“IAEA today admitted there is no such thing as ‘safe’ levels of radiation” — Allowable radiation standard based on ‘benefit’, not safety

Published: June 2nd, 2011 at 9:57 am ET
By
Email Article Email Article
60 comments


‘There’s no safe radiation level’, Free Malaysia Today by Tashny Sukumaran, June 2, 2011:

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) today admitted there is no such thing as “safe” levels of radiation. [...]

CAP vice-president Mohideen Abdul Kader told reporters after meeting the IAEA panel that they had agreed to carry out a cost-benefit analysis before allowing the plant to start operations.

Mohideen also said that the IAEA’s radiation standards were merely an “international consensus”  as studies had not found a safe level of radiation.

He also cited a study from the National Academy of Science which said that one out of five workers would suffer from cancer if exposed to what the IAEA deemed an allowable radiation level.

“The panel said there should be sufficient justification for the project,” said Mohideen, “as their standards are not based on what is safe but how great the benefit.”

Published: June 2nd, 2011 at 9:57 am ET
By
Email Article Email Article
60 comments

Related Posts

  1. Report: Fukushima Safety Levels NOT Safe (VIDEO) December 12, 2011
  2. Top Cancer Doc: Nuclear radiation is the most carcinogenic thing that exists June 5, 2011
  3. Renowned nuclear policy expert: “Every amount of radiation exposure increases your risk of cancer… There is no safe level of radiation” April 20, 2011
  4. US Government statements about safe radiation “actually undermine confidence” — Total I-131 and Cs-137 from Fukushima now appear to rival Chernobyl April 7, 2011
  5. “Muzzled”: Fukushima teacher quits after stopped from alerting students about radiation exposure — Asst. principal says “I don’t think the children are safe either” July 28, 2011

60 comments to “IAEA today admitted there is no such thing as ‘safe’ levels of radiation” — Allowable radiation standard based on ‘benefit’, not safety

  • mono

    So are they finally ready to say what most honest scientists already knew: The radiation-dose effect relationship is linear, with no threshold.

    Also, did anybody else see the photo of IAEA inspectors happily walking around Fukushima Daichi plant wearing just gas masks? That’s like the early days of the crisis when TEPCO issued their workers with just dust masks for their faces. Now, even the TEPCO workers are given fully self-contained breathing apparatus when entering the plant premises.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/01/japan-nuclear-crisis-iaea-report_n_869508.html


    Report comment

    • Wrong! Dose has no meaning internally. One ray can cause enough damage to cripple your body functions and also that of your progeny. Please read up on line 2010 Recommendations of the ECRR. Go to llrc.org for the URL and explanations.
      And of course Alexy V. Yablokov, Vassily B. Nesterenkov and Alexey V.Nesterenkov.2009. Chernobyl. Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and Environment. Consulting Ed.Janette D Sherman-Nevinger. NYAS.
      downloadable from the same site. The linear relation is for external doses.
      But IAEA model of radiation safety is based on pre DNA model which is false and not applicable to internal rad emitters.
      The is no benefit from nuclear power which does not deliver any energy to the society apart from the nuclear industry.
      See http://energyauditofnuclearfuelcycles.blogspot.com/
      and
      http://energyauditnuclearprogrammeindia.blogspot.com/


      Report comment

      • mono

        I agree with you the linear, no threshold relation holds for external doses only. It’s meaningless when the likes of TEPCO say some worker has had an internal dose of this or that amount, when we know the amount of radiation released inside the body steadily increases all the time as the radioactive substance continues emitting radiation indefinitely, albeit gradually declining by half every half-life. If you ingest a 30-year+ half-life radioisotope, you will have daily harmful radiation emitted inside your body for the rest of your life.


        Report comment

  • Maa

    No safe level of radiation. What does that tell u. RADIATION IS DANGEROUS!


