Radiation: Is It Good For You?

A Tale of Two Models

By The Ghost of Sir Edward Coke

with permission for VT

Well according to Ann Coulter appearing on Fox News it can be. Her inspired and informed view of course is from the perspective of a troll appearing on a network notable for trolling, manipulation and deception.

Whilst the Ann Coulter stance is obviously disinformation or misinformation, other “more reputable sources” we are presented with may also be less than accurate and fail to fully inform us of the facts.

For a cheap laugh watch this:-

[youtube FXFUUGeV1DI]

In the real world the dangers posed by elements radioactive are calculated using “risk models”. A risk model represents a combined body of opinion of “experts” usually backed up by data and peer reviewed research. A report is usually produced, recommendations are made and a methodology for the calculation of risk provided. Governments and other organizations then use this to determine the position and “keep us informed”.

In the case of radiation and reporting in the UK the two available models are the International System of Radiological Protection (ICRP) model and the European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR) model. Both profess to provide an appropriate risk model for us to calculate and predict the effects of radiation on humans and the environment but beware there are significant differences between them.

Using one of these models for instance enables us to accurately predict the levels of cancer caused as the result of environmental contamination in the population backed up with real data from real events and the other does not.

[youtube mXgmGLXuG6U]

One of these models allows us to understand how elements of a high atomic number such as the Uranium fallout we all now receive from the use of DU weapons alter the absorption characteristics of tissues in which they are embedded. This is very important. We all have some DU in us thanks to Uncle Sam, Tony Blair, Mr Cameron, Sarkozy and others. As ever some are more equal than others and some of us have absorbed a lot more DU than others like troops, aid workers and civilians, who live in the Middle East or Afghanistan, have lots more than us in the UK. The DU club is a globally inclusive one, so there is no need for you or your children to feel left out at all.

So which model to use? Which represents the true facts and which does not?

In a potential extinction scenario making the right choice is clearly most important.

Excerpts from the 2010 ECRR Report …. A taster.

In 2009, in an update of the study reported in ECRR2003, a meta-analysis of data on the epidemiology of infant leukaemia after Chernobyl, showed a statistically significant 43% excess in those children who were in utero at the time of the Chernobyl fallout: the error that this highlighted in comparing external and internal exposures was a 600-fold error (Busby 2009)

None of these issues were incorporated into the 2007 ICRP report which ignored all the evidence and cited a selection of research papers which supported its own model. The ICRP took its evidence from UNSCEAR 2006 which in turn failed to cite any evidence that showed that the ICRP risk model was falsified by data.

[youtube SbGZuarOFwU]

Further, it has been increasingly clear that the internal exposures to fission product fallout and to Uranium from atmospheric weapons tests has been the principle cause of the current cancer epidemic, a matter which was presented in ECRR2003. Legal cases and test veteran tribunals are now routinely won on the basis of ECRR2003 and its arguments (e.g. Dyson 2009) Government agencies increasingly employ the model to scope the outcomes of new practice, placing the out-dated ICRP model at one extreme and the ECRR model at the other.

The support and encouragement for the new model, and its success in many court cases (where it was invariably set against the ICRP model) was perhaps assisted by the increasing evidence from Chernobyl fallout exposures and from examination of Depleted Uranium effects which were emerging at the time of ECRR2003. The success of the ECRR model is that it gives the correct answer to the question about the numbers of cancers and other illnesses that follow an exposure to internal fission products. This is immediately clear to anyone: to juries and judges as well as ordinary members of the public. It received powerful support from reports of increases in cancer in Belarus after Chernobyl and also from the epidemiological studies of Martin Tondel of cancer in northern Sweden published in 2004: Tondel’s findings of a statistically significant 11% increase in cancer per 100kBq/m2 Cs-137 contamination from Chernobyl are almost exactly predicted by the ECRR2003 model.

There have also been developments in laboratory science that can be explained in the new model but are quite impossible to explain in the old ICRP model. One of these is the understanding that elements of high atomic number, like Uranium (but also non-radioactive elements like Platinum, Gold etc.) have the ability to alter the absorption characteristics of tissues in which they are embedded. Uranium is the central element around which the nuclear fuel cycle revolves, and huge quantities of the substance have been contaminating the biosphere since early in the last century. It is therefore necessary to update the ECRR risk model and include consideration of these ‘phantom radiation effects’. The widespread dispersion of Uranium from weapons usage has made it necessary to add a chapter on Uranium weapons. Since its founding in Brussels in 1998, the ECRR has been joined by many eminent radiation scientists from many countries. It will be clear from this new revised edition that the pressure on politicians and scientists to change their understanding of the health effects of ionizing radiation is now too great to ignore.

The embarrassment of the ICRP came to a head with the matter of Uranium photoelectron enhancement, a new development which is discussed in the present report. This idea, which considers the absorbing medium and its atomic variability, rather than assuming uniform tissue-equivalent material, shows Uranium to be hundreds of times more dangerous than is currently modelled by ICRP due to its high atomic number. ICRP and other satellite agencies have been unable to respond credibly to this development yet nothing has changed and Uranium exposures continue to be sanctioned. Over the period many studies of epigenetic effects, such as bystander signalling and genomic instability have continued to falsify the scientific basis of the ICRP model, the clonal expansion theory of cancer. The model is now bankrupt.

Excerpts end

Have you made a choice yet? Perhaps a good indicator of the efficacy of the ECRR findings is the attitude and reaction of the established order to the report in 2003.

