ML20064K550
| ML20064K550 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saxton File:GPU Nuclear icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/07/1979 |
| From: | Lapp R AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20027A651 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8102050059 | |
| Download: ML20064K550 (32) | |
Text
.
(' ,, , ' < -
f O J } f * **' o i . a; c:: i . 'S E I - .R I:NRT or Th:, I:;i ER/CE :CY T/S F Fo - cE 7 's >
' ! .' ' r. FOR R/J)IMION-RELATED ILL:; ESSES.
?cickcround:
The Department of Energy has received 965 c1'a'ims /
f .? - damages related to some form of cancer ( 30 different t.pe2 are specified, some with no demonstrated radiogenic association ) alleged to have resulted frcm exposure to radia-tion from radioactive fallout released by !!evada testing of nuclear devices during the 1950s.
Radiation Excesure:
B. Shicien (SuRad Health) has estimated the of f-site exposures in a document titled " External Exposure from Nuclear . Weapons Tests to the Of fsite Population around the ~
!!evada test site between 1951-1970 -A Summary of Estimates" Jan. 1980. The following tabulation summarizes the population exposure of 172,460 people:
Persons in Group Exposed Cumulative Exposure
- 14 17.5-17.0 5 17-9 .
770 9-8 10 8-7 5,563 7-6 135 ~ 6-5 114 5-4 2,724 4-3
- 501 3-2
- 17,861 1 1,822 1-0.5
, 141,941 Below 0.5 This is an infinity exposure not corrected for terrain or shielding.
I estimate that the population exposure is roughly 130,000 person-roentgen and the average exposure was 0.3 reentgens.
Radiation Doses:
Population dose is deduced by using a 0.65 shiciding factor so that the' average dose =0.5 rem. (This is the annual allowable dose to an individual in the general population). It is about 4 percent of the lifetime dose that the average /.merican roccives from natural background and from 1 medical diaghostic practice. This point is nowhere mentioned in the report which, in general, lacks perspective.
Health Effects Estimates:
((~ The Task Force uses the unpublished (dr s of BEIR III to make estimates of cancer inci- '
dence. BEIR used malignancy deaths and its estimates are therefore lower than BEIR III numbers. The Task Force then pro-coeded to use the BEIR III numbers as excess cases per year per 100,000 person-rad ( which amounts to person-rem for the external sc=ma dose ). By relating this number to the natural incidence (Utah) for the cancer, it derives the following-prob.ibility as a percentage of excess / total cases:
-Leukemia 3.07 Female brc,ast 0.87. '
Lung, male 0 .67.
Lung , f emal e 3.07.
Thyrol.d, male' 9 .57 Female 8.G7..
e
2
The Task Force then takes a " worst casd' and tabulates probabil-ities ranging from 277. for leukemia to 607. for thyroid 'acer.
Comment: Such numbers play right into the hand of the extrem-ists.
Eoidemioloaical Data:
The Task Force cites:
- a. Weiss report. Between 1950 -1964 a total of 25 leukemia deaths were observed versus 19 expected. This risk ratio ci 1,32 is hardly significant for such a small number of casea nor did Dr. Ueiss believe it was. (Data for Washington / Iron County)
- b. Leukemia clusters:
Inconclusive data on several clusters in Utah and Arizona.
- c. Lyon's reort. (N.E. J. Med. 300, 397 (1979)). It was this report that triggered much discussion of cancer in Utah. Dr.
Land (National Cancer Institute) critiqued the Lyon paper (N .E. J . Med . 300, 431 1979) noting "..it is in the nature of things for cancer mortality rates based on small populations to vary widely over time." He also noted that it is unlikely that Nevada fallout cold cause both an increase in leukemia and a decrease in other childhood cancers.
The fluctuations in leukemia =ortality rates for two low age groups are shown in Fig.l. Additional age groups are plotted by number of deaths, uncorrected for population, in Fig. 2. The 5 southern tier cou;c.ies, total leukemia deaths, are plotted in Fig. 2. I wouiU certainly not want to draw any conclusions from the 5 county data.
Lyon's division of Utah into high and low fallout areas is highly arguable. His low fallout area was the northwest sector be nded on the east by Duchesne county.
- d. Smokv data: Evidence cited by the Task Force is that 3 cases of Icukemia were observed among smoky test participants whereas 3.5 would be expected; risk ratio = 2.3. Average exposure was 1.2 rem. If we take the 3145 participants as having 1.2 rem then the group exposure = 3774 person-rem. This would mean 4.5 excess leukemias are caused by 3774 person-rem or 83S person-rem per leukemia. The usually accepted figures are 1 leukemia death per 50,000 person-rem. Thus the Smoky result would imply a 60-fold higher risk indicator. This cannot be the case since such an ef fect would express k self in overall leukemia mortality, i.e. Utah's 1.2 million people each year rY ve J 0.2 rem from natural and medical radiation = 240,000 per' son-rem. Divided by '
838 person-rem, this would mean 236 leukemia deaths annu21y. The actual number is abo 2 t 60.
Summarv of the Problem: Section VII of the Task Force Report is reproduced in full:
"The health impact of fallout frcm the atmospheric test program poses very difficult issues for the acvernment. The problem is not only legal, but also raises issues of public and social policy. The government's test program caused fallout and fallout emitted _ radiation which increased the risk of Illiness in the entire populat!on exposed. This expos-ure in all probability caused a saall number of cases of death
^
l 3
or disease for which the government should accept responsibil-ity. A much larger number of identical illnesses occurred in the same population which are unrelated to f allout and for l which the government has no particular responsibility. Since the cases attributable to radiation exposure are clinically undistinguishable from those which are-not, it will be imposs-ible to address the cases caused by f allout without also benefitting other, undeserving claimants. If the problem is ,
to be resolved in favor of paying any of the claimants a l solution which is over-inclusive to some degree may be un--
voidable."
l l Comment:
This policy is a lid-opener for Pandora's box. One way to illustrate the issue is to apply the $1,000 per man-rem criterion stipulated by NRC for the nuclear industry to the 60,000 person-rem of this report. This would imply a dollar .
total of $60 million. It could be paid by the federal govern- l ment to Nevada, Utah and Arizona on a best estimate 6f the relative dose distribution to the state populations.
This would be tantamout to validating that doses in the 0.5 rem category are compensatable. If this is to be the case then the nuclear' industry and the medical profession as well as all occupations that involve radiation exposure become liable.
The present medical exposure in US. each year amounts to about 20 million person-rem and at least 8 million person-rem is unnecessary. Adequate diagnostic 'value is attainable without the added dosage._ Rated on the NRC scale this 6 million person-rem equates to SS billion annually. Utah's share of this would be $48 million per year.
If person-rem are to be compensated by the government ;
it would seem equitable for similar compensation to be made _ l for equivalent radiation doses associated with medical diagnos-is.
It should be noted that the population exposure in the f allout :enes is about the same as that in the Hanford occupa-tional exposure. The most recent analysis of which ( E.S.
Gilbert & S. Marks ) showed no radiation-associated increase i in cancer mortality. The study reported in Radiation Research
- 79, 122 (1979) concluded: "A test for association of mortal-ity with levels of radiation exposure, reveals no correlation for all causes and all cancer." .
. Attachments:
A. Leukemia mortality in Utah (1945 1975) -
Fig.i Leukemia Mortality Rates , 0-4, 5-9 yr Age Groups Fig.2 Leukemia Mortality, Age Groups and 5 Southern Counties' Fig.3 Leukemia Mortality Rate, Utah and U.S.A.- 1900-1975 aen e --ee e ,++6%.. . ..
~ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _
LEUKE1I A MORTALITY IN UTAH
~
The f allout patterns over Utah are complex involeing deposition from three classes of tests. Between the first tests in 1951 and 1975 there were:
79 atmospheric tests prior to 1963 21 surface or near surface 356 underground shots An of f site exposure guideline of 3.9 roentgens was changed to:
Per year:170 millirem for Las Vegas and high density locations Uncontrolled offsite areas: 5 rem in 30 years Controlled " : 15 rem in 30 years Approximately 1 megaton of fission products were released in.
the tests prior to implementation of the Test Han Treaty in 1963.
The attached map indicates that the most intense fallout came down on Washington, Iron, Kane and Garfield counties (taken from G. Dunning " Fallout from Nuclear Tests at the Nevada Test Site" TID 5551 Otay 1959). Lyon uses 17 southern and eastern counties.
toukemia mortality data for Utah are plotted in Fig. 1 for 0-4 and 5-9 age grcups for the 1950-1975 period. A total of 128 deaths are recorded for the 0-4 age group and 113 deaths for the 5-9 yr ages or about 5 deaths per year for each age group. With such small numbers big fluctuations are expected and are observed. Leukemia mortality in the 0-4 age group is 9.3% of mortality for all ages and it is 8.27. for the 5-9 yr age group.
Fig.2 displays the number of leukemia deaths per year from 1949 to 1975 for 4 age groups. Ages above 65 reflect an increasing mor-tality. (This is reflected in the state's leukemia mortality curve (Fig.3). While plotting mortality due to all cancers, Fig.4 shows considerable variation from county to county and correlatss with the percent of population over 65.
In the lower right hand corner of Fig. 2 the leukemia deaths per year are plotted for the 5 counties exhibiting the heaviest fallout.
Clearly, one is dealing with very small numbers for which large fluctuations are to be expected. The total (1958-1975) GIKws deaths (all ages) due to leukemia - 53. Using the 5 county (GIKWS) popula-tion ratio of 0.043 then a total of 1012 leukemia deaths in the state project 44 leukemia deaths for a risk ratio of 1.25. Given the small numbers this is not significant; the data for 17.57. of this 44 leukemia deaths, applicable to the Ot9 yr group, are even less impressive.
Conclusion:
I do not believe that the leukemia data for Utah -
can be considered a reliable base for associating a dose-response ef fect due to a 0.5 rem average dose to a small frac-tion of the state's population. Using the accepted risk indica-e tor of 1 leukcala death / 50,000 person-rem, one would expect f%
2 '%
less than 1 radiatien-associated death in Utah due to leukemia, g Y
,% 800409 Ralph E. Lapp Q5 N4 Note:
above data developed Jan.7,1979.
7215 Park Terrace Dr.
Alexandria, Va. 22307
[ y N .
. Fig.1 i
STATE OF UTAH LEUF.D!I A MORTALITY RATES 1950-75_ . ,
i I
! i ,
t .
i
- ; LEUKD11 A MCRTALITY 5-9 YR AGE CROUP
. .; ' - !.j I '
i
- j
[
j
- ! i' l .
, t 5
x10- .
l I
! 5 l
i .
. i.
i 1 .
< v .
l l
. i
, l . i -
1950 1960 1920 1
h -
-l ,1 . **t LEUFatIA MORTALITY 0-4 YR ACE GROUP e 10 - . i l l
,; . i a
-S
.t 1 I
. xt0 * ! .
l i 1
,1 -4 5
f .
{
I . . l I . -
i 1 .- \
t
- i. ,
) ,
- i ;
i . .
i 1
t
. i i .
, , I .
. . .acn 1970 *
- l 1950 , ; . i
{_, ,
! . i.. . .] . i ! '. . .: ..! '.-I I- - $ -- i--.
] -
--f e1790107 w ,i , , . . .. . . . a . i . .
+ - - + -
v i i . . . . . i , , , ,
, . , ai. . . 6 i . i 6
. i i .
. . e . . . . . i . . . i i e i
~
i . 5 . . i . . . . . . . . , . e a . . . . . .. . e. . . . . &
i . . . . i . i e i . . . . . . j i . . 4 ... . i e . . i , .
. . t . 3 i; . . e . . i . . s . . s . . . . ... e i , , s . ~
. e i . . . . . . i . . . , . . . i i e . . . i
- i i u' i *
. . . . . . i i i . a ; . , . . 4 . i i 4 i i e e s ia , , , # 4 , ;
. . . , . . e i i i . i . . t i e i , , . . , . . i e ,
i i . i e a .iI 4 . , . . ,
. . e , _ i[
i i e i . , , . . . .
~ . (. _ ,
. . . t , i . , . . # . i , , . . i e , . . ,
. i g e a . . . i . . . . . , , . , , , # .-. . . . i i e=1 pm,L '
. . i i . , . 6 e . . . . . i ,
- O i. - 6 o
. 6 . . . . . . t . . .v .
N i
8* l . . . , e . . . . . . -^. .
"m.
_m,, '% 3 :+
m . . . . . . i -
_- =.-
, i e K .- .., . m D.
! i
- * *r c.-;-- 2 i .
. , , i .
. a .
e . .w.-
r
.r= e-
. v- [
i
. . isn. - . . 6 . . . . . . 6 e --
.' ~"~ C C' L '
. , . , i . .E T , . .
. I e --%, , . . , . i . . s . i s .O-C o a . ..
t h .,4 . . , . . . , . . . i , . . -' i - [ .
n-7 i i
~7~ < y - x ;-- . , . . t . t i , . . i . . 1 i , , . . m a w i a i . . . . . , . . . . i , . . . ! .! . e i > "7 - . t
, . . e . WW4 ww
. . . . . . . . ...e i e . . . . .**.e i , . . U ~' A' -
w* ***i
, i , i i e i e 6 e i i i e i . e t , i t i i i t 6 i . 7, .y
'" 4 . e . . .
. s i e .. , . . . . . . . . 1 i i .,e e . . . . 6 i i e 6 4 4 . i . i g w. - .ie 6
}
. I ! . , i . . , , , . . . . 1 i , . . . t ! . i i i i eit i e . . > 6 e i ., s ;
i . . . . . ..... i . i 6 e i i , i i e . . , i , . . i 6 . . i , . . W T, ___3 . . i . i .
. . , . -_ -s i . .! . i 4 . .4 . . 4 , , . . . . 4 e i , , i . . . . . i . . . 6 , i ,_.
i . . !! . . i t . . . . . . , 6 . . . . i 6 a i i . 6 . i ; 1 . **
!,x.
- r. t
, , . . , . . .. . . . . i . # i . . , . , . . . . . . . . : 4 . . . . , ;
. i . ! . ,. i ; . . i ii . 6 e i . 1 . i e i i s i e , i . i i . . . . . i t i o gra i . i . . , i i. . i e i i . . . . i . 4 . . i 6 . . . i 6 i . i 3 e ii, 4 . i 6 l 3 i . . . va a,g i . i TTT. i ii ! . . e i e . . . . i i e i j 6 . e : i i i . . i i i i6 i 4
6 e i 6 . . . e i . ii 1
. . . 6 Gb
, . , i 4 . . i i . . . a i i s i 6 . i i + i . 6 . 1 4 . i . . i i i 6 1 . i i e # 6 a i . . I i . i , i .I i . , , . - ?*a e . . . i i . e- i i i i . i i 6_ i s i . . 6 . . , i 4 . 4 , a 1 6 i 6 e .# 6 . 6 . It
. . i , i i . i i . i . , i i , i_ i 4 . i . , . . p,+ . i . , . . i . ,.-.
J e .=
i . ! ! I i i e 6 , i . i , i . + e . . # . 6 i . 6 . . . . . i i .- !;
. 3 i ! i e i i e , . 6 t = , . . i . 6 , 6 . . i i i i , i . , 6 i . i e . . i e i i i .
. . , i i. . . . , . ,i i . 4 . 1 #: . . i 4 . i i j i i 4 !..
. . . e i 6 3
.g &
- (. 4 . i . . e ii.. i i . Ig. 4 i . . 4 6 i , ! . . . . , . i
, , , .H: i6 . ..,.,i , . . . . , .e d . . 4 i i , , e i 3 e i , . % . r ir. . .
. . . ; i . , , , . . .. . , , , , . v , i . . e i i , , e i . .- . . . .. . r
_.- i : . . , i i . . . . , s . . ., . , . . , . i
, . . i ! . . . .-..;'. w
. i , . l , , , .. . i , , . i * . ie i i . . , . . ! l! . . . . s e e i ? , . . , , . .
I .
t _ i j . .
..i_i,iii,i.6i[ ! a . ,
i I
. . . i i e i i , i , . . . .
. i . , .
1 . . .4 i . , i _ , 6 . . 3 , i , , , . . r i * . . . . .-
, ! . , . . t # e . i .6 ! l . , I e . . . i . . 4 6 6 . i 4 e i i . . . , i , I; ; _ ~g^
i . i ' i ' ' ' ii e e i t i . 1 I4 i ! . ! ! iit i . . . , , . , : e i . . . 6 i .. ie !l I .i
~
!. . , , _ i . . . . . ?. ; i .
t a,,i a 6 - 4 . i . i 6 . i i i i . i ( . 4 i g 7-
- . t 4-
, . . . . , , . , i i i ! . , i i , t . i i . . i e i a t i ! l ! . i . .. .
1 - i ' t. 4 1 + i r .! i t i . i 4 ! i * '
e ! . i t e I i t i e i _t . . e 3 . ,
l -.-
E l i .*v . . I t i i l . , a 6 t i i t ! . t t . . . . . lit e t e t t t t t t . + . . e i
~~
6 . + . I i . . ,,i i , e i , . . i .! . . . . 4 6 i e e ei i . ._ . . . _ s .ef. - i i , ,
i . . , i . !c . i i eii..,e 6 i e 6 e , i I ei. . , t . . i tie i i i . , , . ei ! Ti e i e j 6 . . 6 . i i . . ,,, , , i 6 i . 6 i 3
. a > .ie i i i i i 6 . e e , ,i w
. t 6 e 8==*h
, , r e , i l i l ' ' a f1 i t . t ! . f f f i f l ! I I _
i em.ceae.
8 8 .gr.eim ' .
ah 9 Di -. 8 @
- f. 0 $ , . i i l . i 4 i . l , { . . Q ..jjf{ j .I . I , $ h . l k $[ f i i h g I . 4 le i g)
. 1
,. . . . i . . , ,
..S 4 _ . i .
.L
,e
. . . . . t e . . . . i , e . i , i , .er..
,-.i- . .- . . . . 4 # . . .- ie i s , te t .
- l l 6 9 i . t i i e i , , 4 e -
g i i e ,
o e i e e i i i i
. ]
O'.,j i i e
i e , , , p 6 e i. i . l 8 ,
i t . . 3 . 8 i i i i i . l i
6 I i . t .
a i . i L. j_ ll~ , i e i
. . i
, -]* *
- . . I e ,Cd. t.
e # 9 e
- i . 3 i i ! . ., , iw i . I e , , . . , _ . . . . . l , , ,- , , i 4 i I . . . . i a e i te l . i i ? e s; i . . . 4 3 4 . 4 t , , i i . . t.i,, . . i i i . i e i t I i . t , . IiiiIi O .t . I! e i , , t t . ! , t I t -i 8i , 4 ! i 1 t I,;_L j l 9 i.
