Your Comments Needed on Cancer Risk Study Proposals

In late 2010, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requested that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Nuclear Radiation and Studies Board (NRSB) investigate the cancer risks around NRC-licensed facilities. In April of 2012, the NAS NRSB released Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations near Nuclear Facilities: Phase I. The public has until May 30 to submit comments to crs@nas.edu or via fax 202-334-3077 on this nearly 400-page report. Beyond Nuclear has reviewed the report and has concluded the following:

The Phase I report recognizes many of the shortcomings of prior health studies including the imperfection of relying on data from the atomic bomb exposures in Japan, and investigation of cancer deaths only rather than examining incidence.

We support a case-control study as outlined by the NAS phase one report but NOT the ecologic study the NAS seems to be proposing if it contains dose estimates which rely on industry data or if it includes adults. In general, a case-control study of childhood cancer will be the most scientifically defensible and probably the least expensive.

We like that the NAS report recognizes industry collected effluent data and environmental contamination data are incomplete and not reliable for reconstructing doses for individuals. However, the NAS goes on to claim that effluent release data could be used to estimate dose to populations and that environmental contamination sampling could be used to establish the highest dose anyone in the public receives.

Beyond Nuclear contends that an upper dose limit should NOT be established based on measurements of environmental contamination because these data don't give a complete picture of TOTAL environmental contamination over the operational life of a nuclear facility. As a general principal, we would point out that industry effluent and contamination data is so unreliable, no health study should hinge on it. Dose estimates are not necessary to perform a health assessment, and if based on bad data, may actually act to obscure the truth. If a dose assessment is to be performed it should be de-coupled from an epidemiological assessment and done as a separate investigation. This holds true for environmental contamination assessments as well.

Viable, scientifically independent and defensible studies can be conducted based on many of the principles and methods detailed in the NAS Phase I report. But clearly, some of these Phase I report assumptions must be abandoned in order to obtain a scientifically supportable and publicly acceptable picture of cancer risks around nuclear facilities. It is our job, as members of the public, to weigh in on which methods are appropriate. Please send your comments to NAS to crs@nas.edu or via fax 202-334-3077. Feel free to integrate our thoughts expressed above into your statement. Beyond Nuclear will be submitting formal comments as well.

The Low-Level Radiation Puzzle

In the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists this month, "...guest editor, Jan Beyea, an environmental scientist who has opposed nuclear reactors for decades and worked on epidemiological studies at Three Mile Island, takes a hard look at the power industry.

"Dr. Beyea challenges a concept adopted by American safety regulators about small doses of radiation. The prevailing theory is that the relationship between dose and effect is linear – that is, that if a big dose is bad for you, half that dose is half that bad, and a quarter of that dose is one-quarter as bad, and a millionth of that dose is one-millionth as bad, with no level being harmless.

"The idea is known as the “linear no-threshold hypothesis,’’ and while most scientists say there is no way to measure its validity at the lower end, applying it constitutes a conservative approach to public safety.

"...Dr. Beyea contends that small doses could actually be disproportionately worse.

"[He] proposes that doses spread out over time might be more dangerous than doses given all at once. He suggests two reasons: first, some effects may result from genetic damage that manifests itself only after several generations of cells have been exposed, and, second, a “bystander effect,” in which a cell absorbs radiation and seems unhurt but communicates damage to a neighboring cell, which can lead to cancer. New York Times

119 of 132 people positive from sampling survey of radioactive substances in urine in Iwate

Iwate prefecture conducted sampling survey of radioactive substances in urine in Ichinoseki city and Oshu city.

The result published on 3/2/2012 shows cesium was measured from 119 of 132 people (90.1%). The highest reading was 6 Bq/L.

On 4/16/2012, the chairman of Iwate association of obstetricians and gynecologists, Kobayashi sent public questions to Tasso, Iwate governor. More.