmed that while participating in ITER, we will have access to the operation of systems contributed by other participants and operation of the fusion reactor. Our industry may not get an opportunity to produce those system. "ITER is not a solution to the shortfalls in the fusion technology of the country. ITER is a window of opportunity for laying a plan for infrastructure in fusion" Prof. Mattoo clarified (Nuclear India, May/June 2006).

Professor Mattoo stated that during the operation of the fusion reactor, the internal structure of the reactor will become radioactive. We may have to replace radioactive internal components mechanically. Such remote handling equipment must be capable of handling components weighing up to 50,000kg. This technology is being developed in Europe.

We may need advanced low activation materials to make the internal parts of the fusion reactor. This will ensure that fusion waste will not contain long lived radio-nuclides. Besides being resistant to activation, they must be capable of tolerating high surface heat loads and thermal cycling. The partners consider setting up an International Fusion Material Irradiation Facility to test these materials. India may join this collaborative effort.

India has special interest in developing fusion technology. In August 1955, when 1200 scientists from 72 nations attended the first International Conference on Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, Russian scientists waxed eloquent on their 5 MW nuclear power reactor; American scientists boasted of the uses of radioisotopes in medicine and industry; British bragged about their plans to make commercial atomic power stations.

".... the talk that most stirred the conference's first week was a bold prophecy by India's physicist Homi J. Bhabha, 45, conference president. Bound by none of the security regulations that so often gag U.S. experts, Bhabha predicted that by 1975 man will have tamed the Hydrogen bomb's fusion reaction and converted its tremendous energy (more than 1000 times that of the A-bomb) to useful electric power" Time Magazine (August 22,1955) reported.

Yes, Bhabha was overly optimistic. We are now nowhere near the goal. It took half a century for the world community to realize that they can achieve the dream of limitless, clean fusion power only through international cooperation! It is appropriate that India joined the elite club to realize the dream of Dr Homi J.Bhabha, the architect of nuclear India.

-PTI Feature

Is maligning plutonium metal justified?

THERE IS SO MUCH INFORMATION ABOUT THE TOXICITY OF PLUTONIUM AVAILABLE IN OPEN LITERATURE THAT IT IS TIME TO EXAMINE WHETHER MALIGNING THE PRECIOUS SOURCE OF ENERGY IS JUSITIFIED OR NOT. IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT EVEN SPECIALISTS IN REPROCESSING HAVE EXAGGERATED NOTIONS ABOUT PU-TOXICITY.

Dr.K.S.Parthasarathy


Is maligning plutonium metal justified?

Unsubstantiated fears must not impede technological progress towards energy security

Experts do not agree that plutonium is the most toxic material known to man There has not been a single death due to Pu among workers at U.S. nuclear weapon facilities

The Health Physics Society (HPS), a scientific association noted that the word ‘plutonium’ in a news story seems invariably preceded by the adjective ‘deadly.’

HPS argued that the statements such as plutonium is ‘the most deadly element known’ and that ‘a single speck of plutonium inhaled can kill a person’ are not facts but opinions; reporters apparently include them to dramatise the ir story.
Not very soluble

Some scientists perceive plutonium (Pu) as extremely toxic. “What will happen if a misguided fellow drops some Pu in a municipal water reservoir?” a senior scientist, who specialised in fuel reprocessing once asked me. Pu, in its most common chemical form, is not very soluble in water. Once dropped, the heavy metal will sink to the bottom of the reservoir. The damage will not be dramatic.

Many ignorant but influential people contribute to the misinformation on Pu. On November 16, 1996, the Mars-96 satellite fell into the sea with 200 grammes of Pu-238 onboard. Hans Koning, a prolific writer believed that this amount was in principle enough to kill all life on earth!

“Fortunately, it did not fall on a city, where it would have killed a million or more people” he wrote in the International Herald Tribune (IHT, November 27, 1996).

According to the 1982 report of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), between 1945 and 1980, nuclear explosions dispersed about 2.8 tons of Pu-239 globally. “Still life exists” Dr Zbigniew Jaworowski, a scientist who once chaired UNSCEAR, reminded the readers (IHT December, 24 1996).

Specialists asserted that the risk from the well-encapsulated Pu is minimal.

Public apparently believed Hans Koning, the fiction writer rather than Jaworowski, the scientist or the specialists.

Historically, during the war years, someone stated that plutonium was the most toxic material, partly to scare workers into using respirators and following safety precautions scrupulously.

At least 11 Hollywood movies and television shows refer to Pu, not honourably. Two of them depict characters suffering from ‘radiation sickness’ due to inhalation of plutonium.
Biasing the public

One of them was a terrorist. Such movies bias public against plutonium. Scientists find it difficult to undo the damage.

What are the facts? “In the Handbook of Toxicology of Metals 1979, Pu does not rate a mention except in passing in the entry for uranium,” Dr. Colin Keay, former Professor of Physics, University of Newcastle wrote in the Skep tic Magazine (1997).

Experts do not agree that Pu is the most toxic material known to man. Radium is more toxic. Plutonium is an angel compared to polonium-210! A few tenths of a microgramme of polonium-210 killed an Ex Russian spy (The Hindu, December 7) last year.

Orally, Pu is less toxic than caffeine, some vitamins, many plants and fungi. Its chemical toxicity may rank with lead or other heavy metals (chemistrydaily.com, 2005). Ricin, tetrodotoxin, botulinum toxin, tetanus toxin are fatal in doses as low as a milligramme.

A small amount of inhaled plutonium may cause cancer in the next few decades. Large amounts of inhaled or ingested plutonium will cause radiation sickness and death.

So far, there has been not even a single death attributable to Pu among the thousands of workers at U.S. nuclear weapon facilities which handled tens of tons of Pu, 26 workers who became contaminated with Pu during the forties and 18 persons into whom researchers injected Pu to study its excretion rates.
Notable record

Despite this notable record of accomplishment, fear of nuclear proliferation made Pu, the most ‘toxic’ substance known to man. Condemning Pu is a single point agenda of anti-nuclear activists.