! . . ! . ' ' ' T I i 6 l e j g t i i "",
} } { l i j j e i ! . g,s.g } f \*I t 9 9 i ee tl 6, i 1, tC i i
. , r g-, "_ ; , , 6 .
. .gi. 6 . . t.
M! ? t i. 1 i i i .'
I i I '! t i i i I
.. . . i +g i i t i e +i i i in . , e i . . . .
, , i # . . . i i i < ^i t.iii > . i .. , i . . i i . iv i 6 i .
l 't I
. d rr- I t l . . I i I i6 l I . O i . t 8 I [ i j ! e i l l g 4 . 6
- , , , , - . i . . . , 4,i , i i , i , . . i , . . . , . . , -,
i,e2 4
- 1 . . . i t. iiim,_
i.+.-- . . i . 4 es i. , D .. i . . . . . . . . i ,-
, i . . , .
i i , , , ; n_ i -
-C. e. -
1 . , hg A
$ i l f . . ? I i 9 .il ,
il . I l -
M I e . 0 0 . $ . . 5 b . O g ( i j I . i O l . $ I i j p $ . l l l . l j g f' q
.(-
p i . , _ , . t i . . i .,, i i . . e i ei e . . 6 . , i . . , e e . i , , e i . . e.o. .
. G. Q i, . .
i i i i 6 i , . , . , e i . . ... 6 . . , . i i . i , . i . . i i . i_
j f i . [,_ , 9 g i g j g g 6 .i4 _. 6 gg
.ii e
i . . d . . . f { . . t j g l g j . . 6 a 3 l , 9 g g g 9 g j g ,
, , i i , , , i . . . i , i . . . . . . , , g i , i . ; , . !.. , , , , , . . i . . . i .
' i ' + i i i 8 ' i 8 t I i . ! _ e ,_I ! ! I i f! ; ? ! . I r . l . t iit 6 ! I t i e - . a i . ! i .
. ! i . 1 3 6
- t i 4 i !t lia! l .
- 1 i f ,I . , e II i . . e t ie 6ii $t li i i . . ,
! Iie . 6 i e e t fj ! s f j
, i i f . h
, , ei .
. . ; i i il i 1 .
l i 4 iz .
i t . l l l l l II,,.
. i 1
ilie j i . . l a i .
.,0 16 . i e e , e e e . =
4 . i . . , i
. . ! 8 , ) . I $
1 l 4 li
, . .,i i , i i.;
6 0 l f. .9
! , ii
, 4 . .
{- hr
, ,iy.11,
,,,9
[ . . l.
i i s 4 , I I. . . i r si L i i 4 . i , t . i . e 4 . 5_ i 6 , , I 4
6_:_ e _I I.. _,. _. i
.f i 9 . . l _ { g . . . . $ $ g f..q l . . . j e i se e i g . h l 8 ..$ . . . .gg i l . l t i i , i l t ee n 8
. i . l * . ! e . t ! # i t . ! i t g. i i 4 i . . I e . . a e e a . . , , e . . . . . i ! . . , e .4 s i , s 6 g . . t e i e '.-'g i , 6 ! t .'
' i . f , , O t i j . 9 I l i l I , I f 'h I 3
' - . , . i > i i , , t ~ l i
[ 1 i 6 i . .
- g , . g i i e i t . .
L 8- . . .
, , . $ , l $ . 3 i l . i . . l .i .-. .- j ~.
I I i i f . l j 9 . h 0 . I '
1
. . . . . . . - , - , , , , i .ii , . . . . i l .
I i +.l i.
l ,
.iO li .. .i .i .. .i . . . . . .. i 8
{ [ e f i f O
. I i ! , i . j . e ' [ e i l 4 ,_i 4 . . 4 i i , . '. . . a .
'y . . . . 6
{. . , . , _ I . ! . .... ; . . . . . + .g .
. i . ;-_.. i , . . i 6 .
i f.. 5- .i. T. ' i i . ; +- 7 _ i o
g , .
. . . .1=IP--~**~*- . . . . . _-
7 .
iy- i l . . . t . . . i. - p g@
- , l -~ f
- T-.
i . , , . . ,
4
~
. . . . .] < . . . ! . , ,
. , i .
-.,,c, w-, , . ,,1 ...
mL. ,.
, . i i , . . . . . . i . i i.
_ _ _ , , . , ., 4 t i g 1 . b' '
'--l .
- i. a g ..
(a " C r t' r F
. ,I_. .g .. .. . u.
_. . . . STATE OF UTAH . 19 75._ '
_, i CANCER DATA ~ ,
t fl i . ,
COUNTY MORTALIY RATE 3 2C0 - .._.? - .' . - _ . - *
' I' !
i I' i y
!.._l.'.._...'.-_..'_.*_.
l . , I l [ 1 i l ' ! ^ ! I- i l
l f '! .
- I' i i__. . ,! . _ _lf . . .f . ._ . _.l ._.
. __._.I.. _
l l
..I j l f v_ y.
f.
- l*, f h.q! ,
I
- 7. . .
..I.
! d
. *j h. .l _ ... _,.
._..f
-.-.._..-.?'.....l--.l--._.l_i__ll__
-l '
e l
.L__,.l l * . l , ,J' . , l I_ .
- _
l l l l ! l I l 8 '
.' _ }' _ . ' . H _' l . . ,
3,.'. ,.._ I i x _a _; .._..
. : i ! +
1 i
l i.
i i - , . ; i
__.p ,
l
._._____.9- ,
.. . .. ._ _ _t. - . _! _ - - - _ . _ . . _ . _ . ._ _'; __.g 4
. . -_t _ ( . .' w . . . .
I s 1
i i I 6 , i
' l ;
.-. .. ;_..._.. .. ._t .. . . . . . . .
_7 .;... . . . .
150 '
- - - - - - : - y -- :----- r. ---- i .. I
.y -.l-----_,. .i
--=-------l
' .I t .
- I- ' - ' - -- . ' - - t ~ J - !!; * ' '
19 7 5 ;
I - 4. -- L ' i! .-._. a~
.l' ' _ ____.i i !. ! l ' ' !. ; ,
. . _ - . . , - . .___a.__i , , ;_____.__.
l'
- CER ".CR.TALITY . RATE ._- . i i
,l '..._l f ..!
, i i i l
(per 100,000) - _ _ - _ - . . -
, '. ._ _ ~ ._ > ___ ._J __ h . - ,_
p . . . ._, x . _. i. _ _ i. _. ,_q. _ . . . .
, , , . . _ _ _ _ ,. / _ l._'-' _ l _._ : . _ j , ,
+
_ q q t_;._.. _____. 4 _.,___.,. .
. .l ! i i - t *l !
i ! -
.' ' I i .
J.
.i. , i l-
' 'i 1
! I ' j l l i - ] ' ' . ..!'
.._.._...___.._.__.___;_ l ,! _ . ;.'_ : [.
, A ._ - ;.. _ . . . _ .Ag._ _ 'A_. -
- ; _ _. _ 2_...__ - i . . . . ,
c_ l .
i, . ,
. . .- _:_._..-___..-__.y_;.w..__'.a-._w..__.-__..,...-_.-_____._ *
'. '. . . i . W F , . . T I l
.,'1 L. . ,
- - - - - - ' - -.. I
. l i '
I :.- l
- 1 1 ! I 100 . , - _
. I - i A .
, ,i .. .,..- ,, . i _.
AVERAGE. w- '.- l - !-- - - ' ---
- i
---g -,----.--I IRON I : . ;
ME
! '=i ' '
. . i' . F. . . I.
i.
y . _F '
^ 'iASHING' ION . .- . .
.j
._-._'_..__; i.
.__.f4.__.__._ . g _ .. .._ 7 _ . . f . . _ ! . _ _ ' ._._. _ ! _. . _; . , ' _ __ _ .;,. _ _ - _
. i i r .
' ' .' t L, i
' ' x l_
' '_ _!'_ _'_ _ .l--.
i
..._.i
' ~
u -- _% .
i l .i ' t l' "- i ~. F 4 y'----.. JNA3 8 I !
6 i i ,; . j. GAR 7IELD .. .l. .
' i i
'f.
. _ . . _ , _ _ . g . ___ . !- i
'. 1 .
t i 3 ,- .
t
' l l
' ~ '
50 ...__:._-- - -
, , i .
l . . . '. . . .
- _ . - i . '.' .
- , -_-._s.
g i
Q . -
I t
_! _{
a _, ,,;, ,n _ i, ,,,,,j,,,.
.t. - i - ;
.i . . . ,
4
, .1 ...;- m . .' . -
,_ 3 . .
i_ 3
- ., , i. . p. ,, ,
. _ . . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ - - _: -__..p_.._L_.' .
__ w ._. _..__-
_2 : _ . t - - - !
.. . . _ . _ . . _ - - __-.. __ = . - - -.-. ...- - . . - ._.__.._. - .- __. -- -. . - .. -- .
'f . . .. . . _ _ . . . . _ . . - - . - . _ - . _
SAN .:UAN
. _ - . . . _ _ . _ . . . . . .-_A"ERAGE __ _ _ . ._ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _.
. __j
......__.,_______.-__-.___..._ _ ___ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . - _._t.____.___ ..
._.,....L__...__ i .. .c . . _ . . , . . _ . _ . . _ _ _ .
i 7_. .
,' s ,
f 1. -- _ .
0 . .- .: _. .. . . _ - . . .. _ _ l - . _ 5 - 3 ,_ ., . -. _ L. -_ ! . 10 _ __u _ - -- . . _ _ - - _
15 .
l '
-'------ -- - - FERCEST EO PUL ATIcN OVER 65 -
k .__ . - _ .
iv % : m e. e i. si . r 6,m t . t
N%. 1% 1 g,4 b 1. 'f t- >
9,,a u it.1 l
- 51. 1 0 i to b
~
s . 4.q */', u . t,7
- a. e, g 3l I095 M8'[DTM s.5- t 1. .o _ _ _ _ e 5y, k'"[ _ 2A '/,
" " 7i[7 (4 /.) : 1. .I.i
't t* /, '
t.. ,.
c-h l 0 e
t,A .
- 4 i .9 c I t. R. \
.u2.a
}_
79 '
tr t.to s nzw n 3.6 4 3. o C. 'b S. ' b /\ ' .'~~'~
.;j iny i n z. ' ~1 f.? f. 4.L T'l 4.95'
'h i 'd t; 1154 )Wg z- IC 1 6.1 ,
rA S.s?
- 72. . , t v7 t 4a i 2. l. t- t t, .S ,
71 t o'i f tM b r. o 2. 9. t. 67 7.21 M -
- 7. lacc D2 t. 9 77 7 c. o H L. s tf - : T~.Y.~~ ' ' .
. seg to +7 t ift- 5 2. t. r 'f 3 h- 417 . . _ . E .l. _
,4
(; ..la$ It % . 3. s. 9 3.r (,7 t.sl . . .
. '7 J. ..t a.'.i . 35:d '7 .
i'# l' o.s; 'ss-- r 4o
.y
.:i ..
e, r., .todi illo- .F' 4.7 9 9.1 t,3 - cp -.
.cf 91 1. to$o .) 1.5 q 5. t . 5 c~ 9.s r .. T.l~~.~.~~~~
-- d 1,7 to7L s- '3 r. y 73
- 51 g . a. )
I ' (, ' T7 l ' 'l M ' 5"~ .{.~7 f q,g 'FL y,'g. y' L , . , . .
~
97
~ ~ ~
~6. .4 st . L.N 5 47 .5*. f.51- ..
i 6 t' - 9 3 f. 163 .N-..
~39 7 t,. &
- f., I f. Sz._ -- :
~~'
Co - g rt,' H o- '
7 T. I 47 Y.o 97 S.h .. . .._
' T'1 v7 6' T77 7 ~7. S 7 -[, 3 51 5.51. '
5"? g47 1 >o ,N. i. 5 l 1. t YT f.33 ..
. ?7 9t: ~ .05 '.2..' t - L 2 . 2-
. '3 t 4 7 2- ._ ..
A ir i 31o 9 to l 7 73' 53 725 l
"~~
fr - 70 ?!,1- -4 4. t. 5 s.g rI c.rl. 53c 29 7 Of ~ 'I 2- 732 7,- 5., t 3 3, c, : 39 c. i t.
g .,y, . = g
- 1) .76. 1M- 3 3, t, 7. 2, q . .y& t, . 4 2. .. .
y _~. g
- "' ' ?.* * .7... ?7 o 4l f '< 1.-
-~
d o ~
.710 - "I 9- 1: 4 y c.4 yo q .c 3 _ .[ ~~
D t. M 7 55 4-- 5.8 s' f,.I, , 'fz L.t8 ,
i Y7 I T
.C& - - - - . --
l 2_g, \
I\3 , . . _ . . . . . . _ . . . .
1
_ ll _' _ ~ ' ' ' Z .
0 'I *
- I
% I ke^2 _ .. . I
~~~
f . r'Jl.) Q .y..S,Tia S-hJ. t . ( o 4 % :'. 9.) = S.(2. .. 8.-9. .. _ . . .T T._T ._. ._ _ _ . . _. '.~ . . ._ y y .
l -- T - - --
)( g g3) .* 9 5' - , 6 T -- - -- .-
p b
) e g i < .. -
G.i . g . S . i,y _ _ t,i. c. , t5 6 t' 7 it - [ ?z b 'l
- 7 s' ' - -!.c. '7 7 ' -_
\ f_ y T q 2. 2. . o z. \ z. : 19- : '
- . .. .. . . . g. __ . . ....
4 ;o i s - 12a ,
-n. .
- 3,,,, y, $,s.., ii3 ' t
_ 2.1 f,
~ '
L;3
~~
. . . . p. Lt.hs . . .
Q A% e su CMU .
._ ...~
- - cam, u:r -- c.1gs w = -g n( f & =--z +. -<
- - g % - --
. . . s T.....
. tin ?r.6 AA 1371,t95 = @4 5tv7 8) ' N'S k C L KS'd .: .;~-~-
o _9 tp ... _ _ (.o.1)(.ss.-1 s- u w a r. . . . . ._____._..
- a
.t.C.. a . .. ..~ " . _. ._. . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . _ .
. . . _ . T. ..S .lis5 s
(.o.?2-).( Td .. . ~: i
. .. ... ,_. . . m. . ., ,., n
p ~ am.w.> .m , .,, .w .w u e
. =F t i . e i +3 -
a-e
,i_..... _ . . . . . . . , .
i
. sg ._.[.
e
. i ; g
__.__ - l _ _ J . i.t" - _ - - .
r
.!.q:" , t _!. o : _.b, . ;,
4 t .
.._.i..I..!_.i .-
_..a
.; i :i i i. .. ,
i J.. . _.....i._.. {
g , e. !.._. ;
}
' Ii >' i i
. e i '
. t. . ; _. .i.
- !! '.. f; _ r.3 i !-[ i __ G,-
...____.._._._..._i_.._..___i 8
! . _. -, I_
, _f _l_ i __ ; _f, .
i l
' : a i r*
m ; .
_ ........I I : _r c,. ,
- . ___i _ _.
1 I . : i .;.-_ . . . i ._ . _ . I / -
i ::: 1- !- -
.' . j
- t
~ - o r..--.
.'a
- - _ .. < m . w 1.
. __:. ...__.__ ..._._ _ I_
+
. _ . - . _.. .._.._<_.____i. L_ : .- . _ . .
- ' ..f.
i *
'l l - !
~
l 3 a j i ! ' ' (J . I !
f
,<.--i
. ea-
. . , , _ i ,g, .
, p . ,
..{___;_._,.
. .s . , _._.._ . _ L . .. [ ._3. . g . . . . . { . i i a
{
r._ l _ ..i-
. ; ,e. . . ; m . _. l. . . . -
l . __.. . , . _ . . . . ._ _._. _. . . . . , .
-.i i i._
a i .l . : . l
- r, .. i . .
' i L l . *,
a-
'. ._r. .. .. .. i Ip _. ! _.J. ..g_:: - . -t ; ;
(. .
[~__ l _-___ w ...
-l_ _. .._:__ [,
i t 3 t
- l
- i e i - l>
! 1
_.___.u...__
l____.._j ... t. . . _ . , . ..._;.._.,
[ !-- '
, . 7 _._.
,I t
i i
j .
8 t
l 4 I 5 1-l .__t ! _ _ _
l.._
- e " +
- . }, .
. l. .
i .
. . , I i
-r----------
-*-1,- --!u, i------'----- F-
-...r----------~I~~. i , *- = -
4
- i 1 .
1 ; i o.o
' ' _ ...8' Il Fl l I
(, _ t__.l l l
'.F t : - - - < -
.;. .[ : _ l__.[, .s -.' ._ i: - ,-
.} T-i . t j:- .t -
t
'[ ] l
~v...t- .
l- - l ~- .
f.- .
l
.I!-. . _. ... ._. _-. .. , ! _ , . i, _8. . ._ . . !_ __ __ l- _. t.
& 1 4 i . -
- .t :
p
,I._ _.. l.7..
.g* '
, _ . . 'hl '-; .
j
_s M I
.._.,.* [ l l~:
l
. . \. _l
- l. l-i \ I j
_ . _ ' -. _p., . l l
_ . Si2 .... -i- . . .
%. e-.. , 1._.-
~ '
- t l l l l l l l .l H
...,_ 7_. - : .._: __ - , .
i .-
I i
_.a..'.
, , { i j ,
.. g .
_.7 44 [ ._.._.,.__.. . g ._ . -._ ...
- a. m ..., . - ... _ _I t r.
. .
- e
- . x_
l 3
. f* ...I _ . - . . . _..
m ,
.m. 1
.. Lal ,
a, . . . . - - .._e.. .. ._t._
L \
. . _ . o r-Q
< o.s m
._ _.i._.._, l .. !. . w l l
. _ [ '. l .
l
. . . ._.l . ___ . ..f\ . . . . . . . . ._i._......'.._.
p .. _. . ]4
. a g - . . . . . . ...; . j . .. .. . t . . . . .. . .'
ca. . . _ _ - _ . _ . ,
_i___ . . . _ . . . _ . '. . _ . . \. . _ . _ _ . . . . .