    Report comment

    • Devil's Advocate

      Oh, but they say the BENEFIT outweighs the health risks! Keep eating your Turkish Delight.


      Report comment

    • Maa has come up with the best scientific conclusion I’ve ever seen. [Well done Maa]. It’s a simple model, but profound.

      Forget the ICRP and ECRR models.

      I’m going with the Maa Model for Low and High Levels of Ionizing Radiation.


      Report comment

  • SteveMT

    OLD News, but only selectively applied.

    BEIR VII Study Published in 2006.

    The committee concludes that the current scientific evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that there is a linear, no-threshold dose-response relationship between exposure to ionizing radiation and the development of cancer in humans.

    http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11340&page=323


    Report comment

    • SteveMT

      This is a 400 page study with hundreds of contributors, by the National Research Council, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.

      The study was supported by the Environmental Protection Agency Grant #X-826842-01, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Grant #NRC-04-98-061, and U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology Grant #60NANB5D1003.

      Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. [INDEED!!!!!!]

      http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11340&page=R2


      Report comment

  • Hmm

    “their standards are not based on what is safe but how great the benefit.”

    In other words, a certain amount of horrible deaths are acceptable and to be expected using nuclear power.


    Report comment

  • Hmm

    The end justifies the means.


    Report comment

  • Hmm

    After the Gulf spill and Fukushima, can we NOW start getting serious about clean renewable energies, or do we need to argue about it some more?


    Report comment

  • ocifferdave

    Oldie but Goodie. Reread this. This old scientist in Japan has cahoonies to jump off the ban wagon and tell the truth back then.

    http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2011/04/fukushima-i-nuke-plant-ishikawa-of-jnti.html


    Report comment

  • Lucas Whitefield Hixson

    http://lucaswhitefieldhixson.com/lucaswebcamwatch.html

    something just happened at reactor 4 on both cams at the same time. Large plume of smoke. Have it on timelapse will upload to youtube soon


    Report comment

  • datajunkie

    The benefits *to the wealthy* outweigh the risks *to the working class*. Those making the decisions reap all the rewards while forcing workers and their families to suffer the consequences.


    Report comment

  • Ian

    Do you think there is a relationship between more nuclear power plants built and the rise in cancers? Is it possible to someone can pass on increased cancer risk to their children by being exposed to nuclear radiation?


    Report comment

    • xdrfox

      Cancers were extremely rare prior to the atomic age !
      Nough said !


      Report comment

      • TraderGreg

        Sorry Dr.

        That’s correlation not causation. As much as I am critical of the nuclear energy :-) we cannot draw conclusions like that.


        Report comment

        • xdrfox

          Been discussed on forum here before and believe links were provided as to the increases of cancers since atomic age, you are welcome to show links verifying otherwise !


          Report comment

          • radegan

            But how would you prove causation except to initiate a grand experiment? Wait for the next meltdown and then give some of the population access to new radiation protection drugs, and the rest are your control. NOW, we can establish causation.


            Report comment

          • TraderGreg

            Doc,

            I am with you, and intuitively I believe there is causation. Radiation is causing cancer.

            However, correlation is not causation. Why I am saying it? Because the corrupt scientist, used this type confusion to justify all sort of bad things. Tobacco Institiute anyone? They used correlation instead of causation to justify the benefits of nicotine.

            This two-sided sword of science misuse.

            If someone makes statement, it is up to that person to prove in the plausible manner, if questions are raised. It is not on someone to disprove. It means prove ‘Yes’, before someone tries to prove ‘No’.

            OK -Doc – I am with yo on this, but your statement raised many red flags. No need to argue.

            I do not have any scientific proof that your statement is wrong, but I do not need – see above.