We must handle Pu carefully to minimise its associated risks which are well recognised. Indian scientists have been handling substantial amounts of Pu safely since January 22, 1965 when they set up the first plant to extract Pu. Plutonium is vital to the country’s three-stage nuclear power programme. Unsubstantiated fears must not impede the technological progress, which ensures energy security to the nation.

K.S. PARTHASARATHY

Former Secretary, AERB

( ksparth@yahoo.co.uk )

© Copyright 2000 - 2006 The Hindu

'Nuclear'news:who is minding the shop?

http://www.dailyexcelsior.com/web1/07july12/toc.htm

DAILY EXCELSIOR

‘Nuclear’ news : Who is minding the shop ?

By Dr K S Parthasarathy

Recent controversies surrounding the visit of USS Nimitz, a nuclear aircraft carrier to Chennai, initially gave the false impression that there is no one to mind the shop !

Public had legitimate reasons to worry. The reassuring and prompt statements from scientists who knew the safety features of the reactors on board such ships and the lucid press release from the Ministry of Defence (MOD) allayed these fears to a great extent.

MOD had evolved the process of clearing the harbour for berthing nuclear vessels since January 5, 1988 when Indian navy inducted the nuclear powered INS Chakra into its fleet. The procedures included survey by an Environmental Survey Committee (ESC) set up by the Scientific Advisor to Defence Minister. MOD drew up a Radiation Safety Contingency Plan and implemented it prior to berthing of INS Chakra; the ship operated from 1988 to 1991.

From 15 February 2001 to 3rd November 2006, three nuclear powered ships from USA, three from France and one ship from UK visited India. There were ten visits; nine were to Goa and one to Mumbai. Indian Navy conducted the ‘International Fleet Review’ during which the French Nuclear Submarine Perle berthed in Mumbai harbour from 15 to 20 February 2001.

MOD intimates the ESC of an impending visit by a nuclear powered ship or submarine. ESC proceeds to the port well in advance before the arrival of the nuclear powered vessel and carries out a survey.

Movement of the nuclear powered ship takes place only during daylight hours, in good visibility and with escort tugs in attendance. No other ship is berthed within 200 metre radius of the nuclear powered ship. Ships berthed within 600 metre of the berth are kept at short notice, not exceeding tour hours, to get underway.

Radiation monitoring laboratories manned by scientists from Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO)/Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) and Defence personnel, set up onboard a suitable ship, undertake frequent monitoring of water and air samples.

A standing ESC has carried out a detailed survey at Chennai and cleared the visit of USS Nimitz from radiation hazard point of view. The stingent radiation monitoring protocol in place includes periodic monitoring protocol in place includes periodic monitoring and analysis of air and water samples. The agency conducts these activities under the ambit of a well rehearsed Radiation Safety Contingency Plan over seen by a Crisis Management Group and a Crisis Management Cell comprising of scientists from DRDO, BARC, Defence Laboratory, Jodhpur, representatives of the Chennai Port Trust and the Indian Navy.

In spite of the well established and frequently rehearsed procedures in place, the visit of the carrier generated some controversy. Nobody discussed the issues so far though nuclear powered ships have been visiting Indian ports periodically. It is amusing to note that even as late as July 2nd this year news agencies continue to state that USS Nimitz is the first nuclear powered ship to visit an Indian port though the press release dated July 27 from MOD gave details of ten visits during 2001-2006. Our scientists and engineers have been operating nuclear facilities including several nuclear power reactors for the past many decades, a few of these are based at coastal areas. Scientists in the Environmental Survey Laboratories have developed state of the art capability to measure radioactivity in samples of air and water from the sixties.

Plant, site and offsite emergency plans are in place at every nuclear power plant. Preparing relevant documentation and enforcing appropriate plans with the help of scientists and engineers are routine functions for the concerned authorities.

In April 1994, a ‘‘scientist’’ working with an NGO reported that his team measured high levels of radiation in several parts of Lucknow, including MLA's hostel and a few posh areas. Many national dailies and local Doordarshan covered the news.

Three scientists from the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) and the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) investigated the observations and unambiguously demonstrated that the reported increase in background radiation was due to a deficiency of the instrument. It was sensitive to light and indicated some spurious reading when its detector was exposed directly to sunlight with its window open.

The team measured radiation levels in the locations referred to in the NGO's press release and observed that they were within the range normally expected in that part of the country arising solely from natural background radiation.

AERB publicized the findings of the committee. Though the ‘scientist’’ working with the NGO accepted the conclusions of the committee on the spot, he repeated his claim later and said that he was confident he would ‘‘come out with clinching evidence’’ at an appropriate time.

In September 1994 a report from Washington stated that Pakistan was within hours of sending American supplied F-16 jets on a mission to drop conventional bombs on the nuclear reactors at Trombay. ‘‘Millions of people would have died and it would have been a holocaust beyond anything...had Pakistan attacked the two research atomic reactors, Dhruva and Cirus’’, the report warned.

In response to a senior journalist from a national news agency, I explained the topography of Trombay and the design features of the reactors. I explained that a nuclear facility may have plant, site and offsite emergency plans as appropriate. Detailed analysis has shown that releases, if any, from the reactors at Trombay even in an extreme emergency will not have any offsite impact. I told the journalist that the statement from Washington is ‘most absurd’. The item got wide media coverage and hopefully allayed some fear.

Nuclear and associated community must realize that, often, radiation or nuclear safety matters raise alarm totally disproportionate with any measurable harm. They must address these concerns promptly, honestly and openly. It is at times wiser to be proactive. Media is always receptive to those who are minding the shop !

PTI Feature

PET links brain enzyme to violence

Generally, posters presented at conferences seldom get due attention. But a poster authored by 11 scientists from U.S. and two from U.K. at the 54th Annual Meeting of the Society of Nuclear Medicine (SNM) on June 4, this year received well deserved publicity, when Dr Henry N. Wagner Jr., past president of SNM named a brain PET (Positron Emission Tomography) image that showed the correlation between radiotracer uptake and aggressive behaviour in men as the ‘SNM 2007 I mage of the Year.’

Dr Wagner, a specialist physician who has been delivering ‘The Highlights Lectures,’ summarising trends in molecular imaging and nuclear medicine since 1977, chose the image from more than 2,000 studies including scientific presentations and posters from the 2007 meeting at Washington DC.