O \
n g
7 .p r= . . .' _ . . , . . . . . . _ . _ . _ . _ . .. . .,
4 b i s .
- m. .. , . , . t. ,
. ,i . ..
t , .!
- -.,.__.... t, , . . _ . .
l , ,
.,a,,,,,,,,,,, . .
,,,,4,,, ,, ;, , ,p , { . ,_ ,,,,, t2 __,, , 4 ,, ,,, [ , }
. , _ _ t_,_
- ,_ ,j,_,,,,, ,_ , ,
t ! i . ;- *
-.4..... .__..:._I_..
e i
i
. . .I.. 4 . . _ . . . .
l
. . . . . . . + . _. .. . _., o I
i........_.! 4
_ _ . .,_. _ ...... ..t.... .. .._4.. . _ .. _ _ . - . . . .. .
' j t = *
, i i 4
'-----l---------'---
. + . I I * ' '
i 1 ! !
r- - - -
---W--- ---
r ' - - . - - - - - - - - - ' - --
. . ....,.. I.
. . ._ ._ .'. .._ ._ _.. i.. _i .:.. . ' . ._ i
- i :_._ r_. a. . . . . _ __ _.
t i i 1 : 1 -
' l
.t- i i. ' . .
._. s ;..
- r. . .,
. i - i._ I :_ I .:._
j i l . :
I
! ,. t
_ . - .. . . . . _a _.e.
- : i
- i.. ' !
e
- ....__; ...
- .. .. .L.l... ' . .:_._ l _.._..;_ .j . . . . . .
.__../
i -
L -
. c i I . i l .
o,.,
__,_._.,.__i l i.
- l
. ,. ., W .I t
-.- . . .., . . i . _, r_ ._. t i L.. 4, e , i I 4 f f -
l 4 l f
.; .i .. !...;. .. 2_;._ . _ p _. .._ ;_. !. .
! I..g. u_q. -
> , . i
..a...... e.-..
_I ._. ..
' e
!,.....g.-. ,
. .... _ ._.. i .._..._ _.
i[';;.
, i . - .
l ; ;-
s- : rl-d.d ,"!
l ,l --- - ;-- l-l (l .. , , ,
C) -
.a.*i I C o :O f% *O e 4 t'i N '"d ..;
c-d .w rNe d
. . _ . . , y __. - _ _ _ - _ _ _ ___y _ ._
ESTIMATED RADIATION DOSES (' R entgens) raor.: au. nuce.cr.n resys
... 1959 1
I WLC'VMlOM 10 i
5 l tuvMin "
i Oj
~
p-... ;.
2.5 li,
?1 - ._
7 .,-'
~~.f_ h n. - l I
7 "'"~"
u o
x s '
Ns
\\ \
A s;.ha f- ,'
mm
=i m.fjf.
e.
~ H'
_ i-i -.
~
a P M,.
'hIlunu q. ,h[ g.
\ ~~~
IIst , lj.ll % -m .'.
@w u[" .. . ,
s -> - a N,,,,,, .
. .sm pd;
~
g N
o s
\
N .
a..-.
l
/
/ *'\
s s
n..o],N i
i 2.5 CA1L111n931Wan s ' v' _
's s i i 10 5
N I . !
s g N I Mlll3T3 D W h
~ ' * * " \ .,
l N
(
/
\ l t.
s i
- 1)
E::crgy/Nisc; car Conutam
[ f # [ 7:15 Para Terrue Dr.
L . (Z! / h.
I /// N;eund r:1. Va 00:37 8703i 763.*511
- iro: :ss.n so la July .)78 Ms. Gail Brcason The b'all S treet J.ournal
Dear Ms. Bronson:
Your " Exposure Hazard" piece of July lith highlights three con-tentions about the extent of radiation risks, namely, Mancuso, Najarian and Smoky Flats.
I thought that ycu might be interested in so.ne ccmmentary on the radiation issue ar.3 I an enclosing some data that I developed recently in researching a book titled THE RADIATION CONIROVERSY.
The book will be finished in rewrite this week end.
In researching my book I came . cross a tabulatica of AEC acciden-tal radiation exposures and asked my friend Jim Schlesinger to provide me'with a current health status report on AEC workers j who had received from 15 to 400 rem. Last month the data came through and I tabulated them. They represent a. population dose of 3500 man-rem and are thus not insignificant.
In my study group there were only two malignancies:
(a) A man who received 60 rad in 1956 and who died of acute lymphocytic icukemia in 1963. This form is rare in adults and in chronic form it is not radiation-linked.
(b) A man who received 339 rad in 1958. He died of lung car-cinema at age 53 in 1973. Ec had a previous history of silt-cesis due to hard-rock mining and he was a heavy smoker. His case can be ruled out as a potential radiatien-induced malignancy.
If I apply the msn-rem expectation of Dr. Mancuso I would expect 8 cancer deaths at full latency. In my group this should expres itself as about 6 deaths.
If I apply the man-rem linkage of Dr. Najarian I uculd expect upwards of 20 leukemia deaths.
Clearly, my data do not check out the Mancuso-Najarian contenticas and I insist that I have a population study not a proportional mortality s tudy. Furthermore , I have accurate dos- data. I have ,
correspondence with Najarian that admits' he lacks dose data and emplop ent data.
As for Smoky, I'm enclosing a critique that may ' - of interest.
The jury is still cut here but it's folly to indict radiation in the absence of knowledge abcut other environmental factors including x-ray diagnostic lose. At Partsmouth ar.d at Hanford workers received annual check x-rays delivering 0.6 rad. That really clininates any distinction between occupational dose and off-site dose.
- n. *
2
In my ekposure group I had a man who received 400 rem in 1946 and died in 1966 from a myocar.lal infarction. Another man in the same radiation accident received 200 rem and lived to age 03, dying of myocarditis. With very few exceptions my exposure group is alive, employed and healthy.
I thought that these " contrary observations" might be of interest.
Incidentally, Dr. Schubert and I wrote a book titled RADIATION back in 1956 warning of the dangers of radiation overexposure so we have some pedigree that today's Johnny-Come-Latelles lack. And I still believe in reduction of population exposure but I find that the emphasis is in the wrong direction--along the lines of a double standard that singles out the nuclear industry and exempts far greater population exposure in the medical and dental sector.
Si -arely,
~
\
R.E. Iapp w
rel/lA e r.cl .
tnero meest r: .s.aane
. U 0 / $b l::rY?:':?c ocs, u s.:s u
.: n i :2s.:sso 13 July 197S Hon. Timothy Wirth House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
Dear Tim:
It's been some time since we communicated but I'm just com-pleting a book titled THE RADIATION COSTROVERSY and in the course of research I dug up some data on your state that might be of Interest. Impelled by the spate of articles dealing with low icvel radiation risks, sete of which con-centrated on Rocky Flats and Crand Junction ( ABC's 20/20 show and Saturday Review, June 24,1978 ), I decided to check on infant mootality and cancer mortality rates for counties in Colorado.
Jef f erson county runs 120 cancer f atalities per 100,000/yr which is the state average. State wide variations run_ from a low of 38 to a high of 365/100,000/yr. Mesa county was
- 145 but 20 other counties uere higher.
Infant mortality rates varied from 6 to 37 per 1000 live births /yr with Jef ferson county being 11.6 and Mesa county being 11.6 . Average for the state . ras 13.0.
Percentage cancer to total deaths for Colorado was 17.67.
as opposed to a 19.6?. figure for the U.S. average.
Cancer mortality rate for Colorado was 120.1/100,000/ year while the U.S. average was 175.8. Florida ranks first with a rate of 230.5 per 100,000 population per year while Alaska is 1cuest--68/100,000/yr.
I think you will agree that these cold statistics do not support the emotional fire of media representations about cancer and infant =crtality related to radiation genesis.
In this connection, I am enclosing a critique of one of
.the most biased presentations that has come to my attention.
S i nc e r el y, ,
'a.s.'s;pp/ giy rel/1A encl.
ps: Postuar cancer mortality rates have declined frem 128.3/100,000 in 1950 to 120.5 in 1976 for caterado.
?grel
\
Memo on the Sc3ky Test---Leukemia and Nevada Excosures on Aug.31, 1937 a total of 3,145 military personnel participsted in maneuvers following the Smoki shot, a 44 kiloton tower burst at 700 ft altitude at the Nevdda test site. Troops approached to within 100 yards of the Cround Zero point. Only 2 film badges measured more than 5 rem and a modest number read 2 rem with the bulk of them being nnder 1 rem and many read essentially 0 rem.
Paul E. Cooper, a 41 year old ex-soldier who had been in the Smoky operation, was diagnosed as_ suffering from leukemia in the first half 1976. Living in Idaho, cooper was examined by two Veterans Administra-tion doctors in Salt Lake City. In Feb.1978 Cooper died of acute myeloblastic leukemia, a form found among Hiroshima survivors.
The VA doctors recommended service-connected disability but this was turned down by the VA. However, his case attracted political attention (Aug.2,l977 Congressional Record.) It uas given a boost by the puclica-tion (Health Physics, Nov. 197 77 of Mancuso's Hanford study. There was considerable newspaper coverage in Dec. 1977, followed by a Jan. hear-ing (1978) of the Rogers committee l House of Representatites). Politi-cal pressure mounted to force the r efense Department of advertise for names of people who attended the Smokv test.
The DOD assigned respchsibility for the study to CDC (Center for Dis-ease Control) in Atlanta. Dr. Glyn Caldwell is principal investigator.
~ '
(He is an experienced and respectable e'pidemiologist who perso5 ally interviewed S leukemia ca.ses connected with Smokv.)
The Rogers committee jumped to the cenclusion that leukemia is connec-ted with exposure following the Smoky shot. Apart from the fact that the Ccmmittee is head-line hunting, one of its members, a Dr. Carter frem Kentucky exnerfenced a leukemia death in his family; a son died from the disease.
Dr. Barry Ccmmoner jumped on the bandwagon and in the process shot from the hip. In the Aprit issue of Hosottal Practice.p.58,63 (1978) titled HIROSHIMA AT HOME, Dr. Ccemoner reported that Sergeant Cooper advanced within 100 yards of ground zero and "The ground gloved " cherry hot." "
Dr. Commoner cites the fact that 8 cases of leukemia have been identi-
, fied among 2,235 known participants in the Smoky test is a " statistical-ly significant increase over normal incidence."
tJha t r N-ts?
s of leukemia have been identified. However, only half of the ex-osure group has been surveyed and contacted and there is always a bias in disease reporting, i.e. the numbers do not go linearly with time. For ,
example, among the last 600 soldiers surveyed not one case of leukemia has been identified. Dr. Caldwell had told :he R:32rs cc nittee that he expected 2 cases of leukemia, but this assumed an reerage a;e of 22. On
.. the basis of data now in hand Dr. Caldwell estimat s the average age to be :S and estimates 3.5 expected leukemias. E:vever, a further age shift or a cluster of older members in the group ceuld increase the number of icukemias expected.
)
2
Until the histories of the leikemia cases can be traced, it is premature to assign radiation at Smoky as the cause of.the disease. Leukemia can be caused by: viruses rad ia tion chemicals multiple cancer relationship One should, provided their is a statistical signifcant increase in leukemia, attempt to identify common elements in an Army environment, i.e. cosmolene use on rifles, x-ray radiation in service ( photofluorographic x-rays ).
One should also investigate post-Smokv radiation history and exposure to carcinogen history of the men. One also has to determine the birth dates of all personnel in order to project the preper expectation of leukemia.
The present risk factor ( S/3.Sa 2) is not high in epidemiological terms where a relative risk of 6 is more impressive.
It will take another year for the CDC survey to turn up the identities of Smoky participants ( some records were lost in a St. Louis fire ) and it's expected that some 400 will never be contacted.
The actual dose data on the troops would not predict any significant in-crease in leukemia. It is argued that the film badges did not measure internal contamination; this is true, but there should be a correspondence between badde readings 2nd internal dose. Cooper was given a thorough whole body count and only potassium-40 showed up. It is . understood that i autopsies have not found~ evidence of internal uptake of radioactivity.
Soldiers were observed to be tramping around in the dust and to be eating in the area near Graund Zero.
The basic difficultyis that the. accusations have been made and the public will believe the worst. Since it takes at least 1 year, possibly, 2 for the careful investigation ( CDC and NAS ) to catch up, there is little hope of early resolution of the controversy. It will be aggravated by individual cases, i.e. an ex-soldier in New Jersey is reported to be filing a lawsuit for $13 million. It seems inevitable that radiation litigation will become a lawyer's paradise.
1
+++++++++++++++++ l 1
On July 2,1978 The b'ashir.; ton Post ran a Page 1 story slugged THE CLCUDS l OF DEATH HAUNT THE MESA (by-lined 3111 Curry), 3 :olumns , 9 col-in, and l 6 columns, page A 4, L0 col-in. The Post story cites the following cases:
lJCalent Hafen, St. George, Utah,15-yr cid, leukemia (reporter) l death,1956. '
- 2. Paul Hafen, uncle, rancher (Arizona rangeland), leukemia diagnosis 1956, death, 1963. Age not stated.
- 3. Max Brinkerhof f, Fredonia,Ariz. . age not given, died leukemia .
Feb .2 7,19 78.
- 4. Lavier Tait ) age same bracket as Brinkerhoff, school
- 5. Giynold "ackelprang ) boy friends. All died of leukemia. Deaths i?64
- 6. 0111 3etton 'rn I?75,Xov.1977. Near Fredonia.Artz.
7 Randy Humphries, age 32, Murrt:ane ("t h), died leukemia,Jdne 1973.
- 8. Sheldon Nisson, 13-yr old, died leukemia (St.cecrge? ) in 1959
- 9. Mason S taheli, 9-yr old, " "
1959(?).
- 10. Len McKinney, died of 1cukemia 1962.
- 11. Odessa Burch, " " in 1961 at age 15. Fredonia,Ariz.
- 12. Arthur 3ruhn, St. Coorge, died leukemia,1964. College pr( sident.
3
The 3 towns mentioned in a 55 mile strip at the extreme southwestern tip of Utah. Fredonia is less than 1,000 pop. St. George (3,500) and Hurricane (1,400). The regional area prob 3bly has a total of 18,000 6
people. If we take 25 years at risk this yields about 0.5x10 risk-people-years. Using an average of 7x10-3 leukamia deaths /yr we would expect 35 leukemia mortalities in that area 2.suming no deviations frem the US average rate.
The reporter does not disclose his - 9.hodology but he does indicate he talked with a registrar and also with Dr. Pendleton; the latter would be expected to know the regionst leukemia cases since has had a long interest in the AEC tests. Leukemia is a sufficiently talked-about disease that people tend to remember community cases. However, the Post reporter gives na indication of how many cases he investigated.
I would judge that his finding 12 cases out of a projected 35 would be reasonable. His attribution of a radiation genesis for these leukemia cases is speculative.
The fact that a boyhood group of 4 individuals succumbing to leukemiat l cause.
i is interesting and sugge,?* a cluster. Perhaps a common env ronmen a The reporter gives no detatis of the 12 cases as to whether they had unusual radiation histories.
One should note the dEstance f actor that separates the St. George area from the close-in exposure of troops in the SmokL test. In addition, the time factor would result in much heavier post-shot exposure for the troops. St. George is 130 miles frem the Nevada test site. Heavy fallouts were known tu have occurred, especially on May 19-20, 1953--
see TID 8527 (1960), these appear to be associated with iodine uptake.
In the near future I plan to look at county by county registry vital statistics for Utah to check on leukemia mortality. At prasent, it would be premature to conclude that unusustly high leukemia mortality existed in the southwestern tip of Utah or that such mortality, if it existed, was caused by wespon fallout.
O m
9
T
- 'C WW@.Dil:&.; rhl?hWr?
- q , ,7:
. v
- yc t=.:,.: - y,g,,.,
.- W?Yl?.
. .y - . . . . . , , , . .
.'. ? *'
. ~ ~ ,. o
~
~'?
. , ;,_ .sy _,.g y g, ,, ,
. n
%n. ym.1- , ---
. a 68 Environmental E-ffects Edited by R. O. Chester and C. T. Garten, Jr.
Effects of Low-Level Radiation:
A Critical Review V. E. Archer *
[ Editor's Note: In view of the continuicyontrosersy concem-ing the bioragical effects of low !< vel radiation. the editors operation of nuclear fac:lities, not to the possibi!iry of sabotage, theft, or accidental release of radioac:ive asked Dr. Archer to summarize the titerature in the field. If the estensive data on marnmals taken at high Joses and dose rates material.
M .
b are estraporated linearly to Jose rares near background levels, There is no question that tomz:ng radiation .m the effects are so small as to make statistically meaningful sufficient dosJge c3n catt$c 2 variety of somatic and j '-* esperiments impossible. If, howeser, tow doses are much more
- 1. genette effects. Many of these same effects are effectise on a per rem basis, then tow dose effects may be l-{ ,
obsersable. Dr. Archer is of the opinion that he and other thouzht to also occur following low.lesel @elow insestigators hase probably obsersed such effects. Although we current exposure standards and near badpound) hase reservations about the s alsJiry of that conclusion, we are exposures.5.s The principal difference postulated is pleased to publish this comprchensise sursey of the !!terature.] that, at low levels, the frequency of the effect is so low i that it cannot easily be differentiated from normal
' Abstract: Bor'r neceri.e and poeirise rcports on the eEccrs on disease.' It is impractical to use a sufficient number of r .:n of low. Jose 2 rd protv:etcJ rel:2 io t cepor: ares are L expetimental animals for such testing. However, suffi.
renewi Such <!l acts are obscrtable only in 1:rge popul.::!ons cient numbers of people have been exposed at diffetent
% by epiden:io!og'c:t :ec!: ripes. Mr'ioug't not to sc!usise. there is cess!Jerable evidence to trr; port t'te hypo:hesis t%t leye}s. of radiation so that sensiti:e epidemiolceical ~
g b: cts ou'rd relist'on and .:rtiricial r:1!: tion in con;;rable g g ggy . m;gyg 7,y,3} ,((,gg,,
c., ..
dc K c'N3 y . .*- . ' . 1','
. .. . ' QK
. . ,c1,
. ,,_ . ; ,,,,, a _ . ..
.- * ,. P-- n _
7 ENVmCNMENTAt. EFFECTS 69
.m i oc. . rence of the injury and its manifestation. Induced i .N myeloma. In addition, one of the c:s:<ontrol stu5es de ant mutations may be seen in the Grst generation
". ' >, (b . : hey are rare); the more common recessive reported an association between radiation exposure -
and neoplasms of the fung, pancreas, reticuloendothe.
