ICRP model in trouble
A New Scientist report on Uranium toxicity
reveals a massive gap in the scientific modelling of the International
Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). There are massive implications
for all aspects of nuclear policy and Uranium weaponry.
"Secondary Photoelectron effect"
The dangers of Uranium may have little to
do with its inherent radioactivity. The Low Level Radiation Campaign's
Dr. Chris Busby has proposed that genetic damage is caused by the interaction
of natural gamma and other radiation fields with Uranium or any element
of high atomic number. The impact of the gamma causes localised showers
of ionisations close to particles and even single atoms of elements of
high atomic number. Research by Busby in conjunction with Pr. Ewald Schnug,
a colleague at Germany's Federal Agricultural Research Centre, is about
to be published [see footnote].
All elements absorb gamma radiation and re-emit its energy in the form
of secondary photo-electrons. Their ability to do this varies with the
fourth power of the atomic number of the element; Uranium absorbs gamma
rays 585365 times more effectively than water does. The shower of localised
ionisations caused by the secondary photo-electrons creates a mechanism
for genetic damage which is ignored by the conventional model of radiation
risk. (The arithmetic is in LLRC's journal Radioactive Times April
2008 page 8: www.llrc.org/rat/subrat/rat72.pdf)
In 2003 Busby reported this "Secondary Photoelectron
effect" to the British Government's Committee Examining Radiation Risk
of Internal Emitters (CERRIE). It was one of the many important topics
omitted by the CERRIE Majority Report. Subsequently Busby published two
papers [see footnote] and described the effect to the UK Ministry of Defence
Depleted Uranium Oversight Board and CoRWM (Committee on Radioactive Waste
Management).
Heavy metal poisoning
The New Scientist has discussed the
Secondary Photoelectron effect only in relation to Depleted Uranium, although
it has far wider relevance. It has potential to explain why heavy metals
are toxic. Heavy metal toxicity exists despite wide differences in chemistry;
until now no-one has understood the reason.
Uranium DNA affinity
Uranium itself has a high affinity for the
phosphates in the DNA molecule and it is known that, at small total body
burdens of Uranium, a very high proportion of it will be on the DNA. Meditated
by the Secondary Photoelectron effect, Uranium focuses the energy of natural
gamma radiation onto DNA. This has the potential to explain observed high
risks of genetic diseases associated with nuclear facilities and events
like Chernobyl which are ignored by the ICRP and sneered at by the pro-nuclear
International Atomic Energy Agency and the World Health Organisation (which
has to defer to IAEA in matters of radiation and health).
Policy implications
The mining, processing, use and disposal of
Uranium must now be seen as creating health hazards far greater than predicted
by the ICRP's out of date modelling. There are extremely important policy
implications for nuclear power, disposal of radioactive waste, and nuclear
weapons (including depleted Uranium and new generations of weapons containing
other types of Uranium).
As LLRC has said since 1992, the effects of other types of radioactive
pollution have probably been underestimated too, but it now seems that
Uranium is the dominant problem.
New light on Busby's "Second Event theory"
In the last 20 years Chris Busby has proposed
his "Second Event theory" as a possible explanation of how radioactive
elements that decay more than once (Strontium 90 is an example) may have
a greater effect on genetic mutation. A first radioactive disintegration
that hits a cell without killing it forces the cell to repair itself. If
a second disintegration hits the same cell during the repair process, which
takes a few hours, it may cause a mutation that the cell cannot repair.
This is all in Wings
of Death
(http://www.llrc.org/wings/wingspage.htm)
|
suite:
Supporters of nuclear power have attacked
the theory, not least because they said radiation could not initiate the
repair process in cells, but in the New Scientist article the ICRP's Hans-Georg
Menzel accepts that "double hits of energy are known to be the most damaging
to cells." The Majority Report of CERRIE denied this in 2004 after long
arguments. See the Minority
Report (http://www.llrc.org)
for the true state of the debate on the Second Event theory.
The Secondary Photoelectron effect is now
seen to be another case of the general Second Event theory, describing
how sequences of radiation events can be concentrated into very localised
cellular targets. These considerations make nonsense of the conventional
model of radiation biology, which views radiation in terms of average energy
transfer across large volumes of tissue. The old concept of "dose" is now
useful only for those exposure regimes where the radiation truly is well-averaged.
The regulation of radioactivity in the environment is about to enter a
new phase in which "ionisation density" will be the vital parameter.
Compton scattering
In the New Scientist article Mark Hill
of Oxford University is reported as saying that Compton scattering would
reduce the importance of the secondary photo-electron effect. However,
Hill only discusses high energy gamma; the low energy part of the natural
gamma spectrum will create relatively high ionisation densities with a
correspondingly enhanced probability of causing double hits to DNA.
The New
Scientist article in full is only accessible to subscribers
but it is free on http://www.nuwinfo.se
and http://www.pharmacychoice.com/
The Low Level Radiation Campaign plays a key role in all this. LLRC
funds much of Dr. Busby's research. It was LLRC's publicity material that
alerted Professor Schnug to Dr. Busby's existence, and our office put them
in touch with each other. It was our journal Radioactive Times that alerted
New Scientist to the imminent publication of Busby and Schnug's new paper.
LLRC does all this and much more on a microscopic
budget, but we need money. Please consider a donation. http://www.llrc.org/donation.htm
tells you how you can give money — cheques, Standing Orders, transfers,
and Paypal (you don't need to have a Paypal account of your own)
Clicking on this
link takes you to our Paypal account, which is a safe way to send money
and costs you nothing.
You can do this even if you don't have a Paypal account - when the
payments page opens, scroll down to find where you can pay with plastic.
1. "Advanced Biochemical and Biophysical Aspects
of Uranium Contamination". Chris Busby and Ewald Schnug: Institute of Plant
Nutrition and Soil Science, Federal Agricultural Research Centre (FAL),
Bundesallee 50, D-38116 Braunschweig, Germany in "Loads and Fate of Fertilizer
Derived Uranium", pp. xx-xx Edited by L.J. De Kok & E. Schnug
© 2007 Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, The Netherlands
2 Busby C (2005) Depleted Uranium weapons, Metal Particles, and
Radiation Dose European Journal of Biology and Bioelectromagnetics Vol
1 No 1 p 82-93 www.ebab.eu.com
3. Busby C (2005) Does Uranium Contamination amplify natural background
radiation dose to DNA?
European Journal of Biology and Bioelectromagnetics Vol 1 No 2 p 120-131
www.ebab.eu.com
|