Brain enzyme levels

Monoamine oxidase A (MAO A) is a brain enzyme. Researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) showed that healthy men with lower levels of this enzyme exhibited more aggressive personality traits.

The researchers chose normal healthy males with non-violent backgrounds as the subjects and administered the standard, Tellegen and Waller Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire to measure their verbal and nonverbal intelligence, depression, and personality traits (Dotmed.com, June 21). Questions such as whether they frequently lost their temper? Or whether they enjoyed watching violent movies? measured their aggressiveness.

Radiotracer used

The researchers gathered PET scans from each subject using clorgyline, a carbon-11 based radiotracer that binds to brain MAO A and measured the enzyme levels in their brains quantitatively.

More aggressive men had lower clorgyline uptake; less aggressive men had higher uptake. Of the 240 questions, only those about having a short temper, vindictiveness and enjoying violent movies were related to MAO A levels.

They did not find any correlation between clorgyline uptake and depression or negative emotions.

SNM 2007 Image

The SNM 2007 Image of the Year is a series of four images, one providing a view of the human gene with high and low concentrations of MAO A; another, a brain PET scan; and two images of human aggression.

According to Nellie Alia Klein, an assistant scientist at the Brookhaven National Center for Translational Neuroimaging at BNL, the study is an example of how scientists are beginning to investigate the complex relationships between an individual’s biology and his behaviour towards others.

Study of MAO A levels in relation to violent and aggressive behaviour has been a research topic for over two decades. MAO A plays an important role in metabolising neurotransmitters that affect human behaviour, and the gene that regulates MAO A activity has already been associated with aggressive and violent behaviour, Brian Casey quoted Alia-Klein (AuntMinnie.com, June 6)

The study team is indebted to Joanna S. Fowler,an SNM Member, a member of the National Academy of Sciences and a senior chemist at BNL, who developed a method to tag the MAO A enzyme and study its activity in the brain by using a PET camera.

Aggression amount

Interestingly, the amount of MAO A activity in the brain of 27 healthy men corresponded to the amount of aggression, they reported in the questionnaire.

“The less MAO A they had in the brain, the more they answered ‘yes’ to statements about taking advantage of others and causing them discomfort” said Alia-Klein.

“Our findings corroborate the relevance of brain MAO A in aggressive personality’ she clarified. “If this model of understanding is tested on individuals who engage in violent behaviour (such as domestic violence), it should show promise in the future for pharmacological intervention against abnormal violence” Alia-Klein claimed.

K.S. PARTHASARATHY

Former Secretary, AERB
ksparth@yahoo.co.uk

© Copyright 2000 - 2006 The Hind

Background radiation no evidence for ill-effects

Background radiation: no evidence for ill-effects

Cancer occurrence not consistently higher in monazite-rich areas

RECENTLY, A section of the media published stories about excess cancer deaths in the high background radiation areas (HBRA) in Kerala and Tamil Nadu.

But scientific studies do not substantiate such claims. The natural radiation levels are high in these areas primarily because of the presence of monazite (thorium ore) in soil.

Ionising radiation can cause mutations in all parts of the cell including the DNA. Dr Lucy Forster from the University of Cambridge and her team analysed mitochondrial DNA from 248 families (mostly over three generations) that have been exposed to natural radiation throughout their lives.

Widely published

They found 22 mutations in individuals from the high radiation areas and one in persons from areas of low radiation (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2002).

The media widely published the results as the authors, during interviews, suggested that people exposed to even low levels of radiation may be at risk of cancer.

BBC's headline was `cancer risk for radiation workers.' Responding to my queries, Ray Dunne, Health Reporter, BBC news online agreed that BBC did not suggest that that was the conclusion of the original research.

BBC focused on it as it was of more relevance to more people. It was purely speculative. A mutation to manifestation of cancer involves several steps.

Low doses

Responding to my e-mail query, Prof K.Sankaranarayanan, Professor Emeritus, Leiden University Medical Centre, The Netherlands, stated that at the current state of knowledge, we cannot attach any importance to these mutations from the standpoint of adverse health effects at low doses of radiation.

He must know as he wrote all the reports on genetic effects of radiation for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation!

"It might be worth considering whether to lower the allowed limits for radiation workers of reproductive age," Dr Peter Forster, one of the authors, warned.

Exposed populations

"It is premature to try to draw any conclusion concerning cancer risk from the study, let alone to call for a reduction in dose limits etc... " After all, our risk estimates (which form a part of the basis for dose limitation) are computed from epidemiological data on populations exposed to radiation. In other words, although we may have been unaware of this particular mechanism, its contribution to the total risk due to the combinations of mutations is already taken into account, automatically," Dr Jack Valentin, a geneticist and Scientific Secretary of the International Commission on Radiological Protection — the agency which recommends dose limits, clarified in an e-mail response.

Survey result

In a thorough health survey of about 400,000 people (100,000 from HBRA), researchers from the Regional Cancer Centre and Bhabha Atomic Research Centre did not see that cancer occurrence is consistently higher because of external gamma radiation exposure in the monazite-rich areas (Radiation Research, 1999).

Scientists did not observe significant differences in any of the reproductive parameters between the two population groups based on monitoring of 26,151 newborns from HBRA and 10,654 from areas of normal background radiation in the Kerala coast.

The stratification of newborns with malformations, still births or twinning showed no correlation with the natural radiation levels in different areas. (Radiation Research, 1999)

Critical review

In a critical review, of the health studies at HBRA carried out by different authors till 1981, Dr K.S.B. Rose, UK Atomic Energy Research Establishment, Harwell concluded that none of them produced any reliable evidence that the high level natural radioactivity in the area has a detectable adverse effect on the inhabitants (Nuclear Energy, 1982). More recent studies published in peer reviewed journals led to the same conclusion.

Further studies

The studies at HBRA carried out by different agencies have been scattered and limited. Epidemiology must complement molecular genetics, which currently employs tools of unparalleled sensitivity.