6.f e :ns may not be esident for many generations;
. ' ... lial system, and 2!! cancers. From this data, doub!Ing ir. d caneers may not appear for years or decades.: doses varying from 0.3 to 6.1 rads were cateu!ated for
-d Ir. 'nic exposures the lower the exposure rate, the
.' ic :s this latent period. Such time delays pose a neoplasms of different sites. A life table analysis that
,if " - -
di *t problem for epidemiology. They may also used a regression model calculated the doubling dose as between tS and 20 rads."
l.." ',, g e. are a false sense of security because negati e The more sop!dsticated of these studies have tried te tre certain to be obtained when studies of e3 -
to control for, or evaluate, a number of complicating J populations are made within 10 or 15 years variables such as the age of the indisiduals or the age af litiation of exposure. Two approaches- at, and time period of, exposure. Ilowever, few have es an of chromosome aberrations and watching been able to adequately assess or control the healthy.
in nortality' 2.8 8-have been proposed as sensi.
ti-worker effect," the influence of cigarette smoking.or .
thodt of circunnenting the charseteristically other potential carcinogens in the vorkplace such ar to- e r.t periods. Their - nlue for this purpose, solvents or Inhaled radioactive materials, medical radis.
hr ., has not yet been proven, 1
tion, radiatien received before starting work at IIan.
review does not indude results from high. ford, the fact that cumulative radiation exposure tends
- ey a studies, since they haze' been adequately
- essibMty of . to increase with length of employment regardless of
, ren i elsewhere '-' nose stu&es which sought to radiosethe i cause of death, or the induction-latent period charac.
ok. effeus at low lesels of exposure are resiewed I teristic of radiation indaced cancer. ne comparison be. y groups, groups, however, can probably be considered sufficient 4
adiation in l somatic and i control for some of these factors.
effects are ST1.iES RELATED TO HANFORD . It is likely that internal radiation, radiation re.
gg g .;g., NUO.5AR FACILITIES ceived prior to Ihnford work, and unmeasured radia. .
ca:kgro d t!an (such as neutrons) would be correlated with -
stulatej is A series of analyses hase been dene on the rnessured external gamma radiation because of the n.ertr'ny of emp'oyees of the lianford nue! ear installa. types of skiis and activities invohed. Such extra
- t is so les tian v 'tichland, Wash., or nearby residents.2 *-" The
'm cem2I , radiation would enhance the observed relation between f4rst su;;ested that there were excess deaths dcwn.
. cual:et ef exposure and certain cancers, and it would artifici2I!y aer, mf3 stream on the Cohimbia Rher. .\aother, using decrease the doub!!ng doses as calculated by >!aneuso wpvior methods, found that suenstion to be false.i: et al." " There is no reason to think that exposure tc
- idiff*308 [
j nicI'.i;*I \tlham. using the crude methU of cumir.ing death chemical carcinorns would be greatest among those emtiestes in which llanford was reecrded as the with highest radiation exposure. The failure to consider wer'ysee, reported an excess of cancers of the the induction-fatent period characteristie resuhed in a d by te #-
nereas, long, bone, and ecion. This finding de.
!2ii2'8' Icss of sensithity in some of the analyus.
,esun b f canded further study. Sneral studies fe!! cued, all of Althou;h the results of these different :na!yses did Mich used proportional morta'ity methods.M*M not difTer greatly, the conc!usions drawn by the a ch C'*. Tey were based on deaths at the plant between 1949
./ : d! 3 different insestiptors have been greatly at variance.
and 1971. 'Ile earliest study used S11 death certifi.
is 20I IS' One group antends that the findings are due to chance -
(res the number increasin; to .t.45 in the fatest er to acnr25ation factors (Refs. 17 20, 23, and 25);
- sete:il'M ,
study. These stu. ties tended to eenfirm an excess of u1U dS.s .'ue to caneer of ret'ieuteendethdi;I tissue :nd the other that radiatien is ahnost ee:tahly respen. -
sib!<.2' " The fatter pon; has dearly und the mere
- fanere:s and hinted that the eseess <ht be sensitive appronh (the can.contral study of CGert"
,.e er 2"a ed with increwd radi:twa espe ne. TN .nore 4 mp !est ..msithity by natching en jeb exepry, w!deh is
'ethm:eated technignes of caneentrel studies and hfe astoeisted vith increased radiation espesure). Crit!.
Mn W
!$!e m1pis were then un ! In attempts to determine u16#7. cisms of the statistleal techniques initia"y used by
' ** refa' ion between radiation espesure and .aortsfity 3!2ncuso et al."*" bare some merit but do not
' Ni,[e ~ ;ItIng frem c:neer of then sites where an exceu h completetyinva' d dare the findings."*" "
in L 2d been 0%erud."-" .\!! of then >tudies ncted a
, . , ~ is eat Tha two strongest arguments against usarding the 14tistie dy signifiesnt associ.!!!On between extemal finlings as radiatica efTeets are that feukemia has been p
rah!!cn and both c:neer of the bnerees :nd muhiple thought to be the ;remier manifest: tun of late Nt.fCt.E AR $AF ETY, Vol. 21, No.1. Mwy-Fhwy 1333
(
. ,h .
ff ; [ - NN'Dhb5h,NQN@ *
. . Mf >y i ; 4 ..
- mi.*.s?. WQ . -
. &. b&[b ',?.~.
y $ D r*
3 w ~-dv.~ v.y.34.Q:g f,[ey%kQ,~ ,&Qy? b ', .,;.{;}y}R[jy*-
. T&
', ? . '*' :
t" 7o ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS radiation injury and th2t the c: leu!2ted doubling dose with thue in more distant ones. They found no for cancers (0.3 to 6.1 rads) appeared unreason 2N associations between the mortality rates and the since the average exposure received 53 all people from nuclear plant. Beesuse of the many factors influencing
. background radiation is between 3 and 4 rads during fetal mortality, it is probably an insensitive indicator of the first 30 years of hfe.38 This latter observation radiation effect n man. Stalignant. disease mortality suggests that the minimum doubling dose for any - associations in ths ;e studies were not only done in a cancer in adults would be 3 rads or greater. The insensitise mancer, but were probably premature be argument related to teukemia is probably not valid, cause of the prolonged latent period for radiation-since multip!e my eloma. rather than :eukemis, was the induced cancer.
principal type of malignant disease that increased There have been four reports on mortality at Oak among radiologists who started practice between 1940 Ridge. Tenn.'"'" 5fo>hman 2nd IIolland calculated and 1949 (Ref. 32). Their exposure was similar to that age. standardized cancer.ineihnce rates that were gen-of the llanford workers-relatively small doses spread etally lower than expected, presumably because most i- oser many years. Excess deaths from cancer of the residents of Oak Ridge were immigrants who had been pancreas could not hase been predicted from _the selected because they were young, healthy, 2nd !"d results of other studies,but they hase been found to be specidi! skills (heahhy. worker effect). Larson et al."
_ 4 associated with radiation. If background radiation calculated expected deathsin three nuclear plants from causes a substantial fraction of e2ncer of many sites as 1950 to 1965 and compared them to observed deaths.
-' sugjested recently, then doubling doses between 6 Again, obsersed deaths were considerably tower than and 30 rads, as indiested by the mostlecent report. ' the expected deaths. Scott et al.3' compared the weutd be reasonable. mort 2!!ty of thuse who worked with uranium at Oak Ridge-National-laboratory-and those who did not.
Y #*"P*J " '**!I'YI"*h'** 8'*"E'I' *I94I OTHER STUDIED itELATED TO t 1969 and found that both groups had ower than NUCLEAR FACILITIES expected mortahty but that the uranium workers had 2 Seseral studies examined infant and neonatal mor. lower mortality than did the non. uranium workers. It is tality rates. Tompkins et al.i2 used quadrants of not c! ear that those who work with uranium had the concentric bands about th:ee nuclear plants to permit higher radiation exposures, although there were more consideration of preui!ing wind direction. Neenatal clerical workers in the non uranium group. Patrick *'
mortality rates were ;;etermined in 59 ear groups. No compared expected deaths with various specific age.
association was found between operation of the fact!ity 2djusted causes of deaths occurring in the city of Oak and the mortal;ty data. DeGroot3
- sought a relation Ridge and the two counties in whier the nuclear between :nnual infant mortality by counties and facilities are located for the 1950 to 1969 period,using efSuent releases from four nue! car reactors using two sppreaches. The first compared mortality for the regression analysis. No association was found between 14 years prior to establishrnent of the facility with the mertality and the efnuent r: leases. Sternglass, mortality for the subsequent 29. year period. Several by selecting data from certain years and locations, defects in this trend analysis were noted, but no etsimed to demonstrate increased infant mortality in sigmScant ditTerences in mortality trends were found '
counties or states near nuclear plants. II:s conc!usions, between these three areas :nd the state of Tennessee, howeser, are doubtful, since, in addition to his In the second approach, age.2djusted mort:lity for 211
- selectisity, he failed to take into account normal cancer and for selected sites for the period 1950 to statistical tluctuations, demegraphic variables, growth 1969 was compared to the expected rates for the two .
rates of deseloping tress, or toe 21 trends in infant counties. The sexes and two racial groupings were mort:!ity. Grahn' 5 examined :neer mortality in eight 2nayzed separately. With the exception of 'eukemis counti:s surrcunding a nuclear p! ant. lie considered and lung e:neer 2mong b!ack females, there were no socioceenomie 2nd demegt:phie eh.mges :ince 1950 statistic;"y si;mfiesnt differences Set.se:n the ob.
and compared mortality for 10) ears before 2nd served mortality rates and the expected mortality r:tes 9 years after the plant started operating. No associa. in these two counties for total cancer, for :eukemis, or for cancer of the lung, bone, or thyrcid. The two tions between cancer mortali'v and the plant were found. Tek;hata et al.3* cony:ted ded rates for significant Gnd?gs were based on on!y two esses for leuke mi2, other reoplasms. and fet:1 and infant mortal. each of the twe ;:ncer sites. It is tn..i k:icwn whether i ity rates in communit n car 2,nue! ear power ;!2nt these four indisidu2!s worked at the nuclear plants. ,
r- NUCLEA8 $AFETY. vol 21, No.1 JanuJry c bruary e 1980 ,
a 4
- - p
,...,y,.,-
Q' .
. ] .. ., d '.~. ',. . . ; V-
.~ ,
.. . [..~,, ,, .,'
. s
- . s .s , .. c.
- '>} . * . .r. ^k .. .
t
. m(. L .w _
.. ,- 4 ,
w- ' ' !: .f: .: $ _- Q M W '
- j ' ~ . ' - . : +. .--s
=
.a d no ENVIRCNP. TENT.tt. Ef t ECTS 71 the These four studies are best noted for the insensitive
- ing methods emp!ayed. Larp groups of:mexposed persons targer and larger numbers of animals must be f rof or recently hired indhi.!nals were inetuded with ex. for longer and ! anger periods in order to detec Mty posed persons when com;sarisons were made. In sorne, small effects. Predictably, such experiments at or in the hes!!hy. worker effect was ignored. In all but the backpound radia!!on levels haye been impractic be. study by Patrick, there was no attempt to look at Ifowever, human popu!2tions that hase been e
- n. specific causes of death. In only one of them was to differing fevels of back;round radiation may be consideration given to the latent period;i e., the deathsfound which satisfy both the criteria of si nd of i for the years when no excess cancers from radiation long. term observation. Such popu!ations hase the d could be expected were combined with the deaths for defects in that they may hase uneentro!!ad aposur
'- later y *:s when some might be expected. mutspns and carcinopns other than backpound et al." compared the expected rates for radiation and many have substantial mob!!ty; bu
't cancer of sefected sites with those observed nevertheless, for white they have a great potent!al for the
! mates in les Alamos County, most of whose residents exp! oration of radiation effects at sery low fevels. A 2re associated with the nudest facility. Here was a number of such studies have been done, with about 1
possible excess of malignant disease of the lymphatic half yielding positive results. The neg2the enes wa considered Grst.
and hemstepoietic tissues and of the dig:stise tract. .
ne radiation exposures of those indiddu2!s with Su;her and '.!ead" found no re!atio.t between the 2
mafi;nant disease were not known. This situation isfrequency of bone arcorna in the Umted States an being studied further. 't their estimates of radiation exposure. An associati Two studies attempted io deterrnine whether the between leukemia morta!ity and different rnessure uranium mill tailings used as fill under dwellings in background radiation was sought without succ Grand Junction, Colo., were hning an effect on several suMors." ' Mason and Mdler" sesght, but' nortality there. Mason et 21." compared 23e.3djusted failed to find, an associatien between ge rat
{
c,reer morta!ity' rates among whites for all cancer and cancer (in addit!on to teukemia) and ths:r es f< r 'eukemia snd lung caneer for the 1951 to 1967Friprio background sn' Srsdistion based on sititude above ses te to n e,"
period ind compared the findices to Celorado rates, used a rnuitip! ,:orrd2 tion No exem:s were noted. In the s$ rend study. Cunning. tee %ue wi$ peups f mt!!snandes and t0 vari.
abies, including b2:kpeund radia' ion. They found no ham" usd a case.
observat:. , control method 2nd imestiested the assodation with radiation. Grahn and Kratchma en ' hat .eakerra.s m Mesa Cetuity, Colo.
(Grand Junction is the ceanty seat of Mesa County) found no associatien betwen all neccat21 had ine :: sed since the study by Mawn et al. was emhnment:1 Ayenpr et al.,"
radiation. Cecrge e t al.,', Gop21 nu de. !!e confirmed that the !cukemia rate Q2nferrari h:d Frer A!2!s and Krie ;er," snd e t 21.' ' fo-increased since 1970, but he found no excess of ad no ssda'im htw ers
!cukemia cases associated wa. h houses tions p um bm.itli'.ine deen cn uranium 3d raMon upm amcng popds.
at!! tat'ing. W2rian :nd Co!!on,' in a pre!!minary and
" 'n high.bstk;;ound areas of India 3:s::1 haly, a,peduly. ,
study ofdeath certincates of men who bd worked at a f.eukenu.
n vd stu. a, tet:1 marts!!ty, and total cancer rites pyard where nuetear submar,nes were s:rdced, were unfortunate chotees ior seek:.
ng such an 2!sse:.2 re erted :n ex:ess of leukemis. !!awever, this study t.
has been citicized on the younds ofm. emplete death :on. Leukemia was found to hue a marked vartsh!!ty .
data. Eternal inconsisten:y, and a faiime to qmntit2te and to hue an inuru :nodan. en w. h 2 , sh.e ,,
udiation esposure.'s This u.tnin. .
anemia.n Its rates are ,,.ip, . ert u.s the :.nm f
,ustruiu.ed en :s bem.g studied nations, m:estm. "
t
-e iJ .meh ,.eukem:.1 may .:e w, e to futher, ueg u both c:se w unel and c.'hort a p.
N'"5 .
c!'emical acents. In au, . .
..,r e,,,lj.,,,,y en, Arc.t.ern .,cund t%t ma _e m ., ,o.,,..,.I , _ 2, ,
ne:rly .s ,o s ,m .3
- s we!! to utimted buky:hnd r:distion STUDIES OF THE EFFECTS OF p2tterns as did c:ne:r cf wa e o'her sites. De =2ay variables med bv Fr!':rio and Stone," which cau:d GACKGROUND RADI ATION ON MAN net ,.e .
-reperly r ev:!nte., .,or e2:h van. '
- t. iti:n :.n r23:2-f e.deratory stud:es of the etTects of wry tow ! .:!s ien esposure, would usm to be :n unusust!y tmens! .
of ramtica have encountered 2 diffic.it prob!em: as the method. Sam: of t'ere stud!:s usd qmntitathe, the nposure rate :nd he total Jae tre decresud ,
e;timates of buipeund rsdir en for es:h of the states in the United St:tes. Rese esti".:tes w:re
' nacl.E.4 W ETY, ,
"d.
- 21. *to.1, h/wy thy tm
I
. .. - \
Q h
.h $ s' N h ! .!5 *' k- t% Y C'? A*I3"r; ':5
- 5 '\
.;& ** G.hl;ff
- .y..'. l "
^ 3'
- u,\,
- ^
.ll ' f f . . ,, ; u.)l *'
I );l *i
_. l
- h Nl$.h E $ ll h .k h. f $f.k ff ], ? '
s fA. -~
r 72 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS probably mis!eading because they minimized the role Since the HGF tends to divert charged partic!es of hig' linear energy transfer (LET) radiation. They . (primary cosmic radiation) away from the geomagnetic failed to consider that low doses and protraction of equator toward the geomagnetic poles,where the HGF high LET radiation probably enhance carcinogenic is weakest, it may be regarded as a surregate measure potency substantially. This point is discussed below.- of cosmic radiation. Elwood " in a multiple.
There are apparently too many other carcinogenic correlation study, noted strong corre!ations between agents that contribute heasily to leukemia and total both latitude and longitude and the rate of anen.
cancer patterns to expect anythingbut negative results cephaly in Canadian cities. Archer'8 reanalyzed his frorn the abose studies. data, showing that the primary correlation was prob.
The study of all neonatal deaths combined, as ably with HGF and cosmic radiation. Archer 33 also Grahn and Kratchman" and others 3 3 8' have done, showed a correlation between the cancer rate for a is another very insensitive approach, since it is likely number of organs and HGF. He divided malignancy of that background radiation is associated with only a various cancer sites into conforming and nonconform.
fimited number of neonatal deaths, which comprise ing sites. Cancer of the kidney throughout the world only a small proportion of the total number of was shown to have a strong association with HGF 33 neonatal deaths.5 2 The failure of Copal.Ayengar Since cosmic radiation had been carefu'!y measured at et al.," Freire.lfaia and Krieger," and G snferrari several sites in the L'nited States, Archer ca!culated et al." to find an association between any of their total background radiation and showed a strong corre.
birth. associated pararneters and backgrouqd radiation, lation with the rates for cancer of the kidney and when others were able to do so,'~'s s more likely breast, averaged from six adjacent counties. Afortality due to inadequate methodology than to an absence of from congenital abnormalities was simitacty associ.
effect. Probably their most serious problem was in ated.3 3 Since cosmic radiation increases with altitude assessing exposure. % hen the population is mobile, an above sea lesel, Archer compared the rates for cancer
, estimate of cumulative !!fetime exposure for parentsis of several sites in Colorado (the highest state) with the likely to be much more important than an estimate of aserage rate for 10 other states which have about the current exposure. Other problems may have been same HGF but are at lower elevations. The rates for inadequate birth records, inadequate population size, cancer of conforming sites were significantly higher in and insensitive measuring parameters such as sex ratio, Colorado than in the other 10 states.33 Be:ause total congenital anomalies, or total neonatal deaths.
variations in the gamma component did not seem to be Studies that reported positise assceistion between large enough to account for the biologi:al differences
. background radiation and an observable effect are of noted, Archer postulated that the high LET com.
varying quality and cover sescral different effects. ponent (neutrons, pions, and alpha partic!es) of back.