            Cheers


            Report comment

        • xdrfox

          The name for this condition is low-level radiation, which has little relation to background radiation from natural causes such as cosmic rays and radioactive minerals in the soil. Over the course of countless millennia, human immune defenses have developed the capacity to resist cancer from such natural sources, only to be overwhelmed in 1945 by the sudden introduction into a previously pristine atmosphere of huge amounts of man-made radiation…
          http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/gould.htm

          In a recent study, Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab reported [15] measuring one Curie of radiocesium per year, passing through San Francisco Bay, attached to fine sediment. Cesium 137 and Strontium 90 are the two most abundant fission products, and are commonly measured as an indicator of more than 400 other fission products produced. Therefore far more than one Curie of ionizing radiation per year has been washing through the Bay. Clay particles are highly charged and act as scavenging agents for radioactive particles suspended in water. This has been a chronic and cumulative source of low-level ionizing radiation washing up daily on the San Francisco Bay side of the Marin shoreline for at least 60 years – since atmospheric testing started in 1945, and the likely cause of the high rates of breast cancer reported in Marin County.

          Based on 550 epidemiological studies of exposed populations, an independent low-level ionizing radiation report for the European Parliament, the European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR) report, has stated that chronic exposure to low-level ionizing radiation is:
          “…up to 1000 times more biologically damaging than the International Committee on Radiation Protection (ICRP) standards and risk model predict.”[16]…
          http://www.namastepublishing.co.uk/Populations%20Exposed%20to%20Enviromental%20Uranium.htm


          Report comment

        • xdrfox

          The name for this condition is low-level radiation, which has little relation to background radiation from natural causes such as cosmic rays and radioactive minerals in the soil. Over the course of countless millennia, human immune defenses have developed the capacity to resist cancer from such natural sources, only to be overwhelmed in 1945 by the sudden introduction into a previously pristine atmosphere of huge amounts of man-made radiation.
          http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/gould.htm

          During October, women are bombarded with media telling us what we can do to stop breast cancer. Article after article after television human interest segment informs us about personal risk factors such as smoking and being overweight (although 70 percent of women who are diagnosed with breast cancer have none of these factors) and about genetic risks (which only account for 10 percent of breast cancers.) We are bombarded with stories about the importance of getting mammograms and other tests. Then there are the survivor stories (usually about women much younger, whiter and cover-girl prettier than the average breast cancer survivor) that pull at our heartstrings. But there is very little mention of environmental factors such as auto exhaust, and chemicals like parabens and phthalates that we are exposed to every day.

          The most deafening silence, however, is about radiation, which is a 100 percent known cause of cancer. We are exposed to radiation in a variety of ways, through X-rays, CT scans and mammograms, but also by living near a nuclear power plant or having been exposed to weaponry that uses depleted uranium.
          http://www.blackherbals.com/biggest_breast_cancer_risk_factor.htm


          Report comment

      • xdrfox

        Corrupt scientist, may be paid by Nuke Power industry ?
        Tobacco may absorb the radiation from fallouts through its roots and causing cancers, it may have been not so bad before chemical treatments of pesticides such as DDT !
        The normal back ground is not debated here only the added radiations man has created and plagued is with for eternity !
        The name for this condition is low-level radiation, which has little relation to background radiation from natural causes such as cosmic rays and radioactive minerals in the soil. Over the course of countless millennia, human immune defenses have developed the capacity to resist cancer from such natural sources, only to be overwhelmed in 1945 by the sudden introduction into a previously pristine atmosphere of huge amounts of man-made radiation…
        http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/gould.htm


        Report comment

    • Lill

      @ Ian, yes. dad had exposure in the 40′s/50′s. = abnormal bone disease & bone infections from the 70′s on to his death. I have bone disease. my girl has minor bone problems now, it is possible to worsen later in her life, as mine did. my half sis died of grossly metastasized cancer in the late 90′s (she was 25 years my senior).

      cancer was rare in the 60′s when i was small, by late 80′s many in my family had cancer. by 90′s those were all dead from cancer.

