- During the 1950s and 1960s and years of nuclear testing
at the Nevada test site, U.S. government scientists tried to convince
the nervous public of the health "benefits" of nuclear radiation.
As a result, many people in the West and Southwest were exposed to dangerous
levels of radiation fallout with resultant health problems and increased
cancer rates, all of which the government repeatedly denied. (Read or google
the scientific turnabout years later in the shocking Congressional report
published as THE HUMAN RADIATION EXPERIMENTS, Oxford University Press,
1996)
-
- Now some scientists are again proclaiming "radiation
at moderate levels is beneficial."
- Is a little poison good for you also??? What are these
scientists smoking?
-
- Surely, these radiation 'experts' can't be serious, but
this BBC report indicates they are.
- One wonders if someday these same scientists will assure
us that a "little marijuana ingestion" is beneficial also. Or,
do a lot of people already know that? :-)
-
- Alan Cantwell, M.D.
-
- Can A Little Radiation Be A Good Thing?
-
- By Michelle Roberts
- BBC News Online health staff
-
- It is widely accepted that high doses of radiation are
harmful and can cause cancers like leukaemia.
-
- The aftermath of atomic bomb explosions and fallout from
nuclear weapons tests and radiation accidents are proof of this.
-
- But some experts believe a little radiation may actually
be good for you.
-
- They say low-dose exposure to radiation, such as through
x-rays and other medical scans, could have a positive effect on the body,
in addition to diagnosing diseases.
-
- But others, including experts who advise the government
on radiation levels, say any exposure could increase the chance of cancer.
-
- Dr Paul Dubbins from the Royal College of Radiologists
explained: "The scientific community sits on exactly opposite sides
of the divide.
-
- "And both groups have scientific evidence and reports
to support their position so it depends on which side of the scientific
divide you sit."
-
- So, who should you believe?
-
- Dr Dubbins said: "In this country, what we have
done is use the data predominantly derived from Hiroshima and the incidence
of cancers and leukaemias from people exposed to radiation during Hiroshima.
-
- The most sensible scientific judgement you can make is
that any level is harmful.
- Dr Michael Clarke from the National Radiological Protection
Board
-
- "If you extrapolate that information backwards you
assume that there is a linear response with no threshold - that any dose
of radiation is theoretically bad for you unless it can be balanced against
the benefits that you will get from a diagnosis.
-
- "So we will use radiation only if it is justified
by the clinical symptoms and clinical presentation.
-
- "Because of that approach, to reducing the impact
of radiation, this country has had the lowest rate of radiation-induced
cancer.
-
- "So in a sense, you takes your pick and you has
your choice.
-
- What are the risks?
-
- Researchers, who published their work in The Lancet medical
journal in January, calculated that the additional radiation exposure from
medical X-ray tests would increase a UK person's cumulative risk of developing
cancer by the age of 75 by 0.6%.
-
- This is equivalent to around 700 of the 124,000 new cases
of cancer diagnosed in the UK every year.
-
- Dr Michael Clarke from the National Radiological Protection
Board, which advises the government about safe radiation levels, said:
"We know radiation damages a cell's DNA.
-
- Ionising radiation
- It is the energy produced from natural and man-made radioactive
materials
- It is present in the environment because of naturally
occurring radioactive minerals
- Man-made sources include medical treatments and diagnostic
aids, industry and fallout from previous nuclear weapon explosions and
other accidents/incidents world-wide.
- Source: National Radiological Protection Board
-
- "The problem is that, with low doses, it is difficult
to do any experiments on animals or humans so we are basing things on our
assumptions.
-
- "The most sensible scientific judgement you can
make is that any level is harmful because that mechanism of damage to DNA
will happen even if only one cell is hit.
-
- "We think that's not a particularly good thing.
But of course it is a tiny risk."
-
- Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, former chairman of a United
Nations committee on radiation effects, disagrees.
-
- He said a study in the Iranian city of Ramsar had shown
people routinely exposed to 250mSv - which was much higher than the 70mSv
recommended as a safe background level of exposure in the UK at the time
- came to no harm.
-
- "There were many generations of people living in
these houses, and there was no evidence of any harm. One of the gentlemen
living there was more than 100 years old."
-
- 'Good radiation'
-
- Professor Jaworoski said the view that low levels of
radiation were harmful was little more than an "administrative assumption".
-
- There's no doubt in my mind that radiation at moderate
levels is beneficial.
- Professor John Cameron, professor emeritus from the
University of Wisconsin-Madison
-
- Professor John Cameron, professor emeritus from the University
of Wisconsin-Madison, believes low levels may actually be beneficial to
a person's health, boosting the body's immune system which fights off infections.
-
- "It's been known for some time that radiation stimulates
the immune system.
-
- "Studies show animals live longer with an increase
of radiation.
-
- "I believe a 100-year study of British radiologists
is the most important study of health effects of moderate dose rate radiation
ever published."
-
- It compared the death rates of British radiologists,
who registered with a radiological society between 1897 and 1979, from
cancer, non-cancer and all causes to those of all male non-radiologist
physicians in England and Wales.
-
- I do not think we will ever be closer to knowing for
sure.
- Professor Adrian Dixon, clinical director of Radiology
at Addenbrooke's Hospital in Cambridge
-
- Professor Cameron said: "There was no evidence of
an effect of radiation on diseases other than cancer even in the earliest
radiologists, despite the fact that doses of the size received by them
have been associated with more than a doubling in the death rate among
the survivors of the Japanese atomic bombings.
-
- "There's no doubt in my mind that radiation at moderate
levels is beneficial.
-
- "The trouble is none of these studies prove scientifically
that it is the case because we would need to do a randomised controlled
study - expose some people to radiation and others not."
-
- He said this would be hard to do in practice because
of the ethical problems it would pose.
-
- "So the evidence is anecdotal, but it's strong,"
he said.
-
- Professor Adrian Dixon, clinical director of Radiology
at Addenbrooke's Hospital in Cambridge, disagrees.
-
- "There's a bit of very tenuous research which doesn't
really outweigh the potential catastrophe.
-
- "It's curious that these is not a greater variation
of cancer in places with high background radiation.
-
- "But equally, they do not do any better so that
doesn't suggest that low dose is good for you either.
-
- "I do not think we will ever be closer to knowing
for sure."
-
- Story from BBC NEWS:
- http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/health/3642576.stm
-
- Published: 2004/10/23 00:51:24 GMT
-
- © BBC MMIV
|