India, with advanced technology, must build a national institute at HBRA, modelled more or less like Radiation Effects Research Foundation, Hiroshima, to carry out "research in clinical medicine, epidemiology, statistics, genetics and molecular biology"; an advanced school of radiobiology and allied sciences may be a spin-off from the institute.

K.S.PARTHASARATHY

Former Secretary, AERB
(ksparth@yahoo.co.uk)

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Sci Tech

An open letter to the people of Meghalaya

THE SHILLONG TIMES
June, 12, 2007
An open letter to the people of Meghalaya
By Dr K.S.Parthasarathy*

Media reports say that your views are strongly polarized in favour of and against uranium mining in Domiasiat. This is a healthy development, as it will create the much-needed awareness among the public on all mining related issues. Before taking a stand, you must get all facts and analyze them dispassionately.
The Uranium Corporation of India, which claims to be a "company with a mission", should travel an extra mile not to "educate" you but to "inform" the public honestly, frankly and openly. They have been in business since 1967.
A few well-motivated NGOs get away with deliberate propaganda mixing myths and realities. A popular journalist once informed an unsuspecting audience that Uranium-238 is radioactive and has a half-life of 4500 million years, a true statement. He did not tell that because of the long half-life, the emission from Uranium is very feeble.
They exaggerate omissions and commissions cleverly to manipulate the minds of innocent populations.
Most of the propaganda is about the conditions in Jaduguda. Jharkhand Organisation against Radiation (JOAR), an NGO makes the startling and frivolous claim that many women in Chattikocha village in Jauduguda have change in their menstrual cycle!
The NGO alleged that many people in Jaduguda suffer from weakness, depression etc; 1/3rd of women are unable to conceive; children are born with one eye, disfigured face, twisted legs etc. Health effects of radiation have been the subject of detailed study for the past several decades. The United Nations Scientific Committee of the Effects of Atomic Radiation publishes periodic reports on it. None of these ever recorded that radiation can cause such symptoms
.Medical specialists studied alleged health effects in Jaduguda and concluded that the weird images of diseases and vague symptoms have nothing to do with radiation.
UCIL gives a commitment that they will carry out their mining activity safely, The Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, the competent authority to enforce radiation safety will ensure that they do so.
However, there were violations; every TV channel, which went to Jaduguda, recorded them; Villagers occasionally stray into the tailing ponds. (Tailing ponds contain radioactive waste left after the removal of uranium.) The NGOs claim that there is no warning or signpost about the presence of radioactive waste. However, those villagers who stray into the pond ignore the signboards. The Atomic Energy Regulatory Board also had made an issue of it. Now UCIL has fenced the ponds off and placed the site under the care of Central Industrial Security Force.
TV journalists who saw villagers on the tailings believed that they had got a scoop. Though walking over the tailings is a violation, the consequences of the violations are not significant. The radiation levels over the tailings are so low that a person has to stand over it for four hours a day for 365 days to get a radiation dose somewhere near the dose limit to members of the public. However, the practice is unacceptable.
Since we decided to increase nuclear power generation, we must explore and mine the indigenous resources of uranium aggressively by adopting safe practices and technology. We must not allow a few NGOs to scare away the public by exaggerating the perceived or imaginary risks of radiation. UCIL must enlighten the discerning sections of the public to exorcise the atomic ghosts created by overzealous nuclear critics.
[*The Author is former Secretary, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board]

Radioactivity in foodstuffs: regulatory steps

PTI FEATURE
VOL NO XXIII(22)-2007 June 2, 2007

SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
PF-86/2007


RADIOACTIVITY IN FOODSTUFFS: REGULATORY STEPS
By Dr K.S.Parthasarathy

The accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power station occurred on April 26, 1986. Shortly thereafter, radioactive fallout has shown up in foodstuffs in various countries. Public got concerned about the health impact of these contaminated food items. Food restrictions in European countries fuelled the fears.

Many felt that contaminated food items may be sold or gifted to third world countries. As a proactive measure, the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), the competent authority to enforce radiation protection in India, enforced regulatory steps to protect the public from undue radiation exposures.

In order to evolve a consensus opinion of a wide cross section of specialists on radiation protection policies, AERB organised in 1987 a national meeting of senior specialists from the Ministries of Agriculture, Food and Civil Supplies, Health and Family Welfare, Commerce, Environment and Forests, Bureau of Indian Standards, Marine Products Export Development Authority, Export Inspection Council, Tea Board, Indian Dairy Corporation, National Institute of Nutrition, Consumer Guidance Society of India, Research Institutes dealing with Food Technology, Fisheries and Toxicology and Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC).

Radioactive releases from nuclear facilities may contaminate foodstuffs AERB allows nuclear power plants and other facilities to release certain amount of radionuclides. Robust, administrative and technical machinery are in place to monitor and measure the releases to ensure that they do not cause radiation exposures above the limits prescribed by the Board. Radioactive materials may get released if reactor accidents occur. This is what happened in Chernobyl.

The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) has stipulated dose limits for members of the public. In the absence of other precedents to go by, the specialists group in India decided that the contribution from man made radionuclides in food items is only a small fraction of this dose limit. This led to overly conservative values of concentrations.

Based on the recommendations of the specialists, AERB prescribed the permissible levels of Iodine 131, Strontium-90 and Caesium-137 in food items

AERB recognized three BARC laboratories at Kolkata, Kalpakkam and Trombay for measuring and certifying radioactivity in the food samples sent to them. The Directorate General of Health Services instructed their offices located at ports to send samples of imported food for testing. This covered the bulk imports of food items.
BARC laboratories tested thousands of samples over the past several years. On rare occasions, when they found samples containing levels above those prescribed by AERB they issued suitable instructions.

A development, which received wide media coverage, pertained to the safety of 200 Metric Ton of Irish butter imported into India. Three office bearers of the Maharashtra State Government Employees' Federation approached the High Court of Bombay for an appropriate order restraining the respondents (Union of India, the Indian Dairy Corporation, The Dairy Development Commissioner, The General Manager, Greater Bombay Milk Scheme, Bombay, Maharashtra State and the Bombay Municipal Corporation.) from importing any milk or milk products and in particular butter from Ireland.

