My Geiger counter is in the shop for maintenance.
Blog
-
Geiger Readings for August 10, 2014
My Geiger counter is in the shop for maintenance.
-
Radiation News Roundup August 9, 2014
Headless Japanese rhinoceros beetle was found in Fukushima this summer. fukushima-diary.com
In the morning of 8/5/2014, TEPCO discharged 2,007 t of bypass contaminated water. From the research of Fukushima Diary, this is the largest volume of discharge. fukushima-diary.com
A new centre for developing technologies for remote handling in extreme conditions has opened at the Culham Science Centre in the UK. world-nuclear-news.org
-
Geiger Readings for August 9, 2014
My Geiger counter is in the shop for maintenance.
-
Dangers of Photoactivation of Natural Uranium Particles on Human Skin
The health risks from exposure to natural uranium have been studied extensively. Particles of naturally occurring uranium on human skin can cause skin cancers. It is also well known that ultraviolet light exposure can cause skin cancer. Now it appears that there may be a synergistic effect of ultraviolet light “photoactivating” uranium particles on bare the skin that increases the danger of skin cancer.
Recent research headed up by Diane Sterns, professor of biochemistry at Northern Arizona University, has been exploring the effects of photoactivation on uranium particles on human skin. They have found that this can be chemically toxic and can lead to cancer. The research team recommends that the possibility of photoactivation should be explored in cases of skin exposed to natural uranium.
The NAU researchers have suggested that such photoactivation could be an even greater risk for people whose skin cells cannot repair themselves. There is a disease called Xeroderma Pigmentosum (XP) that causes extreme sensitivity to sunlight. This disease is found especially in the Navajo Nation in the American Southwest. In the general population of the United States, XP is found in about one person in a million. In the Navajo Nation, its occurrence is close to one in thirty thousand people. For people suffering from this condition, the danger of photoactivation is greater.
There has been a lot of uranium mining and processing in the Navajo Nation. These activities have resulted in generating a great deal of airborne particles of natural uranium. The bare skin of anyone living in the area would be exposed to such particles on a regular basis. The researchers feel that the risk to Navajos from photoactivation of uranium on their skin is especially high and should be included in health screenings in the Navajo Nation.
There has been a historical increase in cancers and XP in the Navajo Nation over six decades during which uranium has been mined there. Recently the EPA allocated one and a half million dollars to clean up two uranium transfer stations in the Navajo Nation. One of the motivations was to removed uranium contaminated soil to “keep the uranium for becoming airborne.” There may be as many as two thousand contamination sites that are endangering the Navajos living in the area.
The researchers are working to understand exactly how photoactivation of uranium damages DNA. They are especially interested in finding out if uranium exposure and photoactivation have played a role in the increasing cancers and incidences of XP among the Navajo. This is obviously a major danger for Navajos who live on the Navajo lands adjacent to uranium operations.
This highlights one of the big public health problems from worldwide uranium mining and processing operations. When uranium mines are located on the lands of indigenous peoples, the threat of radiation poisoning is downplayed or actively ignored. There have been many reports of indigenous people working in uranium mines or living near uranium mines not being warned about the health dangers. In some cases, doctors actually avoided suggesting that any health problems among the miners and nearby villagers could ever be related to radiation. This is another shameful example of indigenous people being exploited and endangered for the profit of international corporations and major developed nations.
-
Radiation News Roundup August 8, 2014
A supermarket in Tokyo for foreign tourists sell significant number of Fukushima products. It’s TAKEYA located near JR Okachimachi station. fukushima-diary.com
Russian nuclear bombers were spotted flying near Alaska this week. news.yahoo.com
Unit 2 at Exelon’s La Salle nuclear plant in Illinois tripped offline Tuesday when a safety system activated unexpectedly. nuclearstreet.com
-
Geiger Readings for August 8, 2014
My Geiger counter is in the shop for maintenance.
-
Radiation News Roundup August 8, 2014
A supermarket in Tokyo for foreign tourists sell significant number of Fukushima products. It’s TAKEYA located near JR Okachimachi station. fukushima-diary.com
Russian nuclear bombers were spotted flying near Alaska this week. news.yahoo.com
Unit 2 at Exelon’s La Salle nuclear plant in Illinois tripped offline Tuesday when a safety system activated unexpectedly. nuclearstreet.com
-
EPA Proposing New Standards that Would Endanger Public Health
The United States Environmental Agency exists for the purpose of insuring the well-being of the environment and public health by monitoring for pollutants and regulating sources of pollution. The EPA has a history of criticizing other agencies when they proposed standards for acceptable levels of radiation that the EPS felt were not sufficiently protective of the environment and human health. The EPA “acceptable risk range” for limiting exposure to carcinogens lies between one new cancer in a million people and one new cancer per ten thousand people, the closer to one in a million, the better. The EPA does not distinguish between hazardous chemicals and radioactive materials. The EPA once complained to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission about a proposed standard. “To put it bluntly, radiation should not be treated as a privileged pollutant. You and I should not be exposed to higher risks from radiation sites than we should be from sites which had contained any other environmental pollutant.”
This sounds good but it turns out that the EPA does not follow its own advice when it comes to acceptable levels of radiation exposure. The EPA has just released an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking with respect to Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations covered in 40 Code of Federal Regulation 190. The proposed change would allow for whole body exposure to radiation that could result in a maximum risk of two thousand new cancers per one million people.
It turns out that the EPA method of regulating radiation exposure is treated differently from the regulation of all other carcinogens. All other standards are stated in terms of risks of new cancers. Radiation standards are stated in terms of exposure measured in special radiation units of “Roentgen equivalent man” (REM) and Sieverts which equal one hundred REMs. These special measures make it difficult for decisions makers and the public to compare radiation exposure to exposure to other carcinogens. Since the initial adoption of 40 CFR 190 in the 1970s, it has been found that radiation exposure is much more dangerous than originally assumed. However, the standards for safety have not been changed to reflect this new understanding even though the EPA promised to review standards every five years from the original adoption in the 1970s.
Instead of raising standards for radiation exposure, the EPA Office of Radiation and Indoor Air (ORIA) has proposed weakening the current standard to allow for increased exposure to radiation. The ORIA wants to abandon the use of measuring exposure by “actual organ dose” in favor of a new measure called the “effective dose equivalent.” This change would allow for up to twenty five times the current limit for exposure. For some particular radionuclides at contaminated sites, the risk would increase by three and a half times.
The use of the new effective dose equivalent measure has been attacked by critics because it allows subjective judgments of the damage and pain caused by particular cancers. These critics would like to replace the idea of effective dose equivalent with an effective risk equivalent measure which would be more objective and accurate in the assessment of risk. Basing danger of radiation exposure on estimated risks of additional cancers is a better way to protect public health. The EPA should be reducing acceptable exposure to radiation, not increasing it.