Kochupillai et sL" reported an elevated rate of ground radiation might be the mes:important faeter in Down's syndrorne and related congenital abnormalities inducing cancer and congenital anomalies. The reason.
among a popu'ation lising on thorium sands. Barcinski fag was (1)the efficiency of gamma radiation in et al.," Gopal.Ayengar et al.." Koehupt!!ai et al. " inducing effects such as mutations and cancer declines and Verma et al." reported increased chromosome with decreasing Jose, whereas the effielency of high aberrations in cultured lymphocytes among human LET radiation does not decrease and may increase at populations or in plants living on thorium sandi. Iow doses and dose rates"~" and (2)the high LET P!ncet" reported a correlation between human mor-cornpenent changes more with geomagnetic !atitude ratity due to rumors and natural radioactivity in food than does the low LET compenent S' nee the and water. Gentry et al." reperted an assoetation cosmic. ray cemponent is not the !argest eempctent of betu een the incidence of congenital malformatiens and background radiation and its variation wath HGF and g:0!e;ie forma !ons ranked by their estimated ;ontent latitude is not sery great, Archer estimated that a of radioactise matenal P' cwa et 21." reported a majonty vf the cancers of conforming sites would hase eorrelation between !ese!s of ba:kround radiarien and to be caused by background radiation ivt this effect to leukemia in Poland. Novak et al.' found an associa. be apparent.3 3 tion between the incidence of malignant tumors and Axeison and Ed!ing" repe:ted a preliminary case.
area rnessurements of gamma radiation in a Yugo. control study in which persons living in rural stone or
- s!aian prosince. Wesley
- 3 noted a :orrelation between brick hcuses with basements were found to hase a the incidence of fatal congenital nalformations and higher rate of fung c:ncer than persons !ising in weed horizental geoma;netle f!ax (!!GF). , houses without basements. ';he difference was attrib.
NUCLEAR SAFETY, Vol. 21. No.1, January Retnary 1933 h
,- , - . . .- - . , - - - - - , n n ~ , ,
. , .. '- ,e c. . .
~,,.
- e. . *
..' ,,,...s , 4 3. ,6 -
l'.~~
V $. ' '
- - ~ .. - -
.- y .:- 3. ~s . w : - . .;..,g*-
y~~
~ :' . 9. .. , c ,s . e . . .
7; .
u.r ENVIRON
- DENTAL EFFEoTS 73 ,
des uted to the fact that lower !esets of raden were found rate was directly proportions! to the number of X-ray tic in the wocd houses. Cigarette smoking was not fully 61ms that 5:d been taken. Dese obserutions hase up imesti;2ted, but there .was no reason to think that been supported by a number of studies which found ure smok:ng patterns were associated with the type of associations between leukemia and diagaostic X-r2y ,
ge. daeliing. l.]eno" found an association between me2- exposure of the fetus" and among adults."- "
een sured background radiation 2nd stomach cancer as we!! Some of them : Iso rep: -ted a simi!ar association for en. as total cancer in hpan, but not with cancer of the p r e co ncep tio n expusure of the mo t he r's
' '3is fung, pancreas, hrge bowel, breast, or uterus. Iroweser, ovaries." " One reported a change in menstrual eb. he was unable to consider age Jifferences, migution, problems and pre; nancy rates 2.mong females when 1so stanhrds of medical care, or urban-rural differences. they had been exposed in utero to di2g,estic
- r a De abose studies that found an association be- X ray."' One reported the ider,tifiestion of 2 hi;h-of tween background radiation and 2 biolor,ical effect can risk subgroup." Bross et al.a2 used these subpoups,
.n. be criticized for not having considered s!! re!cvant along with a statistical model, to calculate the risk id f2etors. Epidemiolo;ical studies rarely can. For in- from exposure to X ray at doses be!aw S tads.",'"
22 stance, the reports on chromosome studies, con;enital ney concluded that previous estimates of risk from it anom:'ies, 2nd cancer rates did not consider possible diagnostic X ray were low by a factor of 10. ~
d differences in exposure to medical X rays or sce!oeco- approach has been strong!y criticized by Boice a.
- e. nomic differences between popu!ations. Centry used a Land'" on the ;:ounds that estimates were treated as 1 rather poor index of backgre-nd r:diation; Ptews, known cons ants and that " incorrect statistical manip-
- y Centry, and Nossk used rather isensitive indiestors of utations" were used in connection with the ecmplex
.. radiation injury. For the associations of congenital model. Their rean2fysis, however, confirmed an associa-e anoma !es and cancer deaths with !!GF found by tion of excess feukemia with diagnostic X ray expcsure r Wesley :nd Archer, it should be noted , hat there are a of adults."3
. number of other ernironmental factors that also ury Four studies either had equivocal results or failed in the north-south direction. Mean annual tempers- to find an associ:tien betweenieukemi2 2nd diagnostic ture, for instance, uries simdarly 2nd was shewn by X:2y.'"-"' It is likely that the populatiens in these Les" to h.ne 2 sinniar correlatien with breast cancer. studies were tco s, s!! or thcre was too small 2 des: to
- In dew of the many t.neentrelled variables, which are reti:uicendothelial tiss;e to expect posithe results.
hke!y to cenfuse things and result in nepthe rather Increased rates of breast cancer hae been re-
.; th:n pesitise findings, as we!! as the relatisely small pestedly found among women fo!!owing iluoroscopic differences in 2distion exposure,it is surpri:ing that so exa'm: nations."'-8" A dose response reistien, which auny ef these stud:es had positive iesults. is preb;bly linear. has been shown.' * A nuW-of studies seeking an association between Ds
'F"d' *# (*#"i#Ii'*) #"d dI'3" 'II# X '3 I P
STUDIES OF THE EFFECTS OF tients were re.iewed in 1970 by Wa!d et who al.,M DI AGa..OS,ilC X RAY ON MAN . .
s cench:Jed that r:li:tton nught be an im;ertant c:use 2 Beesuse of the relathely far;e radiation doses of Down's sy ndrome, but that more stWies were t imebed, it is not suiprising that increased rates of needed. Deir prin:ip:I reserution was due to the fact
.aali;nant d sease were found ameng p:tients who had that an excess of Down's syndrome had not been
- received therspeutic deses of X r:ys" " and smorg cbserved among the offspring of hpanese A-tomb
. ::Jie!O gi> t s.' ' !!cueser, radiatien doses frem diag- surshors.
- I!an e.er, since then, three excettent -
estic X-ray precedmes are much fewer. en the order studies, w hkh censidered known v2:!:b:es, 'ha,e all -
- ef 0 05 to 5 reds. ne retnien of these doses to feand the
- me::.t:oa: Cohen and L"en'etd fr_nd 2 Me4*ou d t " t en m:y be seen by comp: n; them that mcthe s she had be:n X rsied had li ti.~es the to the e. cu'e !!ut the :s e .e rewn we- ' l s e s. : utual ek of Sc.3g 2 ai:d xah De ds. Der =2n
[ ., :ht W ; s as frem baek;:cund radutwa p.:: ear, et 21.' m:tehed c6! puents of ch.:dren with Dewn's er abent 7 rems duringins tiretime. wnh centrols on age and time of birth. Thry found no nere sed rates of oneer and feukemia were found ese:ss of X-r:y espesure among fathers.but there was c :meng chi?dren aho seeeived r;diation in utero when a statistie:Ily s'; .if' cant excess of X-ray exp:sure 3 tNir methers tud dia;nestie X ray s for ebstetrical among methers of ci-d!!:en with Dewn's when the i reasons." Ste'u r t " shewed that there was not X::>s were reeched more th:n 10 yests befere
. enly an inetease in e:neer.r:tes, but : Iso the e:neer cenception. They conc!uded that recent es?!a!!ca and Nt.Ct.! AR SMETY, Vel 21, No, t h ary Jeha ar M33 o
' 35
- .,s., .j- '5 ~ '
.**;- s. ~ i. -
- ..- yy
<'*'~..n.., t . .
J.a 1.'q 'y G.3 ;3.<3**. Q. ..sg.Ww
. %.ji g Q , g g *j!.fg g. . $.$g. G 'y
,n-. . m . .e. .: .: , .. .
. w: ..
, s< ..;."- /:>4 e. .,, L4+3 '. _ ^c. *...x '. . ,m :n,J'.'4'eW. ,;J. ..
,%%m 3. ~. , ;a.m.cin ws,u.uc. 4.
- s. . .
. x e. %*~zh r
- . 3sh _ f * . .
- '.- %,.. , 3 m %.< %V.h m *. y u_
74 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS radiahn ot fa hers bd !irt!e effect but that distant rette smoking information on the two groups was not maternal cadidon was $.ite imp <rrant-that 2 rads available, would approximately douHe' the ask of having a child A general life shortening effect was noted among with Dow n's syndrome. Ushida, 8 using a prospective American roentgenologists, which was only partly due i method, found eight cases of Down's among, the to excess malignant disease. 2s.i 2s This was attrib.
, children of women who had abdominal X rays vs. one uted to occupational exposure to radiation which was among controis-a statistical!y significant excess. poorly quantitated. Other studies have confirmed the Alb'rman et al.. using a case. control technique, excess malignant disease among medical radiation compared the amount of chromosomal aberrations and workers.3 2 3 2" 3 8 radiation received by S45 mothers who had spontane.
ous abortions with matched mothers who had live births. The mothers who had abortions received signifi. OTHER REPORTS ON LOW. LEVEL cantly more diagnostic radiation than the controls. EFFECTS About one-fourth of the aborted fetuses had abnormal chromosomes. Mothers of the fetuses that had ab. Chromosome aberrations in cultured lymphocytes normal chromosomes received significantly more radia. have been found in workers exposed to quite low!evels
'8' tion than the controls, of external radiation ' 8 and to internal radiation Changes in the sex ratio of human offspring substantially below present permissible levels. 22-is s associated with parental radiation exposure.has been Although the study of chromosome aberration has reported a number of times, 2' but this ratio is tpI2ced other b!ood studies for the detection of considered to be a poor indicator of radiation effect In low level exposure effects, counting binuc!eated man because of the many variables (parental age, birth lymphocytes' ' 8 ' and other parameters showed order, etc.) known to affect it.' *" Experimental data effects at quite low lesels.'8' A!though chromosome from animals have been used to predict genetic effects aberrations induced by radiation in blood cells are not in man.' Generally, a'.! radiation that reaches repro. harmful in themselves, they almost certainly reflect ductive tissues is regarded as harmful, and induced similar injury in other body cells. This type ofinjury to mutations are proportional to the dose.One exception nuc! ear proteins is thought to be the basic mechanism
- is thv tow LET radiations have a decreased effectise. for cancer induction. Ilowe.er, a defimte re!stion ness at low dose rates.' This decreased effectiseness between chromosome aberrations in blood cells 2nd may be the result of DNA repair mechanisms,i I subsequent cancer has not been established, which seem to be partially effective against damage Increased rates of lung cancer have been reported from low LET radiation but less effectne against ameng underground miners exposed to raden daughter
! damage from high LET radiation. Such repair mecha. levels little above those encountered in many nisms, plus esidence from Atomb sursivors and animal dwellings.*" An increased mortality rate from experiments, hase led some obseners to conclude that c!uldhood leukemia has been noted in Utah following there is little or no genetic injury to enan at or near the exposure to fallout from nuclear weapons.:a s gj.
usual environmentallevels of radiation.' 8 2 though there is dispute as to the magnitude of hblon and 5tdler ** in two reports compared radiation exposures, it appears to have been below the c2use of mortality of 6560 army radiological 10 rads. Although etiolcgy has not been firrnly ' estab.
technologists with that for other kinds of medical fished, this observation appears to be consistent with technoto;ists. The radielogical technologists during the Gndings from diagnostic X ray noted above. '
- raining had practiced radiologic techniques on each A biological effect on ce!! eu:tures at the surpris.
other but avera;ed tess than 3 years as such tech. ingly low dore of 0.3 to 2 mrads'h for 24 to 72 h was nica ns. No statistially significant differenees for found in cultures of C:Arrdir. They last synchreny indisidual sites of cancer or for deaths from other of multipliestion at thne exposares whde contrels did causes were noted when comp 2nsons were made with not. A somewhat stmtbr study noted increased prolif.
the general population, but there was excess respira. erstion of bamecium att:ibuted to ba:kground radifi.
tory cancer 2mong those exposed to radiation when tion.' Increased chromosomal acndisjun:tioti was the two groups were compared in the first report. In found in aged mict st doses of S tads.8 Tvio studies the se'ond c tcport this difference had disappeared, but have reported findings in wild animals v.hich suggested there was 2 trend toward excess feukemia ameng the n effect from ruturally oe:urring radiation ex.
techno!agists expesed to radiation. Comparative cis2 posures.t as t s o in a resiew, Grahai s' noted several NUCt.EMt SIF ETY, Vol. 21. No.1, hnuary-Feeruary 1930
~a-', v.
. m:
p.. ..y:, $ ' h . M.. - Q.l.f.&R'-Q. :. :'E.Q.C'5'[. . - ?.. ?
. T ,L:*
..e,. , .. .
- l p ~ ~~
(;s$). 5
.O'..l.,.e- D h,... .. . . . :
b S Vd '!.'l 4
I -. -
.*A'& -nf.W W l ' I i.:.*n;..
.. v .
=
' ~5 .
.not ENVinCNMENTAt. EFFECTS have been beneficialanimal studies o in which 'aw.level radiation appeared 75 t
' ang fue posure to Inw LET radiation, but not to high LE 1
. 3, OlSCUSSION in fiation.. Risk calculation for exposure
, '. particles and other high LET radiation is q 1
.g nere is a surprisingly large volume of dataward underestimate In the from high lesels is used.
the r(sk when linear extrap .
,_ literature on effects oflow levels ofionizing radiation in man. !!owever, quantitative effcets at low levels arecancer in humans, w breast generally obtained by downward extrapolation from relation for X ray extends _ to iow fractiona high esposures.' Data from the atomic doses;8" '" on human bombbone sunivorsatom cancer, which .
in Japan have given us much information on strated enhanced carcinog:nicity 'of alpha rad
! withr2diation pro *raet!on of Jose;'8 8 effects, but i jhe application of these data to the present and 'on 16ng cancer subject is lin! ted for two reasons:(t)the 40seamong rate was miners exposed to alpha radiatio'n from a
extremely high-at the opposite extreme from end daughters, where cancers per rad are incr doses and low dose rates."
ronmental radiation, and (2)the extreme stress on sur ivors of the blast undoubtedly resultedtheoretical in many considerations, uiL' sin nonradiation deaths'and abortions. Such premature i to 50% of obsened nonradiation deaths would almost entainly have human an cancers might be the result of back radiation.'" Archer, on the basis ofobterved co influence on subsequent mortality. -[ts effect could .
readay obscure the small radiation effects ontions theleast between cosmic radistic'n , rates and ca exposed groups and on children, who could be ex- sugpsted that between 30 and 50% of human - L-ca pected to undergo the greatest stress. ne effect might be due to background radiation." lie also thatoffung this cancer amcng nonsmokers is about stress may explain why results of analyses of childhood what mstignancies, Down's syndrome, and sex ratios in this group raden daughters.'" Here appea ewart.8differ
- .' " from other studies, as pointed out by .
St sistency between theoretical extrapo!stion ofr effects to background leve!s and the naturalo 5tuch of the controsersy over the effects ofof caneer. Other cateutations, howeser, are in towdeul radiation has centered about the question stantial of whether !!near extrapolation downward from high that aboutdisagreement; e.g., the SEIR report' estim exposures to z:ro dose and zero response is a reason. backstound radiation. Such calcula able approach. Some centend that such procedures substantially grossly underettimated the role of the high LET levelsP 8 J " A 5'u nderestimate the risk at low comaanent of background radiation as noted abose There is censiderable animal data his underestimate, howeser, would hase little I indicating that at low doses of beta, samma,or ence onXthe rays calculation of popu!ation effects from th (tow LET radiation) most effects per unit of operation radiatica of nuclear power plants, since those effe are subracrially eenetude that reduced,' leading some observe:s to-are predominantly from bets and ;2mma rays. hl!ou finear extrapolation downward over. from some nuclear exp!crions,however,)vould estimates the risk at low levels. Ifow:ser, this effect nbitantial amounts of afpha emitters. !
cnay be counter 2eted to some extent by a protraction effeet, nere is some esidence that when small doses human pepuistions have been
- re Mnistered our long periods of time (as with' exposures ofless than 10 rads, there is esery reason ocea;uttenal or backpennd radia+ien) eme etTeets npect that $2elyound radiation,which is of the ame -
(+ddng cancer) may be increaud per unit of lew LET r.!itrion.' dse proof crder &ct u;nitude u hnyndered for a lifet!me, will trens (!qh I.!!T '
r: Fer a!(a p.u tides and neu- cheruMe effecy, es su;;rced by a Jiatient there is endene, that cumber of reports. AhhouA the esidence is not caremognietty per rad is suhtantially greater botoeendusive at that Sck;round radiation has an effect on j
lew dous and with pretracted exposure ; e-ieds ruan,it thr.a
!s it suf0ciently strong that the prudent eeurseis is at high Jons with short exporure.'"' Jud;ing to accept it as prebably true.
l frem this data, it appears that linear extrapefat!en Althen;h of data are sparse on genetic effects at ( ?cw the caneer don responu cuna to zero dose is a '
dons of radiation, rmomMe ap;'rosimatien for ri<k c:Ict;tation for ex- resiewed,'" with the een:!asOn that the genetic r sk the rabject has been thorou frojn any given whe? Sedy exposme would be ab
. NUCt.EAA !AF ETY, Vol. 21 ho.1, Jaw ry
-Fetwa y tp!3
4 2 & -Hy .* - Q.(q.f,):a;~ % ,.* . , $ p'jx; y ,, & .9,:f H.g & *Q;p:);. " M . *, h.
s, - ~ < 7,. . S,.- , .c n + s. . , c ,_
9 -:.'6' a.g5%
. ~.- o . ". ., } ; gW ,W - , . .