      http://www.gulfwarvets.com/du.htm

      below link NOT for weak stomachs!
      http://stgvisie.home.xs4all.nl/VISIE/extremedeformities.html

      http://www.democracynow.org/2004/9/30/daughter_of_soldier_contaminated_with_depleted


      Report comment

    • Jon

      Yes, google the Sternglass paper on TMI. There’s reasonable evidence that quite small doses affect the fetus in-utero, and if you research hotspots of high infant mortality in the US, you will usually find nearby nuclear power stations…

      http://www.nj.com/cumberland/index.ssf/2011/05/baby_love_program_combats_high.html

      http://wikimapia.org/52167/Salem-Nuclear-Power-Plant-AKA-Artificial-Island

      You can also look at the decline in the percentage of the population that is healthy. It is a surprisingly low number.

      The US Vital Statistics are your friend for research.


      Report comment

    • Lill

      http://johnmccarthy90066.tripod.com/id153.html

      Depleted Uranium:
      Dirty Bombs, Dirty Missiles, Dirty Bullets – A Death Sentence Here And Abroad

      By Leuren Moret
      San Francisco Bay View, August 18, 2004

      “This week the American Free Press dropped a “dirty bomb” on the Pentagon by reporting that eight out of 20 men who served in one unit in the 2003 U.S. military offensive in Iraq now have malignancies. That means that 40 percent of the soldiers in that unit have developed malignancies in just 16 months.”

      They brought it home

      “In a group of 251 soldiers from a study group in Mississippi who had all had normal babies before the Gulf War, 67 percent of their post-war babies were born with severe birth defects. They were born with missing legs, arms, organs or eyes or had immune system and blood diseases. In some veterans’ families now, the only normal or healthy members of the family are the children born before the war.”


      Report comment

  • xdrfox

    A second question: Are we marginally safer in the southern hemisphere from this clearly UNNATURAL one-hundred-and fifty percent increase in environmental radiation since 1945? (2.5 mSv/yr pre-Fukushima, is 250% of the earlier truly natural 1 mSv/yr pre-1945)
    Thirdly: based on mass epidemiological evidence of low dose internal emitters causing cancer, how many cancers pre-Fukushima were already occurring globally each year due to the global post-1945 appearance of environmental nuclear pollution?
    Clearly we can never sort this out if we allow the nuclear industry and its legions of apologists to trick politicians with their lies that 2.5 mSv/yr pre-Fukushima was all natural when it clearly represented a 150% increase above true natural background radiation levels. And the “radiation hormesis” gang need to reset their starting point to pre-1945 levels of environmental radiation viz. 1 mSv/yr…
    http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/newposts/5111/topic5111323.shtm

    Iraqi City Has Higher Cancer Rates than Hiroshima
    July 24, 2010
    SBS TV News & BBC World News
    Young women in Fallujah in Iraq are terrified of having children because of the increasing number of babies born grotesquely deformed, with no heads, two heads, a single eye in their foreheads, scaly bodies or missing limbs. In addition, young children in Fallujah are now experiencing hideous cancers and leukemias

    Iraqi City Has Higher Cancer Rates than Hiroshima
    SBS TV News (Australia)
    (July 22, 2010) — A report has been published indicating cancers and other diseases in the Iraqi city of Fallujah are higher than those of the survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs.
    A report has been published indicating cancers and other diseases in the Iraqi city of Fallujah are significantly higher than those of the survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs of 1945….

    Cancer Rate In Fallujah Worse Than Hiroshima
    Tom Eley / WSWS.org
    (July 23, 2010) — The Iraqi city of…


    Report comment

    • xdrfox – wow good info here to know….. from an article on your topic:
      ***Of particular significance was the finding that the sex ratio between newborn boys and girls had changed. In a normal population this is 1,050 boys born to 1,000 girls, but for those born from 2005 there was an 18 per cent drop in male births, so the ratio was 850 males to 1,000 females. The sex-ratio is an indicator of genetic damage that affects boys more than girls. A similar change in the sex-ratio was discovered after Hiroshima.***

      And that’s the mild stuff to consider….


