Ionising radiation: perhaps we have little to fear except fear itself

But the data for max and min figures for some countries is more important because variability ought to show up in mortality data – if LNT is correct. Examples give minimum and maximum levels in mGy per year are: India 0.18 to 9.64; Ireland 0.01 to 1.58; Germany 0.04 to 1.58; Norway 0.18 to 10.52. To my knowledge there is no evidence that demonstrates a significant variation in the incidence of radiation induced disease within any if those countries even though the variability is always much more than an order of magnitude. That appears significantly to weaken the LNT theory.

On 7/4/2011, soon after the Fukushima accident On Line Opinion put up an offering by Professor Wade Allison entitled 'we should stop running away from radiation'. He argued that modern knowledge, particularly of the way that the human body's cells repair themselves subsequent to radiation or oxidation attack, made the LNT model redundant and misleading, and that as a consequence 'safety levels' of radiation should be drastically raised. Allison is a nuclear and medical physicist at Oxford. He started out as a straight nuclear physicist and then altered direction to be involved in and expert at the applications of radiation to medicine – scanning and radiation therapy for example.

Allison published a book entitled Radiation and Reason sub titled 'the impact of Science on a culture of fear.' Partly perhaps because I previously knew nothing about radiobiology, I found it a most important book; mind changing. Allison is absolutely convinced about Climate change. Hence he sees the need to reduce fossil fuel emissions, and is convinced that by far the best way to do that is by using nuclear power.

Much of his thesis is that the body has multiple layers of protection against cell damage and that given some time to repair they will either repair themselves or die and be replaced by new cells. His background in the medical uses of radiation enables him to give examples of the doses given to patients. They are frequently monstrous – but given in separate doses to allow for repair. Radiation units are Sieverts and Grays, they are not really the same but for the purposes of this note I will follow UNSCEAR and assume that 1Sv equals 1Gy. Note that up to here all 'doses' except the two graphs have been in mSv and mGy, i.e each one thousandths of Sv and Gy. So Grays and Sieverts are big.

Allison gives the following treatments for some cancers:

• Bladder 30 doses of 2 Grays each. Given 5 times a week. Total 60 Grays.
• Breast 16 doses of 2.7 Grays each. Given 5 times a week. Total 42.5 Grays.
• Armpit 15 doses of 2.7 Grays each. Given 5 times a week. Total 40 Grays.
• Lung 36 doses of 1.8 Grays each. Given over a period of 12 days. Total 54 Grays.
• Prostate 39 doses of 2 Grays each. Given 5 times a week. Total 78 Grays.

To put these total doses into perspective, UNSCEAR subdivides doses for Acute Radiation Syndrome referred to earlier as being 'Very Severe' 6.5 to 16 Grays. All but one of those people died within a few weeks; 'Severe' 4.2 to 6.4 Grays, about a third died. So, all of the above treatments deliver, in total, vastly bigger doses than those that rapidly killed people after Chernobyl. Of course the therapy is carefully focussed on the cancer. But it seems evident that any idea that radiation damage is cumulative (like lead poisoning) is wrong.

Radiation and Reason examines the Hiroshima/Nagasaki data. Comparison of two groups, one irradiated by the bomb(s) and one that was not, showed that the extra risk of leukaemia caused by radiation per 1000 people were: for doses < 5mSv between -0.1 and 0.5; for 5 to 100mSv -0.4 to 0.2; for 100 to 200mSv -0.7 to 0.6. Only when we reach 500 to 1000mSv is the extra risk/1000 positive, being 1.0 to 2.6. Once again the idea of Linear no Threshold fails.

I find Allison's arguments generally convincing because he produces a mechanism – the repairing of cells over time – which explains how and why huge doses can be given with safety without immediate death and why the LNT model fails.

The title of this article is, with apologies to FD Roosevelt, referring to the idea that fear itself is dangerous. A final quotation from UNSCEAR 2008:…the Chernobyl accident is known to have had major effects that are not related to the radiation dose. They include effects brought on by anxiety about the future and distress, and any resulting changes in diet, smoking habits, alcohol consumption and are essentially unrelated to any actual radiation exposure.

These people have been told that they are doomed. They have been frightened by the wildly exaggerated dangers of radiation. Fear rules their lives. And we are doing the same to people from around Fukushima. But illogical fear of low level radiation is much more widespread than that. Such fear is rampant in most 'western countries'; Australia being an extreme example.

George Monbiot, environmental writer for the left wing Guardian newspaper in UK, like Wade Allison, is a passionate believer in global warming caused by CO2emissions. He sees nuclear energy as the only practical way to reduce emissions. He, rightly in my opinion, stated last year 'there are no ideal solutions. Every energy technology carries cost….the impact of Fukushima on the planet as a whole is small'.