Excerpt

The Committee on Radiation Risk from Internal Emitters CERRIE was set up by the UK Environment Minister Michael Meacher in 2001 along just these lines. Its remit was to discuss the evidence for the failure of the ICRP model for internal emitters and present both evidence which supported and opposed such a belief. In the event, this process failed when the Minister was removed in 2003 before the final report was published and a new Environment Minister, Elliot Morley, was appointed by Tony Blair. Morley shut down the Committee before it could carry out the key research which had been agreed to decide the issue and legal threats were used to prevent the oppositional report being included (see endnote Morley 2010). The minority oppositional report (which was excluded by the legal threats) was separately published in 2004.

Excerpt ends

Let us consider two key figures in the above excerpt. Are they honest?

The discerning reader will no doubt already be all too familiar with Anthony Charles Lynton Blair aka “Miranda” and matters of honesty so I will waste no more time on her.

Elliot Morley, the former environment minister who has admitted fiddling his expenses by £32000, is facing the longest prison sentence….

Do you trust them to act in the public interest?

The full ECRR report may be found here. I would recommend that everyone reads it although it is technical and approx. 180 pages long. You will then be well informed.

ECRR Recommendations 2010

Also

ECRR Uranium report 2010

In order to remain fair and balanced I also provide a link to the ICRP website although I suspect they may be a bit off colour and suffering from FoxNewsitus.

Here you can find the latest ICRP wisdoms on the Fukushima nuclear power plant accident. Their recent update on 2011-03-21 is quite interesting. It seems the scientists are not all that keen on being too near to Japan. Is this an indicator of the risk?

Excerpt

“We are closely following the tremendous efforts of the professionals in Japan dealing with this difficult situation and, during our upcoming meeting in Seoul, are planning to review lessons learned in relation to our recommendations on emergency exposure situations.”

Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Accident.pdf

And now we finally get to the point of this exercise. How does this affect readers in the UK and Eire in the current context?

Clearly everyone is concerned about fallout from the Fukushima disaster and we expect the powers that be to provide us with an up to date honest appraisal of events, full details of any radioisotope contamination that may be taking place and an assessment of the risks posed as a result. This in order that we are fully informed and are able to make our decisions regarding any precautionary action we may feel is essential to preserve our future wellbeing.

In the UK this information is provided by the Health Protection Agency although you will need to visit the “press releases” part of the site to find it.

Here is part of their latest statement.

Weekly update on the Fukushima Incident

14 April 2011

The Health Protection Agency, Environment Agency, Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Northern Ireland Environment Agency monitoring stations have reported further minute traces of radiation associated with events at the Fukushima nuclear facility in Japan. Overall, the levels are lower than those observed in last week’s update.

The levels being detected mean there is no risk to public health in the United Kingdom from the environmental concentrations resulting from the release of radioactive material at the Fukushima nuclear power plant. The monitoring equipment is extremely sensitive and can pick up trace levels well below any potential risk to human health.

Excerpt ends

We have lately been breathing iodine-131, caesium-137, caesium-137 and previously tellurium-132.

Lucky for us the readings are low providing we are not being deceived.

You may note the phrase “well below any potential risk to human health.”

That phrase is very important and this is where the choice of risk model becomes crucial. In order to contextualise that statement and the HPA risk assessment criteria it’s vital to know what risk model they employ, otherwise you are still in the dark. How do they calculate it’s safe for us humans?

Oddly for such published scientific data they make no declaration on the risk model. I looked elsewhere on this site and no declaration was to be found. Not to be deterred I requested the HPA clarify things. Below is their response received on the 15^th of April 2011.

Thank you for your email regarding the detection of very small amounts of radioactive material in the UK due to releases from the Fukushima reactor.

As noted on our website, the estimated radiation exposures due to these low levels are about 1/10,000 of the dose received due to natural background radiation. We assess the health risks of such radiation using the accepted international scientific consensus and ICRP recommendations. This consensus is based on decades of scientific research on radiation risks and is reviewed by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR). Even if we had used the ECRR changes to risk factors which are not the scientific consensus, the conclusions that there is no significant risk to the UK public would still stand.

I hope this has been helpful.

Regards

Ros Thorne

Information Office
Centre for Radiation, Chemical & Environmental Hazards (CRCE)
Health Protection Agency (HPA)
Chilton
Didcot, Oxon
OX11 0RQ

So now we are informed that the ICRP risk model is employed, what do you think?

Do you feel assured now you know that the HPA are using an out of date inaccurate risk model which does not represent the real world?

Or do you feel ever so slightly just a little bit let down and disappointed?

Remember it is inconceivable that the nuclear boffins and the regulators are unaware of the ECRR model and the full implications thereof.

Pr. Chris Busby: ECRR-model for radioactivity risk protection

Fukushima Japan “A pack of lies” Professor Christopher Busby ECRR

To be fair to your elected representatives most of them probably haven’t a clue; not a clue about radiation and not a clue about risk models.

Assuming that they are unlikely to read this document or the ECRR documents it seems fair to assume that they probably never will.

That is unless you the reader inform them. Then they will be informed. Google “depleted uranium babies” and send them the pictures. Why not copy, paste and email this document to them? A lack of subsequent action on their part should give you a clue as to what their motives and loyalties are. Do they care about you and yours at all?

You may also feel that it is appropriate to inform health professionals, other interested and affected parties so you can be sure they will not be aware of the facts as they are presented here.

Coming soon:- WAR, WIND, Depleted Uranium and What It Means For Your Future.

Short URL