.3 py 4.jl4:c ,",3.gg,y.ygn. ;y7',. : b . 4fR g , %' 6. . ,,a 1 *, '
76 ErJVIRoNMErJTAL EFFECTS 20 to .t0"e of the cancer risk. There is no reason to developed resistance to radiation, as noted abose. It is think that this fraction would be greater for low lesel, unreasonable to ask that any industry e!:minate all protracted exposure. decidental injuries or to never a!!ow anyone to deselop j Because of the many variables m human society pneumonia. It is equally unreasonable to ask that all which can 2ffect the rates of malignant disease, birth radhrion injury be eliminated. It has seemed reason-defects, chromosome aberrations, Down's syndrome, ab!e to some people only beesuse radiation injury has etc., and the many pitfalls in data collection and been recognized recently;it appeared to them to be a analysis, it is not surprising that many of the studies new and different p! ague visited on us by man's new noted above reported no observable effects. In this area techno!c3y. Stast health risks are accepted reluctantly, of research it is probably much easier to obtain 2ithough a few Cike those from at: chol, cig2rettes,and negatise than positive results because the interfering fast cars) are accepted wi!!ingly.Cerrauuy,if the risk to factors (including !nadequate population size) are more Workers in 2n industry is high and cannot be reduced
. likely to obscure the association sought thar. to give t.o reasonable tevels, the industry should be prchibited
} spurious associations. With some exceptions, the posi- unless its benefits are very great. But when risks from ,
l tive studies have been the more sophisticated ones- accidents, radiation, etc., can be reduced to towlevels, those uhich considered more of the pertinat and the most that can be asked of any industry is that it possibly interfering variables, which used the more mert its best efforts to keep the risks minimal. The sensitive techniques, and which focused on specific pcbli: must realize that radiation is not something new effects rather than on broader ones such as total cancer and different that should be forbidden, but an old or neonatal mortality rates. '
antagonist that we long ago learned to lise with-just Epidemiological methods appear to be the only as w e have learned to live with bacteria and uruses.
... way to approach the effects oflow level radiation on Some of the studies noted above, especially those
~*
man. Such methods can rarely be used to " prose" a cf Starks et al.2 8 and Sanders," serve to put the
~. cause and effect relation because the epidemioleg:st hazard from ionizing radiation in perspective. Reg 2rd-can never control 2l1 possible varubles as can be dene less of whether one agrees with their conclusions,it is
,) in animal experiments. Iloweser, the large numbers of apparent that the effect of odcupationa:Iy acqulted subjects with which he can deal usua!!y minimite the Ier ting radiation en the Hanford popu!stien has been i a effects of such variables. !f they are varying randomly very small. This is true even thou;h more sensitive l whi!e the tadiation exposure and effects are not, then analyti:al metheds may demonstrate an effect from l ,
~
all the uncontrolled variables do is decrease the radiation in that population. It is important that we sensitivity of the method. Ilowever, there ts always the maintain 2 ressenable perspective on radistica effects.
pess:bility that some uncentrolled variable will not . One way of doing this is to es!:ulate the expected vary randomly but will vary with the parameter one is radiation effects from occupational exposure and measuring. This could result in spunous positive compare those effects with other commonly accog-4 y , results. It is for this reason that little reliance can be nized hazards.8 ' *' ?8 l' sing this approach, Pochin p! aced on any single positise result. !!oweser, since the calculated that an exposure of 4 mren s' year (his c ,
number of w2ys in which the problem has been estimate of the aserage dese per person frem I kW of
. j approached has increased and has yielded positive nuclear power) wculd result in about the same degree
- results, one's confidence in the reality of observab!e of health risk to an individual as that incurred by effects in man from sm2!! expcsures to !cnizing smoking one cigarette every two years or drising 64 km t- <
radiation must increase, in a private auto each year. '? These comparisons may.
% One must realize that all of the earth's animals seem 2bsurd, but they 40 serve to put raistion risks 4 esobed in a radiation enuromrent. Some of the from nue: ear power in perspective. The risk ef lung I bekground rad:2 tion effects may hne been helpful c:neer from radic2ethe materiais (radium, etc.) re, ,
(%h as speeding up evolutiocary changes), bat most !e: sed to the atmosphere frem a ces!-fired power plant Sne prebbly been harmful. It is net !!kely that has been c2!:ulred to be 400 'imes greater than the harmful radiation effe:ts h2 e appened enly with the nsks incurred from usms a p!utenium breeder reactor enset of the atomic age. They are ne:ther new not of equivalent size. The total health asks incurred different, We have always lised with them,just as we from coa!.rired pcwer plants was es!culated to be i hae 2: asis lived with injury from see! dents :nd substantia!!y greater than those incurred from equal infectieus disease. hst as we have developed immuno. armunts of :!:etricity produced by means of nuc: car I.gic resistance against infe tious disesse, we have s'so reactors or natural g2s.8 73
'iUCt E AR $U ETY, Vol. 21, No.1, Jar 43ry. Fetm,,sry 10$0 i
l l
( -
4 r
- -- - - - - - - - - . - . - - - - - . --- -1 -+
. , ; %. . . ;; .(,. n e . . - . * . ~ . ' . .."*
- V ' (4 . - ' . ,.
. - ~ r ~. y " .
y .q. %s . .~ '.. . - *~
. ~
. .i.f.: nq-
,*%. r. ., ~ Q. i + , . % & s."_**.
p
.'.n : *
- g. N.c 1.- &
- O ~ - .
. '_,u m s
__2.-
ENvinONMENTAl. EFFECTS These estimates are based on linear extr3polation n downw2rd and do not consider possible effects 7. A. Steurt, from Radiation. A Resne Carcinogenic Effects of Low Levet
{
] sabot 2ge, nucfcar . accidents, ,
- "4 fmon 973 theft ns,nunh of ppraisal fission nyt, nof 223a0 3b!cpruur mate ITidemiofo:ists' Mc rial, nucle 2r war, or inadeouste dispos v 31 of r3dioacti e-waste. Such possibilitics can be minimited by 3. Natior special i 21 Resench Council. Advisory e Commi precautions, but they cannot be eliminated. Onepopulations can of Evorsre to 15vBiotot n ca quarrel with the actual quantitative risk estimates R'Jistion (DEIR Report), Nations! Academy of S Washin; n, D. C.,1972. ces, ch3n;ed 50mcwhat with additionalquantitative 9. A. Cole, P. M. Corry, and R.knowlobta Lan;1cy, EffeHs i a.
edge on reactot emissions, on c(fc ts of lowtion and Other of Ag:nts on the Motecu!2r $rruct levels $
ure 2nd
- r2diation, and on the elftet of sit po!!ut3nts from coal Neopict!a. A Co!?rction of byers burning, but they are most likely correct within Annual an S>mporium on funken:al Cncer c, Re: car h order of msgnitude if one ignores the possibility 1969, pp.
1970 of 34 a 379, W! isms and Witkins , Biltirnore,
' large. scale nuclear accident. They serve 10. the purpcsc of IL Spies:
ramosing radiation h3rards from the category of: a 'Ra in Chi;3ren and Adults,//n/th Phyr r.ebulout unknown danger and putting such (December hazards 1970). in .,
13 729 =
terms that can be undctstood. It. D. C. !!a>d and G. w. Dotrain, R2fiation4nd 4ced If one considers the risk of lapshfe nuc!estMed. Or ,mosome 3.t(4): Dunsgs in 11uman , .. Lymphocytes 3ccidents sep3rstely and considers that published the 261 273 (Nosett ber 1977). ,
- 12. E. A. Torn; kins, P. M. !!ami! . . ton,a n,2nd D A Ifor that the sm211 release rom the of radiogtiveJnaterials in Prouc*ss of thefrisk Sinhestimates Serteley S ors,
- um on
' normal operations of nuclear resetors will c;useSuris:ical little idoratory, U.Varameest Surinics human injury when compared to the risk from other 9_gg, j977, y,, gg_gg,mversity of Californ:,a. Aperi commonly secepted health risks-such as the risks L M. LeCam, J. Ne> man, and E. L Scott (E incurred from sutomobile drising, cic3tette smokin . , p p.
g,
- 13. E. J. Sterngisss, Endronments! R
~
and the b urn m.g of coal for hest ,
or c!cetticity,
%xcrer, further rescarch is nced:d on the c(fects flealth, inofPrxecJk;s of the Sis:h Scricley msa n
Sprios%
10w icels of radiation as weil as on 3ccidents. the risk f..'cr:
St2:itrical of nucle tory,1rUni;erary of G!ifo 9-12,1971, hne l6-21,19 71, and bly . 4pril 19-22 197/ ,
14! 221, l'nimsity of Cdfornia Press
<t -
. , pp.
REFERENCES , 1972.
- 14. R. C. F2deley, Ore;on Matignancy a o. Pattern and isotepe Stors;e, J. Enuron. !/calth, 27: 132 597 (19651,
- 1. C. W. Cassrett, S!civiral Effects of Lew levels 13.J. of C. Baihr !!! snd I. L Young, Jr., Oregen cy M2Fgen R:T;rion Erporve, ERDA Rqort l'R.J4904012 (CONF.770:034), Parrern snd Radioisotope Storage, I5blie lle tth Re itedicine, NTts,1977l'rm, e:nty of Rochester c eol of Sh $1(4): 311317 (A nI!966).
IG. S. Mdham l
- 2. 'V. g snd Washington State Department of 53cial
- L Rmdt, The Genetic EfNets of 'i heion .
3 g gg g g, in s
. ccccTnst of the rowth 1.rrern::! ant Confcrence on tonNo t;on State 19S/971, Vets. A,3, .
ed C IfEW rica.
Pd 487 500. t'riteJ Neions. New York 19nv11 ,
, 72ihr frisb/
Saf:ty 2ndUser trea:th, of Aro~ic GPO,1976.NIOSH Encrgy,1971, 764 17.Fffects E. 5. CHtert v1 R. L Buschtora,
- 3. t%ed Ngiens Se: nnCc Cesmnuttee of en $c Ucmic Loiatien.la ri c R J!:
Vol1: I, n ir, WI, !!: N L, vc?r .n i A&rt,
%Ihm's Nordw Ar.! pts of it2nferd Dwks, !btrek P2cineAn est L250% orfes, ungd!'shet M75.
M , ! 9
- 2. f", cts, L5tcJ Nwns. New *
- 13. E. S. CA:c, P:eprtional St:rtdity AWysis of!!d 4 H. S. Ne w.;N, D:sths, Jm!> Di'N1, Propss Reprt. Bm"e Pad; ed L:d Ihr.tMes, D76. ust l' ' m .th. Gmt. lo: fH 303 t1971)The C.wric Fffms ef fairing e
$,N v. P. Dend, kfopcal anJ W&.1 Imp'imi
- 19. E. S. CiSrr, 'r t! ods of Antyrb.; Wrs tality of Tc:ke ent of E.sposed to Low Lesefs af lMitM; nted Radi. tion ;;ese R. l. .tfed, J.,9(10): Wear Pmt, I. No;bt Implications , at Artnualof Rafiation Meeting of de Biometne, West::n Exiety E 46 7-8 U (October 19 77). North American Region, P;fo Alto, Qtif., June 1977 -
i t fNatins for Ramtegial PierreNnt 20. C. B. thun, R&tlelogiest
$. S2Mers, Low level Rafittian Ikd:h lb r.,34: $ 21333 (Jame t 975).er Dwhs, rffats ofn1Low .
Gn Coses:
71:!1 74 (1977). , Red /st. Xer.,
, 21. T. F. Mancuso, A. Stewart, and C. Kneste
, Rustion Emsarcs of llanferJ %:ke:s Dgns from and Cancer 1'
NUCkE AR SAFETY. Vol. 21 No
.1. Jacury-Februsry 1930
U * ' " + '@
- 4. g * ', ,.h[ n * y. . d.. a - Q, fk,%',4. (.g flg[qQ{d d'; - N_
, *E[%$*g
. ;-~ t . ~ _., g. _ :. ~ m mw
- g. , a % g a % # ,.i :.C N E.y .n K.f.
. : , e. +
w . S.,' f,.T' . .
' ;,; " **-t.
, .* ,; '. f g .
'.%c '.<g y 3 - R . **e ~ N :y. ,. c, . W ,, ,y, , - .
78 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS d
Other Causes, Halth P67s., 33: 363-335 (November 34. M. H. DeGroot. Statistical Studies of the Effect of Low Lc el Radiativn from Nuclear Reactors on Harnan Ifeaid, 1977).
' 22. a. A. M. Stewstt, G. Kneale, and T. F. Wneuso, I}ecent in Proceedings of the Shth Sedeley Sp posam on
.tfathematical Statistics and Prohbthty, ileid at the Observatsons on Radistson u:d Cancer Ammest Han.
ford Ernployees, presented at the 23rd Annual Meettng Statistical Laboratory. (*ni>erruty of C.hfarnia. 4 ped of to Health Physics Society, June 18-23, 1978, 9-12,1971, /:ane 16-21,1971, and fu!y 19-2:.1971.
Minneapohs, Minn. L M. LeC2m, J. Neyman, and E. L Scott (EJs.), pp.
' b.G. W. Kneale, A. M. Stewart, and T. F, Stancuso, 223-234, University of C2hrornia Press, Berkeley,1972.
Reanalys.s of Data Relatir g to the llanford Study of 35. D. Grahn, Anaff ris of Pope,lation. Birth, and Death the Cancer Risks of R1diation Workets, in late Statistics in the Co anties Surrounding the B;g Roc 4 ?> int Biological Effects of lani:ms RcJ!ation, VoL L: ) o- Ac!ar Power Staticn. Charleroi.e County, Stichigan, credingt of the International Symposium He!J sn CSAEC Report ANL.3149, Argunne N2nonst Labora.
Wenna .lfarch 1J-17,1973, S. M. Freeman (Ed.), pp. tory, NTIS, January 1975.
337412, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 36. G. K. Tokwhata et 21., Epidemiological Evaluation of 1978. Health Hazards to Populations Near a Nuettar Power
- 23. E. S. G'Ibert, Assessment of Risks from Occupational Plant, presented at the American Public ifealth Associa.
E3posure to lonizing Radiation, in Ene ry and Health, tion 102nd Annual Meeting, New Or!eans, Oct. 20-24, P oceedings of the Conference on Energy and Health, 19:4.
func .'5-10.19 73. 4!ta, Utah, N. E. Orestow and A. S. 37. J. Moshman 2nd A. H. Holland, on the incifence of Whittemore teds.), pp. 209 225, SIAM P~tliestions, Cancer in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Cancer (Itdadelphia),
Philadelphia.19 79. 2: 567 575 (July 1949).
,'., 24. J. Ra!off, R2diation: Can a Little Iturt? Science News, 33. C. E. Lanon, T. A. Lincoln, and K. W. Bahler. .tlortality v % 11$(3): 4445, Uanuary 20,19f9);1ni presentation by Comparison: Comparison of.tlartahty of Union Carbide sr G. Kneste at the Amencan Assoc 12 tion for the Advance. En:ployees en Calc Ridge Atomic Energy facnlities wita rnent of Science 145th Annual Meeting. Houston, Jan. (f. S. sar,au of 37tal Statistics .lfortality, USAEC Report t.
I 3 -3, 1979. K.A.708, Oak Rid 6e Gascous Dtffusion P'2nt, June 9, .
- 23. S. Marks, E. S. Gdbert, and B. D. Breitenstein, Cancer 1966.
Mortshty in !!anford Workers, in Late Biolog:.at Effect* 39. L M. Scott et al., Stortality Experience of Uranium 'and Q *r of lani:ing Radiation, VoL 1: P"oceedingt of the interna. Nanutanium Workers, Health Phyr. , 23: 555-557 p - ricnal Symporium He:J in Vienna, Starch !!-17,1978, (October 1972).
S M. Free: nan (Ed.L pp. 369 336 P2per I AEA.SM 59, 40.C. H. Patriek, Trends in Public Health in the Paputst:on
.t, - Internation2! ASna: Energy Agency, V,enna,1973. Near Naetcar F2alttics: A Critical Auessment, Nul
- 26. A. J. Mdfidsel, Standatjized Mo:t.lity Rataos and the Safety,18t$): 647-662 (September-O:tober 19 M).
lf., , " Healthy Wo:Ler Effect"- Seratching Beneath the 41 G. L Voetz, J. H. Stebbmss, 2nd L K. H2ston. C2ncer V' Sarface, I. Occup. .tfcd., 13(3): 165 .63 Otarch 1976). Mortality and incidence in Males in Los Alamos County,
- 27. S. M. Gertz, Letter to Editor: Surne Wior St2tuties! New Mexico (atstract), Hulth Phys.,35: 916 tDecember
[n. Comrnents en " Radiation Expqsures of !!acford Workers 1971).
Dying frorn Cancer and Other Causes, Haltt i Phyr.,35: 42. T. J. % son, J. F Frsumeni, Jr., 2nd F. W. McKay, Jr.,
723 724(No. ember 1973). Uranium Mal Talings and Cancer Mcrtality in Colorsdo, I. Narl Cancer inst.,49t3): 661664 (September 1972).
3 29. T. W. Anderson, Radiation Exposures of Hanford Workers: A Crttique of the mncuso,Steurt, sad Kneale 43. M. Canninc52m, Unusual Cancer Incidents: Mesa County, 1
! Report, Hul:h thys.,35: 753 750 tDecembet 1978). Colo., Cols:Jo Di: esse Bu!fetan, VcL 6, No. 31, Aug. 5, 29.G. W, Kneste, A. M. Stewart, and T. F. Eneuso, Letter 1978, Color 2Jo State liestth Department, Demer.
J to the Editer: Radiation Expostges of Hanford Workers 44 T. Najarian anJ T. Coiton, Mortality from Lei.kemia and a Dying frorn Cancer and Other Causes, Halth Phyr.,36: C2ncer in Shipyud Nuclear ,Workers, Lancet, 1:
i 87(Ianuary 1979). 1013-1020 Olay 13,1973).
30.G. W. Kneale and A. M. Stewart, Letter to the Editor, 45.J. A. Reisstan d and G.W. Dolphin Letter to he Editor, L;ver,it: 2C'63 (Jaly 29,1979). Lanar,1: 11561157 (Wy 27,1978).