      Report comment

      • xdrfox

        During the Gulf war, Britain and the United States pounded the city and its surroundings with 96,000 depleted-uranium shells. The wretched creatures in the photographs–for they were scarcely human–are the result, Dr Amer said. He guided me past pictures of children born without eyes, without brains. Another had arrived in the world with only half a head, nothing above the eyes. Then there was a head with legs, babies without genitalia, a little girl born with her brain outside her skull and the whatever-it-was whose eyes were below the level of its nose. Then the chair-grabbing moment–a photograph of what I can only describe (inadequately) as a pair of buttocks with a face and two amphibian arms. Mercifully, none of these babies survived for long.

        Depleted uranium has an incubation period in humans of five years. In the four years from 1991 (the end of the Gulf war) until 1994, the Basrah Maternity Hospital saw 11 congenital anomalies. Last year there were 221. Then there is the alarming increase in cases of leukemia among Basrah babies lucky enough to have been born with the full complement of limbs and features in the right place. The hospital treated 15 children with leukemia in 1993. In 2000 it was 60. By the end of this year that figure again will be topped. And so it will go on. Forever. Depleted uranium has a half-life of 4.1 billion years. Total disintegration occurs after 25 billion years, the age of the earth
        http://prorev.com/du.htm


        Report comment

  • Don’t Mini-mize the Dangers of Nuclear Power

    By Gar Smith

    The radiation from Japan’s crippled Fukushima Daiichi reactors poisoned farmlands, contaminated the sea, and sent invisible mists of radiation wafting around the world. The latest – and it’s just the latest – atomic accident has raised new concerns about the risks of nuclear energy. But still the question remains: Are we wise enough to finally understand that nuclear reactors are a fool’s technology?
    http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/eij/article/dont_mini-mize_the_dangers_of_nuclear_power


    Report comment

  • June 2: Japan Nuclear Disaster Update

    June 2nd, 2011 › High Risk Energy, Nuclear › Sara Barczak ›

    http://blog.cleanenergy.org/2011/06/02/june-2-japan-update/


    Report comment

  • Lill

    want more hard data? here ya go:

    Study: 1950s nuclear fallout worse than thought
    CNN March 01, 2002
    http://articles.cnn.com/2002-03-01/us/nuclear.fallout_1_nuclear-tests-fallout-hot-spots?_s=PM:US

    “Any person living in the contiguous United States since 1951 has been exposed to radioactive fallout, and all organs and tissues of the body have received some radiation exposure,” the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Cancer Institute said in a progress report prepared for Congress.”

    “What we know is maybe the tip of the iceberg here,” Harkin said. “We know that there’s been upwards of perhaps 15,000 deaths that are attributable to these nuclear tests.” Congress received the preliminary report last August.”

    Above-Ground Nuclear Blasts
    http://epa.gov/rpdweb00/rert/nuclearblast.html

    Radiation exposure, nuclear power plants, Germany
    http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/r/radiation-exposure-npp.htm

    Nuclear Radiation and Health Effects
    http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf05.html

    “Radiation protection standards assume that any dose of radiation, no matter how small, involves a possible risk to human health. This deliberately conservative assumption is increasingly being questioned.”


    Report comment

  • SteveMT

    Now, the IAEA wants up to date information about Fukushima from Japan,…Not from TEPCO? Are they now one-in-the-same?

    IAEA wants latest information on nuclear accident
    Friday, June 03, 2011 01:25 +0900 (JST)

    The International Atomic Energy Agency has called on Japan to report the latest, most detailed information on the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.

    The IAEA explained to its member nations the current status of the accident at a meeting at its headquarters in Vienna on Thursday. The agency plans to hold an international, ministerial-level meeting to discuss the accident later this month.

    http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/03_01.html


    Report comment