Originally, the petitioners limited their prayer to the extent of requiring the respondents not to use, distribute or sell for human consumption the butter imported from the European Economic Community Countries in a ship called Black Falcon. However, during the course of the hearing, the petitioners revealed that butter has already arrived in Bombay in some other ships also. The petitioners argued that the relief required was to prevent the respondents from utilizing the butter, which has arrived in any other way.

The petitioners contended that any food article imported from countries in Europe and especially from Ireland after the Chernobyl disaster contains or in all probability likely to contain radioactivity and therefore, its consumption is harmful from the long-term point of view to the population of India.

At one stage, the High Court wanted to know on what basis AERB determined the permissible limit of radioactivity and in particular, whether this permissible limit has been determined based on consumption by human beings of any natural food in which radioactivity was present or was it based on external irradiation. The Court also wanted to know whether natural foods contain radioactivity under normal circumstances The High Court relied upon a letter from Secretary AERB, which answered these questions.

A Division bench of the High Court rejected the petition. In another writ petition (4858 of 1987) the petitioners produced greater quantity of material highlighting the problem. The Court rejected this petition as well.

The petitioners then filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court of India.
After hearing the counsels for the petitioners and respondents, the Supreme Court thought it desirable to appoint a committee of three experts namely Professor M G K Menon, D. P K Iyengar and Mr G V K Rao to give its opinion on the following question: “Whether milk and dairy products and other food products containing man-made radio-nuclides within permissible levels by the AERB on 27th August 1987 are safe and/or harmless for human consumption”.

After perusing the opinion of the committee of experts, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.

The Court noted the letters sent in reply to the petitioners by some internationally known scientists including Nobel Laureates tending to show that it is desirable to avoid food stuffs containing low level radioactivity, which, according to them, might in the long run prove to be hazardous.

“What is remarkable about these letters is that they are in general terms and only represent a particular school of thought. Surely the Committee of experts comprising of two eminent scientists and an equally well-known Agro-economist was well aware of this point of view”, the Court observed.

In February 2003, AERB standardized the procedures and published the requirements for accrediting more laboratories to measure radioactivity in various commodities.

The facilities to measure radioactivity in food and other commodities exist in many institutions in India If the need arises, AERB can accredit them after appropriate review. - PTI FEATURE

[Dr.K.S.Parthasarathy is former Secretary, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board]

medical x ray: a note of caution

2 6 October 2003 KERALA CALLING
Medical X-rays:
A Note of Caution

Do you know that the British army
equipped its base hospitals in
England with X-ray equipment in
1898, when they learnt of its successful use
by Surgeon Major Bewoor in the NorthWest
Frontiers? Porters carried the accessories
to assemble the primitive x-ray unit, in 100-
pound boxes. They traveled over virtually
road-less terrain over 200 miles into the
Khyber Pass region.

(Late) Dr. K.P.Mody, an eminent
radiologist, noted that a chemist imported
the first X-ray unit into Bombay in 1902.
But medical colleges appreciated their
importance 16 years later. Lady Hardinge
Hospital in Delhi installed the first x-ray unit
in 1918. Over the past 100 years, the total
number in India grew into about 35,000 or
so.
In 1996, Government of Kerala set up
the Directorate of Radiation Safety (DRS)
as an independent agency directly under the
Secretary, Department of Health and Family
Welfare (DH & FW) to enforce AERB
guidelines on medical x-ray installations in
Kerala. AERB has delegated legal authority
to DRS to inspect x-ray installations in
Kerala.

I was a member of the specialist
committee, which prepared a technical report
outlining the constitution and functions of
DRS.
The State Government instituted a truly
innovative legal process to control medical
x-ray installations by amending the Electricity
Rules. DRS is a shining example of the
initiative taken by Kerala Government and
is a model for other States to emulate. DRS
has performed creditably in carrying out its
mandate.

Specialists agree that physicians should
recommend medical X-ray examinations only
on the basis of qualified clinical judgement.
Well-trained professionals should carry them
out with the help of optimally adjusted
equipment. They are then the most beneficial
life saving procedures, we know of today. If
that is so, is there any need for caution?
There is irrefutable evidence that high
doses of ionizing radiation are harmful to
man. But most of the medical diagnostic xray
procedures expose patients to relatively
low doses. We do not know conclusively
whether low doses are harmful or not. Since
we prudently assume that even small doses
can cause some harm, physicians should, in
any x-ray examination, expose their patients
to doses as low as reasonably achievable
without losing clinical benefit.
Physicians role in assuring safety
Physicians have an important role in
ensuring safe use of x rays. Regrettably, some
physicians order X-ray examinations
routinely. X-ray examinations at times
degrade into a comforting ritual! Physicians
should carry out medical X-ray procedures
only if they give them useful information to
treat the patient.

Physicians should buy only AERB
approved x-ray equipment. They should
comply with all the radiological safety
requirements. . They must use protective
accessories such as gonadal shields, mobile
protective barriers, lead aprons, etc, and
motivate workers to use these accessories.
Extra care should be taken when a
pregnant or a potentially pregnant woman is
x-rayed. They must ask whether the patient
is pregnant or not. A clinically indicated
examination need not be avoided simply
because of the implied risk from x-ray
exposure. Physicians must use optimally
adjusted equipment, employ appropriate
technique factors and carry out the
procedures with as low a dose as is reasonably
achievable.

On April 26, 2002, the US Food and
Drug Administration (USFDA) noted that
some medical imaging facilities in USA
promote and market whole body CT
scanning or screening as a preventive or
proactive health measure to healthy
individuals who have no symptoms or
suspicions of disease. FDA warns that for a
person without symptoms, CT screening may
not reveal serious disease and the potential
harm to the individual may be greater than
the presumed benefit.

CT is a unique tool to diagnose disease,
trauma or abnormality and to plan, guide and
monitor treatment. But it must not to be
used indiscriminately.The dose received by a patient during
a CT procedure is generally much larger that
that from most conventional X-ray
procedures.

In 2001, the American Journal of
Radiology published eight articles related to
radiation doses in CT scan examinations. The
journal noted that many CT scan centres in
USA use the same technique factors while
examining adults and children. Children then
receive significantly greater radiation doses
than adults without any additional clinical
benefits. Children are more sensitive to
radiation than adults.