- 31. R. H. Mole. Letter to the Editor, L:ncer.1: 1155-1156 46. A. Rottins, Patarvath Neal Shipyard S:udy, presented .
at Consut:2nts Meetine, National Institute for Oc: ps.
gray +7, g973).
IN";I IIC't:h. Seiten, mn., Jan. 30,1979.
' 3 2. 2. G. M. M2tanoski et al., De Current Merkty Rates of R2diato;ists and Other Physie2n SpeMurs: L Deaths 4 7, J. C. Sqher and P. A. Mead, Frepney of 3ene Sa::ama
- j. from All Causes 2nd from Cancer. 4n /. Epides:ol, in the (*citeJ Stres in Rdation to low loel Rainwn Esposure, m !Ncc Jigt sf the Scand Dated Nattung 7 10t(?): 153193 Ofardt 1975).
- b. G. M. %t1noski, ne C2ttent Wrtatity Rates of International Cenfsr ence an ht e Pace l.J Uter of Atsmi:
- R2Jiolopsts and Other Physictan Specialists: Speefe Ens ty, Cua,1958. Vol 23, pp. 165 170, Ucated i
N Causes of Death, .4m. I. Epilemiot., 101(3): 199 210 N2tiens, New York,1953.
- 48. W. M. Court 3rown et 21., Geographical Van 2tions in
(%reh 19 75).
I 33.V, E. At her, Geem:gnetism, .Cneer, Westher, 2nd Leukemia Wrtality in Re!: tion to Badground Radiation
- Cesmic R I2 ien, He:lth Phyr., 34; 37447 Otarch anJ Other ra,ters, Sr..tfel. /.,1: 17531759 (June 11 b 1960).
f 1973). - ..
is .
1980
,. Nuct. san susTY, vol. 21. No.1, unwary-February 5,' s
- t . d -
r
- - ~ < -
- - .~ ,. . + , - - - . - . . - ,
j % *. ,. . ... ,-
. . t, . . ...
+ '
..- 3 ; Q,y j .. , ,
l
.. , .%,,.e< r.
- , . b .' S ( ' ', ' *
, . s *,5 , 4.; , l.
_a 1
ENVIROY.*ENTAt. EF FECTS 79 J Low '9. L Craig and ll. Seidman, Leut:mia and Lymphoma 65. 51. A. Darcinski et 'al., Cytogenetic investi;2 tion in a lM t h,
- fort 2!ity in Relation to Cosmic Radiation, Blood,17:
. Br2zilian Popuf 2 tion Lising in an Area of fli;h Natural
,m on 319-327 (1961). R2 *icactbity Am 1. Husa Ccner.,27; S02 306 (1975).
.t the A N. D Eskoff et al Correlation of Leukemia Stortality 66. A. R. Cop 21 Ayeng2r et al., Biolog.ical Effe:ts of liigh
. tpal Ratts with Altitude in the United Sistes, #calth Thyt., 32ckground Radioactivity: Studies on P! ants Cresing in 1971, 27: 377 350 (October 1974). the 5fonarite Desring Aress of Kerals Coast and .t! joining 3, pp. ' t. A. P. Is:obson, P. A. Ptato, and N. A. Frigerio, The Role Re; ions, Indian 1. E.rp. Biol,8: 313-313 (October 1970).
of Natural Radiations in Ibman Leuternog:nesis..lm. /. 67. I. C. Verms et at, Genetic Effects of !!igh Background 1912.
~n.eg P,blic //celth,66(1): 3137 (January 1976). R2Jistion in Co2stal Kersta (Indis), 2. C13ical snd
- 1. 9. Stadf ahon, Geographic Variations in Leukemis 5fortal. Cytogenetic StuJies, in international Sjinforit,-r on
}' . f;y,g
.tre:t of liigh Natur:I RcJioactinity, Proccelings of the W:n, ity in the t'nited States,M/icIscalth Rep.,72(1): 39-t6 (Ianuary 1951). Symporium field in focot de Caldis. .tfinas Cerais. 3rc:il, 3 ,s.
- 3. T. J. 5f ason and R. W. Afi3er, Cosmic Radiation at !!igh June 16-20.1975, pp.135136, Academis Brasiteira de
+ Attitudes and U. S. Cancer $fortality, Rad,ar. Res.,60(2): Ciencias, Rio de Janeiro,1977 (published in sununary
,g 302 306 (Nosember 1974). form only).
- 8. N. A. Trigerio and R. S. %we, Carcinogenic and Genetic 63. J. Pincet, Correlation entre la Sfortalite par Tomcurs et la liarard from Background Radistion, in Biological and Radioactidte A!!mentsire chet r!!omme, /. ReJiol.,
- 24* Ennironmental Effects of Low Lenci Radiation, $3 n:po. Electrol. .t!nl Nucl.,47: 249-151 (1966).
sium Procecings, Chicago,1975 VolII, pp. 335 395, 69. J. T, Gentry E. Parkhurst. 2nd G. V, Dunn, Jr., An
, og S fi, Pt'D/409, lnte:nstions! Atomic Energy Agency, Epidemiological Study of Congenital 5f2! formations in Vienna,19 76. New York Staie, Ass I Pr.blic //calth, 49(4): 497-51 Q",,,(*
- 45. A. Sep!!, Lakemis and D2ckground Radiation in North.
ern New England, Blood. 23(2): 250461 (February (April 1953).
- 70. S. P!ewa, J. Alcksandroweer, and K. Janicki, Environrnent and Let.kemia Storbidity, III. D:stribution of Leutemia
, 1964). 5
- 56. D Gr hn and J. Kratchman, Variation in Neonarst Death Storbidity and D2ckground tonizing RsJiatiens of the
}h . htes and Dirth %*eight in the United States and Posuble Endronment. Pol Arch. 1/cd. Wews., 32: 344 349 9* Relations to Ensironmental Radiation, Geology, and ~ (1962),
..lin . #m M, . 71. J. Novsk e si., Correlation Between 5fstignant Tumors id 57. K. P. George et al., Inscstig2tions on lluman Populations sad Natur21 Radiosetivity, Cod. Ib. .tfed. Fak. Stop/e,
,g PesiJing in IIigh Baelpound-Radiation Areas of Kerala 20: 194 6 (1974).
. and AJjoiring R:; ions, in Bietogicaland Eirrironmental 72. J. 5t. Elweodr Anencephabs and Drinting Water Comro. -
Effects of Low.Lerel Radi: tion,53 mrosium Proceedings, sitiun. 4m.1. E;!Jemiol 105(5): 460-863 (5fs> 1977).
- }" Chicago,19 75, Vol lt. pp. 3 25-3 29, STI, PUB l409, later. 73. International Commisuon on R2diotegi 21 Proteetion, natienal Atomic Energ> Apncy, L.ena, lo76. Task Group on the RBE for Neutrons with Respect to
." !S. A. R. Cop 21 A> eng2r et al., Eutuatien of the Leng Term Sluts;enens,17,c RSE for 1/igh.LET Ref'at!xt wh L Effects of Iligh Background RsJiation on Sdected Pop- Retreet to .tfutagenesis, ICRP Puttiestion 18, Perpmon d utstion Greups on the Kerats Coast,in trocccJings of the Press, New Yerk,19 72.
res,rth internation21 Conference on rise fe:ccful Uses of 74. V. E Archer, E. P. R2dford. and O. Arcison. Faetars in
' .ttomic Encrey,19 71, Vol. 2. rr. 3151, l'nited Ltions, Esposure-Response Relationshirs of R2 don Dauriter
' New YotL,1372. Inurles, in imcccJings of ? e Con!;rcncelhcrt stwp t e
}- 59. A. Freireatsia and II. Krieger, linman Genetic Studies in Lung f.m.r frilemiolog) .edInhstrOf.4;;fic ttons Y. Arcas of !!igh Natural Radiatien-IX. Effects on Nrtsl. Sp9 tram Cytology, Collen. Color:Jo, Norcenber 14-10, 5, ity, Storbidity, and Set Ratio, II.;?:4 Thys., 34: 61-65 1978, pp. 324-367, ColorsJo School of Mines Press, (January 1971). Go!J:n, Coto.,1979.
d 60. L Gianferrari et 21., Primi Risultati di Ricerche Geneihe 75. R.1. Uttrich et al., The hduence of Dose and Des: Rate I: in Popott,-ioni LJ 5tane Espeste a Piceele Deci Continue on the freldense of Neeptistic Di,eae in RF51 Sties After di Radio:ird tonin2nti di Origine Rturate,in Tveccl. Neutron Isradi: tion, R Jiat. Res.,63: 115 13109 76).
or. Ings of :he SeconJ !?rtcen:rional Cang*ert 0:t !!:mran 74. R. lL ncm2s et 21.. Temporst and Geographic Erfuts On Ccuctier, Vol 2. pp.12 7312$1, Reme,1063. Cc!mic R2r % 2tten Dose Rstes (2bstract),lle;!th f?:yt.,
WJ 61. K. Aeti mJ !!. Shi:ni:u, EpiJ. mis!0gy of Ledemia .md 31:373 (19*6).
/ a- Artistic Anemia, Nett Cancer Imt. %nosa., 47: 23 30 77.0. Ausen and C. EKng, fictth lleards from R22en '.
0970t Drighters in Dwat:ngs in $wchn, rtesentc3 at S 0.E !L na e2.J. P. %s!ey, Dackp0and Radiaria 2s the Cause vf fatal Conference en IL ith Imrtiemns of % Ener;> kh-n comeAt:J Mvormation, Int. 4 R.:Ot. St.'t, 2(1): neie;ies, Park ("ty, Ut2h, Art. 4 -3,19 79.
. nr 9 7 il$ t : S0). 75 Y. UMO. Care. 0ierie !!A 4 fret '! : 2rJ .ek ' il ac 63. V. E. Atcher, Anemrh2us, Ibkes Eter, tUma;. Rmtion in Lra. A R fat. Ra,19: Df 412 b/ *M.'
.ed n thm, and Camie R Jiation, .tr L 4 Eril miol, 79. A. J. Lea, Rd2tionship Between Eniirenn> ental Tmrera-109(1): $$47 (1979). ture 2nd the Death Rate of Wornen from Neoptarns of in 64. N. Koshurithi et 21., Down's $3 ndrome and Retsted the Bwast, Netr.re (Lo-Jon). 209(5013): 57.$3 0965).
.an AtnormJiths In an Area of 1tiA !4tranJ Radiatien 5 0. B. ? ted an, E. Ren, and A. Werner. Tii> reiJ C2neet t I, !n Contal Ker3h Nature (Lv:Jer/. M2: 6H1 (July 1, FeCoaing Se2p frradiation, R;Jio/cgy, 1230) 741444 1976). (June 1977).
NUCLE AR SAFETY, Vol 21 No t, Ja%2ry-Feb us y 19'O
~: : - p.q w.9. & M.....f..%:.f..,,A 2.Q j:@ q $ % dN;S- @. p % .
X ,.b u;p ? . , z ,.: ..v u.Q y ^ .m y .S n:. . ,
n' k . J % ): Q *~? h . * 'g
.. y g Q.
sel'{ . ,7 .. i
-80 ENVIRON.*.1 ENTAL EFFECTS I
- 81. R. E. Shore et al., Dress Neoplasms in % men Trested 100. F. W. Gunz 2nd H. R. A:Unson, 5f edi:21 Radiations 2nd '
with X Rays for Acute P)stpartum t!2 satis, /. Xert Leukemi2s: A Retrospectne Survey, Br. .t/td.1,1: ! Oncer /ntt.,59(3): 313 322 (September 1977). 389 393 (Feb.15,1964). j
$2. A. Stewart et 21., MQnant Disease in Childhood and 101. M. B. \ feyer, J.- A. Tonssei). 2nd T. Merz. Lorig Term l Diagnostte Irradiation in Utero. Lancer. !!. 447 (Sept.1, Efits of Prenatal X Ray on Deselopment and Fertdity i 1956). of flum1n Fer 1!cs, nn Biological and Ewanmental
- 33. A. Stew art, J. Webb, and D. !!ewitt, A Seney of Effertr of.' w.Leve/ Radiation, Symposium ?:oecedings, Chddhood 3f atignancies, Br. .t/ed. /., 1: 14951505 (June Chicago,1975 Vol11, pp. 273 284, STl!PCB/209, Inter.
- S,1953). national Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna,1976.
- 34. A. Stewart, The Care:nogenic Effects of Low Level 102. I. D. J. Bross, 31. Ball. 2nd S. F21en, A Dosage Response Radiation. A Re2ppraisal of Epidemiologists.fethods2nd Curt for he One Rad Range: Adult Risks frans Ohcrvations, IIccIth t'ryt. , 24: 223 240 (Felruary Diagnostic Radia w:, Ant. f.15blic #calth, 69(2):
1973). 130 136 (1979).
- 15. S. Graham et 21., Preconception, Intrauterine, and Post- 103. J. D. Bone 2nd C. E. Land, Adult Leukemia Fo' J ning a natal frradiation as Related to Leukemis, Netl Qncer Di2;nostic X-Rays, Ant.1. lbblic flealth,69(2): 137145 Inst. .tfocogr. , 19: 347 371 (1966). (1979F
- 36. I. D. J. Bross and N. Natarajan. Leukemi2 frorn Low. Level 104.J. Wein aJ C M. Steer, RelationsLp of Leukemia In Radiat:on: IdentiScation of Susceptible Chi!Jten, New Children to Pdominal 1rradiation of Mothers Durmg
. Engl. /. .lled. 287(3): 107110 (July 20,1972). Pregnancy Ant. 1. Obsret. Cynecol, 31(5): 1059 1063
- 37. E. L Diamond. II. Schmerter, and A. M. L%:nf:!d The (my 1961).
Relationship of Intra Uterine Radiatien to Suhequent 105. B. E. Oppenheim, M. L Griem, and P. Meier. An Inusti-Mor:2!ity and Development of Leukemi2 in Children: A 42 tion of Effe:ts of Prenatal E.sposure tc. Diagnostic Prospectne Study, Am. / Epidemsol., 9% 283 31} {M2y X Rays, in Biological and Ensironmental Effects of 1973). Low. Level Rallation, Symposium Proceedmgs, Chicara,
- 33. R. H. Mote, Antenstal Irradiation and Cht!Jhood Cancer: 1975, Vol it, pp. 249 260 STIs PL L. 409, le ternational causation or Cein-idence? Br. /. Cancer,30: 199.;04 Atomic Energy Agency. Vienna,1976.
(1974). 106. J. D. Boice, \ful'iple Chest nuoroscopies and the Risk of
$9. t. D. Bross and N. Nat1rsian, Genetic Damage from Bre1st Caneet, in Procee lings of X11 International Cs er te Diagnostic Radiation, /. AnL .ifed. Artoc., 237(22): Congress. October 3-11, 1978 B senos Aires (in press).
J. 2399 2401 (\f ay 30,1977). 107. J. D. Scice, Jr., M. Rosenstein. and E, D. Trot :. Ettam2-
- 90. H. B. Newcombe and J. F. McGregor, Ot:Jhood Cancer tion of Bresst Doses and Breast Cancer Risk Associated
. Fo!!auing Chretrie Radiography, Lancet,II: 1151 1152 with Repeated Ruoroscopic Chest Eum:natiens of f tNov.20,1971). Women with Tuberculosis, R.rJ. Ret, 73(2): 373390
- 91. L D. J. Bross and N. N2tarajan. Risk of Leukem:2 in (Februsty 1978).
Susceptsble Clu!Jren E2 posed to Preonaptwn. In Utero, 103. J. A. Sty rJen and J. E. Hilta, Breast Cancer Folfowing and Postnatal Radiation, Trev. .ited., 3(3): 361 369 Ruoroscopies During Art Scial Pneumothoras Tr:2tment (September 1974). of Pulmonary Tuberculosis. Cn. Ned. Arroc. ). 100:
- 92. D. W. Pot!; emus and R. Koch, Leuke:nis anJ StaJical 10321034 (June 14.1969).
R2Jia tion. fcJiarncs, 23(3): 453 46I (Ereh 1759). 109. N. C. De12 rue. G. Gale. and A. Rona:d, \fultiple Ruores.
- 93. B. Me.'!2 hon. Prenatal X-Ray Exposure and Childhood copy of the Out: Carcinogenleity for the Fernale Breast I - Gncer. /.Natt Cancer inst., StS): 11731191 (May l and Imf ications for Breast Cancer Screening Propams, 1 1962). Civi. Ned. Arroc. /., 112(12): 14031413 (June 21 l 94. D. D. Ford, J. C. Paterson, and W. L. Truntmg, Fetal 1973).
Esposure to Diagnostic X Riys 2nd Leukemia 2nJ Other !!O. 2. I. D. J. Bross. Letter to the Editor,/.Nart. Cancer Inst.,
% 4 nant Dise2>es in Chi!Jhood, /.Nart Qncer Inst., 60(4): 727 728 (April 1973).
22(6): 10931104 (June 1959). b. R. E. Shore Letter to the Editor,/ Natt C rcer Inst., 9$. R. G.hton et 2L, !rt:Jistion in the Epidemiology of 60(4): 7:3 (Apn11973). Leukemts Among AJutts, f. Natl Q, rect Inst., 48t!): e. C. E. Land and D. H. McGregor, Letter to the EJitar,/. 201..tli (Fdruary 1972). Nett. Qncer /ntr.,60(4): 729 7 9 (Apn! !973).
- 96. H. S. Karhn. An Euluation of the Som2." and Cenetic 4. J. D. Boice, Jr., Letter to the Editor, /. Nerl Qncer
!!arards of the McJical Uses of Radiation. .t 't. 1. Inst.,60(4h 709 730(Apn11978).
Retmref., R Jium ther. Nuct .t/cJ., M4: 096 706 111. N. WalJ. J r;.
- 4rner, 2nd W. Borges, Down's Sy nJ me (19!$). and Emsure to X. Irradiation. Ann. N. Y. Ac;J. Sd,
- 97. S. 'foi:n snd E. Lutin. R2Jiltion Induuj tekmia in 17:(:) 454-t66 (1)?0).
M2 t. S. r. !/;cre.stol. h ): 192 210 t19m. II . '.V. J. !;huu an.1 J. V, Neel '.!2 tern 21 R2Ltica arid
- 98. l V. Ow3msku and T. P. Shkanaktna. Frede-sutopical Mongotism, Lancer, I: 537 535 t%r.10,196;).
