The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
Perhaps this link will help you get started: http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/cat25.html
It's from the Health Physics Society. Health physicists are usually radiobiologists who specialize in measuring radiation health effects.
Usually laypeople do not distinguish between low-dose and high dose exposure.
Everyone in the field of radiobiology agrees that the effects of low-dose radiation are extremely hard to detect. I don't know about Swiss nuclear plants, but the estimated exposure from an American nuclear plant is .0009 millirem. The average global exposure from natural background radiation is around 240 millirem. So it is extremely hard to identify a single case of cancer or a mutation as being definitely caused by radiation exposure. The only way you can tell is epidemiologically. You need a large population, like the atomic bomb survivors, and you compare their rates of ailments known to be caused by radiation exposure with those of a control population.
A lot of studies have been done of the Chernobyl area on humans and other species. See the report of the Chernobyl Forum--a group of 11 different international agencies (WHO, etc.). The humans who were exposed to radioactive material from the reactor accident do not exhibit higher rates of leukemia than the rest of the population, although this had been expected. The 2,000-plus cases of thyroid cancer are attributed to radio-iodine uptake from the reactor emissions. This could have been avoided if the Soviets had distributed potassium iodide. In Poland, where that was done, there is no increase in thyroid cancer. Fortunately it is a very treatable cancer. In fact, it is treated by irradiating the thyroid. Today the Exclusion Zone around Chernobyl has an average background radiation lower than that of parts of Spain, France, Finland, Brazil, Iran, China, and the US. This is because the land is naturally low in uranium, radium, and thorium ore.
Nuclear medicine exposes millions of people annually to diagnostic and therapeutic radiation, sometimes very high doses to kill tumors. Many studies have been done of the effects of these dosages. The people I know who have undergone such treatments are happy to have had their lives extended.
So, to be specific:
Could you link me to literature which has measured genetic mutations in insects around various sites--including nuclear (and chemical etc...) against a control group of some kind? Cornelia Hesse-Honegger's interest was in insects, and she was trying to highlight (if I've understood correctly) that such comparative research wasn't being undertaken. Her pictures were to highlight this, I think, and to show what her (biased, non-scientific, partial...etc...) resarch had discovered, which was (she claims in the mother jones quote above) a raised (from 3% to 15%) incidence of mutations around nuclear sites. Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
The subject is very big, but here are some links that might get you started:
http://www.lowdose.energy.gov/99meeting/abstracts/joiner.html
insect radiation resistance http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2003-12/1072227809.Zo.r.html
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=384122
Also, even though you are interested in insect welfare vis-a-vis nuclear plants, you should know that the National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute did a study of populations living around nuclear facilities and found that they did not have higher rates of cancer than populations who did not live near nuclear facilities. http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/nuclear-facilities
My question wasn't about whether insects could survive greater levels of radiation than humans. It was about whether there are any studies out there that you know of that debunk Cornelia Hesse-Honegger's contentions re: genetic mutations (rather than death) in insect populations around nuclear sites (and chemical etc...) against control groups.
The reason I asked is that both you and NNadir replied to my post with the comment that genetic mutation is natural and so there was no news here...Cornelia Hesse-Honegger was saying (if I've understood her) that the rates of mutation were much higher around nuclear sites than one would expect. As she worked in a lab dealing with genetic mutations...ach...
If her...field notes...have been disproven (by research)...I'd like a link to a page about it...is all. Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
And well they SHOULD!
You don't say this, but radiation damage does not fall off as expected with decreasing dosage--and certainly not linearly!
This has been a medical surprise. While standards for high level dosage were got in hand early, through the course of the 20th century low levels standards had to be revised upward several times.
Low level radiation is MORE dangerous than it "ought" to be!
Also, for many chemical poisons, there is a threshold below which you either recover without lingering effects, or don't take damage. Below such a threshold you really are safe.
Radiation is not like that. You ALWAYS take damage, in the form of a chance of lethal cancer, illness, mutation or the like.
In the proper sense of the word, there is NO safe dosage.
(Not even Earth background is safe, though at least it IS several ORDERS of magnitude lower than the exposures you contemplate.)
And that is another thing about the nuke industry--the only valid comparison is with Earth background. Above that, you are talking excess cancers, illness, &c. And yes you can ask, well, how many, indeed that is what you should ask, because every single one above background is a death caused by deliberate human action. The Fates are kind.
by gmoke - Nov 28
by gmoke - Nov 12 7 comments
by Oui - Dec 2
by Oui - Dec 18 comments
by Oui - Dec 1
by gmoke - Nov 302 comments
by Oui - Nov 3012 comments
by Oui - Nov 2837 comments
by Oui - Nov 278 comments
by Oui - Nov 2511 comments
by Oui - Nov 24
by Oui - Nov 221 comment
by Oui - Nov 22
by Oui - Nov 2119 comments
by Oui - Nov 1615 comments
by Oui - Nov 154 comments
by Oui - Nov 1319 comments
by Oui - Nov 1224 comments
by gmoke - Nov 127 comments
by Oui - Nov 1114 comments
by Oui - Nov 10