I brought the US FDA advisory which
contained recommendations to reduce
radiation risk from computed tomography
to children and small adults to the notice of
over 400 CT scan users in India. I understand
that some radiologists in Kerala implemented
the advice from USFDA. For instance,
Dr.P.Rajendran, Associate Professor,
Department of Radiology, Calicut medical
college informed me that acceptable CT
images are possible with nearly half the
radiation dose. Parents may ask the
radiographer whether he uses different
technique factors while x-raying children and
small adults.

Role of the public

Many patients are satisfied only if their
physicians recommend an x-ray examination
as part of the medical diagnosis. They tend
to believe that no examination is complete
unless they have been x-rayed! Patients must
leave it to the physician to decide.
Crowding near and inside an X-ray
room is an unhealthy practice. Very often,
the x-ray technologists admit many patients
into the x-ray room before starting the
examination. Each time the technologist
exposes an x-ray film or the radiologist
screens a patient, the beam of x-rays directly
or indirectly strikes all those present.

Physicians should buy
only AERB approved
x-ray equipment. They
should comply with all
the radiological safety
requirements. . They
must use protective
accessories such as
gonadal shields, mobile
protective barriers, lead
aprons, etc, and motivate
workers to use these
accessories.
Patients may receive unnecessary radiation dose
during the waiting period. The dose may even
be greater than that received during their own
examination!
No one believes it. I had convinced the
editor of the Readers Digest to publish a
message on this practice in that magazine.
Patients must insist that they will not remain
in the x-ray room when others are examined.
We would like the public to ask those
who own and operate x-ray machines
whether their unit is an AERB approved one
or not. A “ type approved “ unit has all the
built-in safety features. X-ray manufacturers
and traders must sell only AERB approved
x-ray equipment.

The patient must tell her physician if she
is pregnant or thinks that she might be. This
must be done before a medical X-ray test is
carried out. The physician may cancel the
examination. He may postpone it or modify
it to reduce the radiation dose. He will
exercise better judgement and may proceed
with the test, as planned, only if it is essential.
At times, the risk of not carrying out a
clinically indicated x-ray examination might
very well be greater than the risk from
radiation.

In summary, x-ray equipment is a very
useful tool if it is used with care. Kerala
Government has set up an independent
Directorate of Radiation Safety to enforce
safety guidelines prescribed by the Atomic
Energy Regulatory Board. DRS will provide
radiation safety related advice and guidance
to those who approach the Directorate. ±

[Free booklet for
Physicians
A WHO booklet titled “ A
rational approach to radiodiagnostic
investigations” lucidly explains the
limitations of medical x-ray
procedures. Dr. K.S. Parthasarathy
secured its copyright and reprinted
a booklet titled “Patient Protection
in Diagnostic Radiology” published
by the International Commission on
Radiological Protection (ICRP). If
any physician wants a free copy of
the booklet, he may write to
Secretary, Atomic Energy
Regulatory Board, Niyamak
Bhavan, Mumbai 400094.]

India & the US, the nuclear issue

PTI FEATURE
--------------------------------------------------
VOL. NO XXII(13)-2006 April 1, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR
---------------
PF-51/2006
INDIA & THE US, THE NUCLEAR ISSUE
By K.S.Parthasarathy

The US-India dialogue for the recently initiated nuclear deal began in July 1994 with the visit of an American delegation led by former Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary and a former Commissioner of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), E. Gail de Planque. They held discussions with Indian officials on civilian nuclear power safety The officials of the two countries decided to open a nuclear safety dialogue between the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) and NRC.

The dialogue started in September 1994. It was informal; the US officials emphasized the fact that they could base the interaction only on material from public sources; US laws forbid any formal interaction between US officials and those of any country which has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The regulators discussed safety-related topics such as development of symptom-based emergency procedures, technical exchanges on design issues, fire safety in nuclear power plants, materials aging, and in-service inspections.

In October 1994, Chairman, AERB Dr.A.Gopalkrishnan along with a team of engineers visited NRC and various nuclear facilities in the US. He established excellent rapport with the officials of NRC at different levels. In February 1995, Dr.Ivan Selin, Chairman, NRC visited New Delhi and Mumbai.

While addressing a gathering of distinguished scientists and nuclear technologists at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Dr Selin touched a raw nerve. While airing his views on the independence of AERB, he implied that AERB in its current form is not independent. To be truly independent, a country’s regulatory agency should report to another country’s government! Dr Chidambaram, the then Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission reacted with disarming alacrity.

The topic was controversial. Admittedly, many in India believed that AERB’s relationship with the Department of Atomic Energy was too close for comfort. But nobody could deny that AERB had emerged as a technically strong and effective agency. Some felt that in matters of regulation, evolution is better than revolution. Others felt that the evolution in this case is too slow! NRC itself has its own image problems. Some call it the lap dog of the US Department of Energy!

In March 1998, Dr.P.Rama Rao, the then Chairman, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board visited the Peach Bottom Nuclear Power Plant. During the same month, Vice Chairman, AERB, Shri S. V. Kumar joined Dr Rao and visited NRC headquarters. They held discussions with NRC officials on developing and implementing the three NRC-AERB nuclear safety projects.

Basically they are exchanges in (1) back-fits and design modifications to existing nuclear power plants (2) historical information on previous fire hazards and the use of good fire protection engineering practices to develop operational improvements and to enhance fire safety; and (3) symptom-based emergency procedures.

The visit of Dr. Shirley Ann Jackson, Chairman of the NRC in April 1998 was one of the most memorable events. She addressed “Fire Safety 1998”, a conference on fire-safety related topics at Trombay on April 15, 1998. She remembered her visit to the Gandhi Memorial in New Delhi and acknowledged how the US civil rights movement—and in particular, the convictions and principles of Dr Martin Luther King, Jr.—benefited from the wisdom and example of non violence as a force for positive political and social change, as embodied in the life of Mahatma Gandhi..

She summarized the history of fire protection in nuclear power plants, the associated regulatory frame work and the NRC deliberations for possible improvement “…nuclear safety issues in one country can have a direct impact on how similar issues are viewed and treated in the nuclear power industry around the globe”, she asserted.