Anal > tis of the Association Between Leukemis s.d 113. B. H. Cohen and A. M. Lil!<nfeld, The Epidemic :g: cal Ly phoms lecidence 2nd X Ray Diagnostic Loads,Probi. Study of Mongolism in B21lmcre, Ann. N. E Ac:J. Set. Cc-wN. hee!fv. r or(,23(1): 1317 (I973). 17I(2).3:0 327(1970).
- 99. A. Stewart. W. Penn> bseker, artJ R. Bart er, AJ !: Le 2 114. E. Alterman et 21., Parental Esposure to X.!: radiation kemias and Diagnostic X Rays, Sr. McJ. /. :: 552 390 2nd Do : i's Sy nJrome. 4 9n. fl2nt Cener., 36: 195 203 gl9e 2). (1972).
.%CLCAH S AF ETY, Vol. 21. No.1. Jaau2PFeeruary 1980 l t
4 1 g .: % $ jh '
...h n.%. jft-f.. w *.
~ Q-
- :s . . :.;.
+ . .
4.[; OW.w ' T. - Q i ,.,'.*; " ,. f.:.,. y .. l ~1 o.+
--- t -
,2.
1 '. .
--- . s.
-~
e ENVIRON *. TEN tat. EF FECTS - 81 1- ,sind ' 5.1. A. l'ehi<t2 Staternal Rufbtion and Trisarry 21, in .132. J. Poh! RcEng. P. Fischer. and E. Pohl, Chromrome
/. !! PoptriJtion Cytogenetics: Studier in llarruns- Aberrations in Penrher.1 Stood Lymphootes De;er.Jent Ibccclings of a 5> mruium field in .il%ny, .'.*cw York, on Various Dose Lesels of Natur11 R2dioactisity, in ? ; Term October U-13,19/3, E. B. flock and 1.11. Pottet Biologic.rl anJ Enni.onment2E Enecrs oflow Lesel R: lie-SrtGtY teds.), pp. 235 299, Academic Press,Sw York,1977. tion, $3 mposium ProceeJings, Chicago.1975. Vol !!. pp.
l
'df 21 .. E. Alberman et al., Parental X-ft. radiation 2nd Chromo- 317'324, STI, PUB l409 International Atomic Energy ,
'h is, . sorne Censtitution in neir Spontaneously Aborted AFney, vienna,1976.
! 8, In:er* Foetuscs,. Inn I/wr, Cenet.,26: 135194 (19 72). 133. W. F. Br2ndom et 2L, Somatic Cd! Cenenes of t'ranium i
- 31. B. Steyer, T. 5ferr, and E. L Di2 mend, fmestigation 5finers and Pfutonium Workers: A Diolegies! Dese-P' of the Effqts of Prenatal XRay Esposure of linman Response Indiestor,in L;te Siologicalf/fectrofloni:ing fmm Ononia 2nJ Oo4 tes as 1:essureJ by later Reproductise Radianon, Vol 1: trocceJings of rive laternettonal O Perfermance . tun. J. Erikmiol., 59: 619435 (June Sy mposirn ik!J in s'ictna. .t! arch !]-il,19 9, S. M.
1969). Freeman (Ed.), rp. !0*.518, IAEA-551224/310,In:erna.
- s. D. W. Cot, An Insestig2 tion of Posuble Genetic Damage (ICn21 Atomic Energy Agency, Vienns.19 *8.
~
in,the Offspring of Women Reccisingitultirte Dis;nostic ' 134. M. N. Corirentosa 2nd V. V. Sekclov, Frequency of
. . Pelm X Rays, Am. /. Ih.ra Cener., 16: 214 230 (1964). Chromosome Aterrations in R2Jbtion Workers, JIed.
! .$# 1. C. Stac!!er, V. Rerich2, and 5f. Kubst, On the Problems of RJJiol.,22(12): 45-13 (December 19 77). the Genetic Effect of toniting Radistion in Joschimsth21 135. W. F. Brandom et 2L, Blood f.ymphoc> te Chromosome Miners, 2cntralbl Cyi:edol., $4: 553 563 (Apr.14, Aberrations in P!utonism Workers (abstraet) Jlutst. Res
. 1962). 53(1): 79 (February 1973). *
.et .
,.'J+ ;, ,
). W. J. Sd:ull,ltereditary Effects,,Vuciconict.21(3): 54 57 136. St. Ingam et 2L, Ite Oceurtence of L>mphncytes with
,, ,f of 2rch 1963). 9 3;1obed ,%clei in C3ctotton Personnel, Science, !!6:
ego, 1.J. C2tkins, Cencral Patterns of DNA Repdr and Deir 706-703 (Dec. 26,195 2). t t ul Possitte Si;niGe2nce as Necessary Protection fro 6a Ensi- 137. R. L Debson, B'auc!cated Lymphx>tes and Low-Lesel ronmental R2distion Exposure, Exrcrientia,27th Sarpt.: Radiation Es posure, in Immediare anJ Low. Level Effects
%L of 19 29 (1917). of lonicing Radiation, Proceelings of the S>mrorium
'Can.cr 2. S. Vignes, Du Risque Genetique aux Faib!ss Doses, in // eld in l'aice, lune 22-25.1959 A. A. Burtati-
- ms). Stologic21.:nd Enuronnxnt:I Effects of Lowlact RaJia. % uso (Ed.), (p. 247 251, ',*- 2nd Frtocis, Ltd.,
i 5nms- tion, Spnposmm Proceedings. Chicago,1975 Vol II.FP. London,1960. elated 361371, ST1,PCS/409, International Atvraic Energy 133. L Stankova, The Deterrninstien of B;nudested L> mphe. 7s of Ageney, Vienn2.1976. cytes in SoJy Eyesure to Sms:1 Deses of Ionizing
'I *?O
- 5. J2Wn and R.W. Sfdier, krmy Technelepsts: 29 Year
. R2diation,Brerrrf. Lct. Listy,43: 404 403(1963).
Foilow L*p for Cause of De2:h, R;Jiofegy, 126(3): 139. Y. N2ksmurs. StuJies en the Induence of 2 Sm23 Dossie 1*ing 677 679 O!2teh 1978), of Radiation l' pen the Blood. Ill. Obwis2**an of Peti;h-I ment ~ R R. W. Sti3er and S. J2Wn, A Search for L2tc R2Jiation eral Leuex> tes by Su;rssital Staining in % Ray WoActs,
'0; Effects Amang 3 fen Mo Sened 2s % Ray Technoforists ,Wda //oQn,6: 10321076 (1959).
in the L'. S. Army Dunns Lt!J War II. Re.!aloey,96: 140. D.'!!ewitt, R2.fic;2nic Lung C2acer In Ont.aio t'r2niur-ws- ;59 274 (August 1970). Sf nets 1955 -1974, in Keport cf the Royal Con: min!
- st 125. R. Seltser and P. E. Sartwell. The Arrliestion of Cohort on the IIcelitr .v,J S.:f,ty of tt'orters in.ttiner,J. A. If2u.
. - f'I' i
Analysis to the Study of lonl+ing Radiation and Longer- (Ed.), pp. 73-34 2nd 319 329, $finistry of the Attorney t' ity in Phpidans. A m. 1. A,blic !I.;lth, 4?(12): General, Prosince of CMario Toronto, Canada,1976.
,,. g" 1610 1620 (1959). 141, J. Seve, E. Kunt, .nd V. P!dek, Lung C.:neer In L'ranium -
, l'6. R. Sdtser 2nd P. E. 52rtwell T!w induence of Oecurs- ?!!ners and Lon;-Ter-t Exposure to - R2Jon Daughter
, tional Esrosure to sJinien on the Wr:21ity of Ameri- Products,I/cdth rior. 30: 433437 (June 1976).
'""" can Radictefsts 2nd 0:Nr Wdical Srcel2!ists, Am. /.
! 142.11. S. Jorpnsen, A St Jy of mrt2iity from Lang C2ncer ! Epiter:iol..SI: 2 22 (J2,uary 1965). Amung 'firiers in Kir2n2 !?50-1970, Work. Enciron., i 127. S. W2rten and O. St. Lau.turJ. New D2t2 en the Effects //celth,10: 126 133(1973). , i ,
, of lonJring R2Jbtien en R2didep<ts. Arch. Emiron. 143. K. C. St. C2ir Ecntd, l'rpir2 tory Cancer 5f artalit) !n an +
) //,214.13: 4 !!421 (Oceber IN6). Iron Ore M!n in Nor:N:n S reden,.lidio,2tl2): 67-69 i . .. 123. T. Kit.batae. T. Wranabe. .nJ S. K0;2, Radbtien (1974).
*"[,
Cancer in 12r w*e Ldide:.ieal WeActs, Seehlen- 14 4. 0. Asdssa and L. S;nJ:11, '.finina., Lang Cher. . tad ! rkvic.126d); H9 C6 t19 73L Sacking. S.. tJ. /, . 4. Coure., //a!rh. 2(1). af-5 2 12). C. D. L<w s, LeaWmia 2nd temcmg R22: :ien. So nce, (Er.h 19 73).
~- . a 3
125t3255): 9054 72 012y 17,195 7). 145. J. L Lion et 2!.. Cd!htod Lakmbs A,aast<J nith i . . *.;e2I 120. W. St. Court Orew n anJ R. DAI, Esreetatien of Life 2nd F2Meut ficm Nudear Tes*ing.New End. /. 3 fed.,300(3); i , Sd. ,
?tertdity from Cancer among Briti.h Radielgists. Sr. 397-202 (reb. 22,197 ?).
Jl.4 /. 2: 131137 Outy 26,1953). 146. K. R. C52.doA 2r, R. 3. Szscht.juk, and C. M. Ce.rk, i . len 131. H. J. Cu::: et 2t., Radiation.im!xed C.remeume ANr- Effect of Est:exe!y Les P.2dution Daups on 53nchre. WS tstiens in Nac%t Dockya:4 We:Urs,.V twc (L m b "), nized Cattures of C;'.:'!?pinellorr. !!c l:h Mor-. 341 j 27 7: 531 !34 (lib.15,19 79). ,
.49449S Ota 1973).
Nt>Ct. CAR SMiTY, Vol. 21.,No, t, January-February 1950 , i - y .#.----, . . - . , - ._,_._.w.__ _ _ - . . -. _ . , , . -,_e,, - , _ . , , . , , , , , . , , ~ _ _ ~ , -
,,.m_-.mm - - . . . , . - - . , , _ , ,e
[ '?*~ '
. ~
T:' % 4Qh {4 , rgM . sQ,; 4(Qi.9 ,t M a .1 ,h[y]. .,
- a.; y u.c,'._
~=. w . s..n.
,. W % . ,. 0 j 9 ..
;v.u. n .
. m. .:.w_ 1 y f; 9m p y.;; , , ,. .
y,..;,y,,
,c. t ,-
.: .;.g,f 7
- . ~ _ . .
; 7_ ~6 p.S ,...-.p.A _ _
o, 82 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 147. G. Pt2nct et at, Demonstraticn of 2 Stimulating Effect of Emirons.te ital Effects of Low Lnel RJJution, Sympo. Natural lonizang R2Ji2 tion Doses and of Very low sium Proceedirgs, Ch:24o, 1975. Vol. !, pp. 7 M2, R2dutien on Cc:1 stuttiplic2 tion, in Slalogrcal aml Enri- STisPCB/209, Inte:nauonal Atomic Energy Agency, runnwital Effects of Los+Lael Radiation, St nposium Vienna,1976. Proceedings, Chesgo, 1975, Vol II, pp. 127 140, 161. A. Laz et 2L, Estimation of Turnour Risk at low Dose STI, PUBM09, International Atomic Energy Agency, from E perimental Results After incorporation of Short-Vienna,1976. Lived Bone. Seeking A:pha Emitters 2nd 88'R2 2nd 143. M. Yamamoto et 21., Effects of Low. Dose X Irradiation 8"Th in Stice, in Biologreal and Enitro rmental Effects on the Chromesom21 Nun-Disjuncuon in Aged 5tice, of Low. level Ralkfion, S> mposium Proceedings,
.Varure (London / ,Vew Biol., 244: 206 203 (Aug.15, , Chic 2go,1975, Vol II, pp. 171 131, ST!! PUB!409. Inter.
nations! Atomic Energy Anney, Vienna 1976. 1973). 149.W. W. T2nner, Natural Radiation Effects of Vertebrate 162. L. A. Dethiefsen et 2L Can Animal 2nd in Vitro Studies Anun21s Inhabiting the L'ranium Arcas of Southeastern Gise New, Reksant Ansacrs to Questions Concerning Ut1h. in R.tdioecology, Proceedings of the 1st National Stunmcgraphic Screennng fot ifurnan Breast Cancet? J. Syn:porium on Radioecology Held in Fort Collins, Natl. Crncer (nrt.,61(6): 15371545 (Decembet 1978). Colorado. September 10-15,1Hl V. Schultz and A. W. 163. H. Spiess and C. W. Stays, Protraction Effect on Bone. Klement, Jr. (Eds.), pp. 325 325, Rheinhold Publishing Sarcoms InJaction by 8 8
- R2 in Children and Adults, in Corp., New York,1963. Radionuclide Carcinogeneris, AEC Symposium Senes, l'O.C. S. T2bhashi, Cytogenetica! StudWs on the Effects of Richland, Wash., \f2y 10-12,1972, C. L. Sanders et 2L lii;h Natur2l Radiation Lesets in Tityur Bahiensis (Eds.), p. 437, CONF.720505, NTIS, June 1973.
(Seorrioner, Suthidae) from storto do ferro, Brant, 164.J. J. Cohen, An Ev2!usuon of the Effe:t of Natural Radiat. Rer.,67(2): 371331 (August 1976), B2ckground Radiation on Cancer incidence (abstract), 151.D. Grahn, Bioiogical Effects of Prot.Nted Low Dose Hiaith Phys.,35: 916 (Duember 1973). Radiation Exposure of Stan 2nd Animals,in Late Effects 165.V, Archer, Cancer 2r.d Anencephalus in % fan Associated l ! of Reliation, Proceedings of the Colloquiurrr HeIJ m ,4,g g, gyna,4 g,gg,,g,,, g, g,,,,, ,,g y,,,,y,
' C'dcato, Jtav 1969, R. J %t. Fry et 11. (Eds.), pp. Proceedings of the Confere.sce on Energy and Health,
- 101 136, Ta> tor and Francis, Ltd., London,1970. j,,, ;g,jg, f 97g, jff,, g.tah, N. E. Br: stow and A. S.
"- 152. A. Stewart, Letter to the Editor, Lancer, I: 1260 (June Whitemore IEJs.), pp. 3198, S!Ah! Putlications, Phils-10,1978h delphia,1979.
153. K. Z. 5! organ, Cancer and Low Level lonizing Radiation, 166. United Nations Scientific Committee on de Effects of Bult. t r. Sci.,34: 30 41 (September 1978), Atamte Radiation. Sourcer and Effects ofloni:ing Radia. 154. J. Rotbt2t. The Risks for R2diation Workers, Bull. At. tion: 1977 Rc;vrt to the General Assembly. uith
^"" # #' #'*"** *
- 155. R. Dob n d .C 2n, The Triuurn RDE at 167. E. E. Poehtn. My Be Quantitatsse About Radiation Risk Loa.Loei Exposure-Vart2 tion with Dose. Dose Rate, E2timates? Laurtston S. Ts> tor Lectures, Lecture No. 2, 2nd Esposure Duration C rr. Tcp. Radiat. Ret Q.,12:
National Council on R2Jistion Protec: ion and 5fe2sure. 444 2 t1977). rnents, Washington.1978. 156. A. L. Drooks. Chr >mos ame D2 mage in Liser Cd!s from 163. V. P. ' Bond, Bielo;ical and 3!< dical Impliestions of Law Dose Rate Alpha. Dets, and Camma irr2diation: Mear Powu, L Diotopc21 Imp!ications of Radiation, Derintion of RDE. Science, 190(4219): 1090 1092 R. I. Jfed. J. 60(10):467473 (October 1977). s pec, 3 3, g g;3g 169. B. L. Cohen, Impacts of the Nuclear Energy Industry on 15 7. st. IL 5tomeni, J. R. WiUisms atJ L S. Rosenblatt. Dose,
!!uman Hech and Safety, Ant Sci,, 64: 550-559 Dose Rate. 2nd Age Parameurs in Ana!pis of Risk from BowSeding R2Jionu;UJes: An Extrav!2 tion to Low (SeptemNr-October tr6). l Lesds, in Biotopcal and Ea.ironmental Effcers of low. 170.Internation21 Commission on Radiological Prote: tion,
~
Lercl Ra fiction, $> mposium P:oc.:Sn;s, Chicago,1915, l'ob!e~s involved in Dadsping an Index of Har"t-A t Vol !!, pp.197 209, ST1lPCBl409, International Atomic Re;9rt P eparcJ for the l'rternationat Commission on l Cnercy Anney, Vitnna,1976 Radic!cti cal Protcciton. AJytd by :he Commiwoor in [ v 158.C. L Shettabaryr et 21., Results ef fractionation nd JfJy 1977. ICRP Publiestion 27, Aarnals of the (CRP.
~~ Prattation of Total B0J) Radiation en Rat stammary Vol 1. No. 4 (1977), Pe:gsmon Press, New York,1977 -
h pluu Canca Res.,26ert.1): 509 513 Otarch 1966h 171. J. A. Bor;ictX :.nJ G. Ifute. Occup.tional Evosure to If 9. !L lt. Vopl, Jr., Neutron Irdu:cd stantmary Neoplasms. teruring R22iatioa: The Risk in Pe spectise, l.ancer, (: in S.s!vvcal El[ccts of Nc:arten Irr bation: Sy mposium 13311034 Otay 13,1998). Pr m edi.*;s, Neuherberg, 1973, rp. 331 353, 172. R. G. CadJah> et 2L, Rasuion Risks from P'utor sum
$TL Pt. Uf]5 2. Inte:nauen21 Atomic Enctgy A ger.0, Reegle Emuun. Sc6 Tenot., 11(13): 1160 1165 Vien2.1974 (De: ember 1977).
160. E. J. Ainswetth et al., Life Shortening, Nesplasia 2nd 173. H. Inhaber, Ruk with Energy from Conwntianal 2nd t Spremie Injaries in Stics After Sigle or rescuonated Nonconventionst Sows, Science, 203(43321: 718 723 , Dxt of Neut:ons or 02r m2 Radiation,in Biologicala'rd (Feb.23,1979). ! I t NUCL S AR S AF ETY, Vol. 21, No. t, hnwary-Febru2 y 1930 E . . __ - -__ _ -___- _.}}