News item in Sunday Times (Sept. 7, 2014) Cancer behind 70% deaths in India’s atomic energy hubs

The change in the cell's genetic material may occur spontaneously or be brought on by an agent (a carcinogen) that causes cancer ultimately. There are hundreds of reasons such as pollution, family history, cigarette smoking, intake of alcohol, exhausts from vehicles, etc for initiation of mutation in the body. As compared to these, radiation is a weak carcinogen.

 

It is a well-known fact that aging is associated with a number of events at the molecular, cellular and physiologic levels in our body that influence carcinogenesis and subsequent cancer growth. It is also well documented that the incidence of malignant tumors increases progressively with age, in both animals and humans. Cancer is an old-age disease. 

 

It is experimentally known that it is rather impossible to detect clinically any biological effects caused by radiation up to the cumulative radiation dose of 100 mSv. Dose limits for occupational workers are fixed on this basis, and assuming a linear non-threshold relationship between dose and its effect. This assumption is not based on sound experimental results. The well-known protective mechanisms in the body such as biological repair mechanism, adaptive response of the cells, and reported positive biological effects (radiation hormesis) which are prevalent at low dose exposure situations, are not considered by the international organizations (such as ICRP) while formulating the limits. This is an unrealistic assumption and should be challenged scientifically.

 

A clearer understanding of these events will help in predicting, and scientifically explaining the incidences of cancer.

 

The radiation doses received by workers in most of the DAE facilities are in the range of natural background radiation dose to which all human being are exposed. The increase, if at all true, may not be related to the small radiation doses received by the workers and the members of the public living near nuclear facilities. The risk from the exposures is trivial.  

 

It is reported that majority of deaths of persons in DAE centres are caused from cancer. If this is true, department should investigate the reasons other than radiation exposure for such a trend.

 

One most probable reason is the excellent health care facilities for DAE employees, families and the retirees might have caused significant increase in the life expectancy, and the malignancy is likely to be detected mostly in elder people. This can be confirmed by the age at which cancer is diagnosed among the people. There can be only some exceptions like childhood cancers.

 

We should be telling the truth to the public that cancer is an OLD-AGE DISEASE, nothing much to do radiation exposure. Millions of people are dying of cancers related to smoking, use of tobacco and consumption of alcohol!

Skin dose estimates

The personal dose equivalent at 10 mm depth, Hp(10), is used to provide an estimate of effective dose for comparison with the appropriate dose limits. As Hp (0.07) is used to estimate the equivalent dose to skin, it should be used for extremity monitoring, where the skin dose (500 mSv) is the limiting quantity. It is also possible to use the TLD cards to assess beta ray doses provided that the beta ray energy is greater than 70 keV. Beta rays below this energy will not reach the TLD card. 

In nuclear fuel cycle facilities, personnel are exposed to various types of radionuclides of different energies. Radiation environment is different in different facilities. Skin dose for the workers can be significant. Estimate of the skin dose is not easy. It depends on energy spectrum and the dosimeter used. Often, one has to calibrate the dosimety system for a particular facility. 

The absorbed doses by the TLD below the open window of the cassette used to hold the card, and the TLD under the plastic filter are used to estimate the beta component of the exposure. The estimates needs to be multiplied by the tissue weighting factor for the skin (0.01) to get the contribution of the skin dose to the whole body dose. This needs to done and entered in the personnel dose records, particularly so for the workers in: nuclear fuel production and fabrication facilities; in fuel reprocessing plants; workers near spent fuel storage bays and operators of radiopharmaceutical production facilities.       

Ethical aspects of radiological protection

Virtue ethics

 

It is well known that early applications of radiation resulted in severe injuries to the exposed personnel. Examples are: Use of X-rays and use of radium compounds for painting the watch dials. Such effects are now known as deterministic effects of radiation exposure. For radiological protection, under such situations, the control was to reduce the dose levels to the individuals to prevent such deterministic effects. Virtue ethics is concerned with the actions for complete well-being of a person, and a person-based decision to act and provide guidance to prevent severe health effects in all such radiation exposure situations.  

 

Utilitarian approach to ethics

 

In this approach, the consequences of a given radiation exposure is assessed. Action which produces the maximum benefits over harms for everyone affected or exposed is accepted as the morally right course of action. All the available options and the general balance of short-term and long-term benefit over the harm to all persons are considered. This is the justification process based on cost-benefit analysis. Dose limits, based on stochastic considerations provide the upper-bounds for optimization.

 

Duty-based or Deontological ethics

Duty-based (Deontological) ethics are concerned with what people do and not with the consequences of their actions. People have a duty to do the right thing or take right decision even if it produces consequences which may not be acceptable to all.  The Duty-based ethical systems expects due regard to be given to even to small group of persons even if the actions are at odds with the interests of a larger group. Dose constraints/risk constraints are considered for optimization of protection.

The current recommendations of the ICRP emphasize more duty-based ethics, giving more importance to the control of individual doses than to the collective dose and cost-benefit analysis. Exposure to individuals is controlled by the use of dose/risk constraints on multiple sources of exposure.   

New ICRP Publication: Protection of the Environment under Different Exposure Situations, ICRP Publication 124, Ann. ICRP 43(1), 2014

R.J. Pentreath, J. Lochard, C-M. Larsson, D.A. Cool, P. Strand, J. Simmonds, D. Copplestone, D. Oughton, E. Lazo

 

In this report, the ICRP describes the framework for protection of the environment and how it should be applied within the Commission’s system of protection. The report relates to the protection of animals and plants (biota) in their natural environment, and how these can be met by the use of Reference Animals and Plants (RAPs); their Derived Consideration Reference Levels (DCRLs), which relate radiation effects to doses over and above their normal local background natural radiation levels; and different potential pathways of exposure.

 

The report explains the different types of exposure situations to which its recommendations apply; the key principles that are relevant to protection of the environment; and hence how reference values based on the use of DCRLs can be used to inform on the appropriate level of effort relevant to different exposure situations. Further recommendations are made with regard to how the Commission’s recommendations can be implemented to satisfy different forms of environmental protection objectives, which may require the use of representative organisms specific to a site, and how these may be compared with the reference values. Issues that may arise in relation to compliance are also discussed, and the final chapter discusses the overall implications of the Commission’s work in this area to date. Appendices A and B provide some numerical information relating to the RAPs. Annex C considers various existing types of environmental protection legislation currently in place in relation to large industrial sites and practices, and the various ways in which wildlife are protected from various threats arising from such sites (Source: www.icrp.org).

Reply to the Times of India News entitled: ”Anti-radiation activists squirm as panel rubbishes IIT prof’s claim”

This has reference to the news item in Times of India, February 26, 2014 entitled ”Anti-radiation activists squirm as panel rubbishes IIT prof’s claim”.

I am connected with the radiation protection field for over 4 decades. I can say with confidence that biological effect of radiation is a highly complex subject involving studies at molecular levels, and there are hundreds of such agents in the environment and in our diet which can affect the DNA and cause health effects. Natural background radiation is one such agent which can also contribute significantly to the effect. The ionising part of the natural background radiation is more potent as compared to the non-ionising radiation emitted by the mobile towers.

Hence, exaggerating the health effects caused by the non-ionising radiation (EMF radiation), which is still not confirmed scientifically, is uncalled for. If at all necessary, one should consult a micro/molecular biologist rather than an electrical engineer, and take his/her opinion on this subject.

The question is: can anyone be sure that the so-called reported health effects can be exclusively attributed to radiation from mobile towers and not from natural background radiation to which we are all exposed day-in day-out?