NRC-AERB interactions stopped abruptly in May 1998 when India conducted the nuclear tests. The dialogue restarted in February 2003 when Mr. Richard A. Meserve, Chairman, US NRC accompanied by a 15 member team visited AERB on invitation from Dr.S.P.Sukhtame, Chairman, AERB.

On February 26, 2003 Dr. Meserve, delivered a lecture titled “Advancing nuclear safety through international cooperation” at BARC; he described the key attributes to regulatory effectiveness and how NRC faces the challenges and achieves these attributes.

Shri S.K Sharma, the then Vice Chairman, AERB accompanied by a team of six Indian specialists visited USNRC from September 8 to 17, 2003. A team of NRC specialists led by Mr.Ashok Thadani, Director, Nuclear Regulatory Research Department visited AERB during Februry 23-25, 2004. A six-person delegation led by Shri S.K.Chande visited NRC from August 30 to September 3, 2004.

There were six meetings between the experts from the two countries. During the fifth meeting held during February 7-11, 2005 a five member NRC delegation led by Commissioner Jeffrey S. Merrifield visited AERB. The seventh meeting started on March 27, this year and will conclude on April 4.

NRC oversees the regulation of 103 nuclear power reactors. They have established procedures for licensing renewal and certification of new reactor designs; arrived at updates on fire risks. They have rich experience on areas of nuclear safety.

AERB faces similar challenges and issues. Currently, AERB’s regulatory responsibility extends to boiling water reactors, pressurized heavy water reactors of old and new designs, water moderated water cooled reactors (VVERs at Koodankulam), prototype fast breeder reactors and advanced heavy water reactors. AERB has been monitoring the implementation of safety up-gradation of reactors built to earlier standards. Several power reactors are in the construction phase in India.

Specialists on both sides could exchange nuclear safety-related information. Their visits and the range and depth of their discussions cemented the ties further.

Dr.K.S.Parthasarathy is formerly Secretary of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board

Dr. A.S.Rao:the father of Indian etectronics industry

PTI FEATURE PEOPLE/ PF-171/2006

VOL No XXII(43)-2006 October 28, 2006 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. A. S. Rao: the father of Indian electronics industry

By K.S.Parthasarathy

“If, with all the science and technology at our command and all the bright minds that this country can boast of, we are not in a position to provide a full meal a day for the hundreds of millions of people in this country, supply clothing of any kind to cover themselves with decency or offer shelter to live in dignity, we, the scientists and engineers forming the intellectual core of the society have as much blame to share”.

In 1990, Dr A.S.Rao, who is known as the father of electronics industry in India reminded the participants of the Fifth National Convocation of Electronic and Telecommunication Engineers at New Delhi. His anguished words were a reflection of his own personal experience.

Dr.Ayyagiri Sambasiva Rao was born on September 20, 1914 at Mogallu West Godavari district in Andhra Pradesh. “Our family was quite poor and it was difficult to provide an environment when we could even eat well, leave alone study and come up”, he remembered later.On October 31 this year, we will be observing the third death anniversary of Dr Rao.

After his B.Sc, he went to Banaras Hindu University (BHU) to pursue his M. Sc. studies “neither for money nor for a better job but for the sheer excitement and satisfaction of getting university education”

Short of funds, he returned to Rajamundri to attend a B.Ed degree course. Later, he managed to get a scholarship at BHU. He applied for admission to Stanford University. A letter of recommendation from Dr.S.Radhakrishnan the then Vice Chancellor of BHU and a letter of admission from Professor Skilling enabled him to secure a loan of Rs.7000/- and a gift of Rs.5000/- from the Tata Endowment.

He could depart only after a delay of 9 months as he had difficulty to get a berth due to war. He could join the university only during the second quarter. By then, the war was over. Government offered priority to veterans for admission and financial aid.

Prof. Skilling could not give him the promised funds. Based on a good report on his progress from the Professor, Tata Endowment granted another Rs.4000/-.Rao got the ‘Degree of Engineer’ from the Leland Stanford Junior University on June 15, 1947.

On his return from USA, he met Dr.Homi Bhabha who asked him to join the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR) to assist him in his cosmic ray related project.

Rao, Raja Ramanna, Singhvi and N B Prasad under the able guidance of Dr Bhabha designed and constructed APSARA, a swimming pool reactor at Trombay on August 4, 1956 within 12 months of starting the project. In the project, Dr Rao was responsible for electronics, control systems and health physics.

Later, the Electronics Division of the Atomic Energy Establishment Trombay completed the installation and commissioning of control systems for CIRUS and Zerlina reactors under his guidance.

They designed and fabricated radiation monitors, computers, TV receivers, ultrasonic flaw detectors, various electronic circuits and components, semiconductors, ceramics, carbon and metal film detectors etc.

In 1963, in the aftermath of the Chinese war, Government set up a national committee on electronics with Dr Bhabha as its Chairman and Drs A S Rao, Vikram Sarabhai, S Bhagavantham as members to take stock of existing status of electronics in the country, assess its potential and to prepare a 10 year master plan.

Bhabha Committee report, for which Dr Rao was the Chief Draughtsman, became a blue print for the development of electronics in India.

In 1967, the Government set up the Electronics Corporation of India (ECIL) to convert R & D products into production. Under Dr Rao’s leadership, ECIL grew from strength to strength. Dr.Rao and his team never looked back. The Nation honoured him with Padma Bhushan.

In a commemorative volume published by ECIL on April 11, 2004 (Founder’s Day, ECIL), his colleagues, associates and friends paid glowing tributes to his contributions. Most of them wrote on his role to make the country self reliant in electronics.

They called him one of the pioneers who laid the foundation of Indian nuclear programme, the architect of Bhabha committee report, a man of quiet charm and dignity, an extraordinary individual who could never be ruffled and angered, a dedicated and brilliant scientist, honest to the core and above all a humanist, a man of utter simplicity, an outstanding example of plain living and high thinking,

A close associate recalls that while on the Board of Directors of KELTRON, he preferred to travel by train to Trivandrum in spite of KELTRON’s request that he may travel by air!

Another colleague reveals that he was a real communist at heart; Dr Rao did not believe in God. Dr Rao knew the dignity of labour; an associate recollects that he won a dish washing competition, when he was in USA!

His hallmark dress; white pant, white shirt, red tie and cream colour jacket left an indelible impression on every one. Though he became a total recluse after retirement, many of his associates ran to him for guidance ignoring the “No Visitors” board at his residence. They always found a friend, philosopher and guide in him.

PTI Feature

[Dr. K.S. Parthasarathy is former Secretary, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, Mumbai]

Atomic Energy Budget for 2007-2008

PTI FEATURE

SCIENCE BUDGET

PF-43/2007

VOL NO XXIII(11)-2007 DATED MARCH 17, 2007

Atomic Energy Budget For 2007-2008

-By Dr K.S. Parthasarathy

The Union Budget presented by Finance Minister P Chidambaram contained notable hikes in the funds allocated to the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE). The Finance Minister has set apart Rs 3796.85 crore for the DAE for 2007-08 as against Rs 3173.22 crore last year.

DAE plans to complete an impressive array of projects which include the participation in the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) and the international projects at European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, setting up of National Institute of Science Education and Research (NISER) at Bhubaneswar , execution of a few projects by the Board for Radiation and Isotope Technology (BRIT) and continuation of the development of fast reactor technology at the Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research among others.

On December 2, 2005, the European Union agreed to include India in the 10 billion euro project to build an experimental fusion reactor at Cadarache in France. The other partners of ITER are China, European Union, Japan, Korea, Russia and USA.

The Institute of Plasma Research (IPR) located at Gandhinagar, the Indian Agency contributing to the project has been carrying out research in basic and applied plasma physics. IPR receives Rs 201.64 crore for 2007-08. This is a significant increase compared to Rs 91.06 crore allotted for the previous year. Of the amount allotted, about Rs 101crore will be for ITER; last year’s revised estimate for ITER was Rs 40 crore.

Fusion technology is complex. When scientists bring together the nuclei of heavy isotopes of hydrogen, they fly apart! To get them behave, we have to heat them to 100 million degrees; then they fuse and produce large amounts of energy. Specialists claim that one kg of fusion fuel would produce the same energy as 10 million kg of fossil fuels (Reuters, December 2, 2005)

We have to operate at least one experimental reactor to see whether it will be useful as a source of energy. Specialists will construct ITER in ten years. The reactor will produce a fusion power of 500 MW for a burn length of 400 seconds.

India will contribute equipment worth 500 million dollars to the experiment and will participate in its subsequent operation and experiments. The equipment will largely be made by Indian industries. Experience gained by Indian scientists and engineers from ITER will be invaluable.

The National Institute of Science Education and Research (NISER) at Bhubaneswar will undertake integrated 5-year Master’s courses in core and emerging branches of science to provide world-class education to students after 10+2 stage. It can also include an integrated MSc-PhD programme after graduate level studies.

“I am confident that the NISER will become a Mecca for science just as the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research and Indian Institute of Science are today”, Prime Minister declared on August 28,2006 while announcing the setting up of NISER. The budget for 2007-08 has provided Rs 20 crore for NISER.

For 2007-08, the Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research (IGCAR) receives an allocation of Rs 289.20 crore as against the last year’s revised estimate of about Rs 258 crore

The mood is upbeat in IGCAR and rightly, its website flashes the message “Fast reactors for energy security”.

Apart from augmenting the different facilities, the Centre will intensify the ongoing R&D programmes on Fast Breeder Reactor (FBR) and fuel reprocessing materials. The Centre will carry out engineering experiments to qualify component designs and to generate data for validating computer codes, based on scale model/full scale models in sodium and water and validation of innovative design features of future fast breeder reactors.

IGCAR will provide R&D support to develop fabrication routes for mixed oxide as well as metallic fuels for fast reactors; work on metallic fuel will be continued, with appropriate augmentation in the facilities.

The Centre plans to replace the aged mechanical, electrical and Instrumentation& Control (I&C) systems of Fast Breeder Test Reactor (FBTR), the flagship of the centre, which attained criticality in 1985. This will help to operate the reactor for 20 more years.

IGCAR will augment existing capabilities with new techniques/ facilities in the areas of irradiation experiments, post irradiation examination, non-destructive evaluation (NDE) and in-service inspection techniques, remote handling, automation and robotics.

Other fields of interest are nanotechnology with a focus in the area of gas sensors, micro electro mechanical systems (MEMS) and hard coatings. IGCAR may develop an array of chemical sensors based on nanomaterials and nanotechnology to detect and monitor simultaneously a group of gases in the fast reactor and reprocessing plant environments.

From the allocation of Rs 71.32 crore, BRIT set apart Rs 21.84 crore for 2007-08. The Board will procure, install and commission a 30 Mev medical cyclotron at Kolkata at a cost of 14.78 crore. It will also commission an integrated facility for radiation technology costing Rs 4.91 crore at its Vashi complex to fabricate and handle cobalt-60 sources of high activity

The Board will augment the existing radioisotope production facilities to meet the demand, to ensure enhanced safety of the products and to promote the application of radioisotopes for the benefit of society. It has plans to develop remotely operated, indigenous, High Dose Rate (HDR) Brachytherapy equipment. Establishing the complete process and facilities to fabricate and supply iridium-192 HDR sources will help in saving foreign exchange and will give a shot in the arm of radiotherapy centres nation wide.

BRIT will start a new automated facility to produce Mo 99 - Tc 99 m column generators, the workhorses in nuclear medicine.

The Budget indicated increases in the allocation for Bhabha Atomic Research Centre Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre, Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, and Institute of Physics.

On August 28, 2006, while announcing the setting up of the National Institute of Science Education and Research (NISER), Prime Minister Manmohan Singh stated that our expenditure on Science and Technology (S&T) is about 1% of our GDP. He conceded that this is half of what developed countries are devoting to S&T.

He said that we should strive to reach the target of 2% in the 11^th plan. The increased allocation to DAE is hopefully the harbinger for greater governmental support to S&T.

Dr K.S.Parthasarathy is former Secretary AER Board

PTI FEATURE