Radiophobia Research Articles

A Revised System of Radiological Protection Is Needed.

The system of radiological protection has been based on linear no-threshold theory and related dose-response models for health detriment (in part related to cancer induction) by ionizing radiation exposure for almost 70 y. The indicated system unintentionally promotes radiation phobia, which has harmed many in relationship to the Fukushima nuclear accident evacuations and led to some abortions following the Chernobyl nuclear accident. Linear no-threshold model users (mainly epidemiologists) imply that they can reliably assess the cancer excess relative risk (likely none) associated with tens or hundreds of nanogray (nGy) radiation doses to an organ (e.g., bone marrow); for 1,000 nGy, the excess relative risk is 1,000 times larger than that for 1 nGy. They are currently permitted this unscientific view (ignoring evolution-related natural defenses) because of the misinforming procedures used in data analyses of which many radiation experts are not aware. One such procedure is the intentional and unscientific vanishing of the excess relative risk uncertainty as radiation dose decreases toward assigned dose zero (for natural background radiation exposure). The main focus of this forum article is on correcting the serious error of discarding risk uncertainty and the impact of the correction. The result is that the last defense of the current system of radiological protection relying on linear no-threshold theory (i.e., epidemiologic studies implied findings of harm from very low doses) goes away. A revised system is therefore needed.

Evaluation of Ionizing Radiation Profile in Hot-Lab of Nuclear Medicine Department to Eliminate Undue Radiation Phobia of Technologists in Cancer Hospital

Evaluation of Ionizing Radiation Profile in Hot-Lab of Nuclear Medicine Department to Eliminate Undue Radiation Phobia of Technologists in Cancer Hospital

Convergence in norming and control of modern wireless technologies electromagnetic fields

Telecommunications industry evolution shows the highest rates of transition to high-tech systems and is accompanied by a trend of deep mutual penetration of technologies - convergence. The dominant telecommunication technologies have become wireless communication systems. The widespread use of modern wireless technologies has led to the saturation of the environment with technological electromagnetic fields and the actualization of the problems of protecting the population from them. This fundamental restructuring has led to a uniform dense placement of radiating fragments of network technologies in the mudflow areas. The changed parameters of the emitted fields became the reason for the revision of the regulatory and methodological support of electromagnetic safety. A fragmented structural, functional and parametric analysis of the problem of protecting the population from the technological fields of network technologies revealed uncertainty in the interpretation of real situations, vulnerability, weakness and groundlessness of the methodological basis of sanitary-hygienic approaches. It is shown that this applies to all stages of the electromagnetic examination of the emitting fragments of network technologies. Distrust arises on the part of specialists and the population in not only the system of sanitary-hygienic control, but also the safety of modern network technologies is being called into question. Growing social tensions and radio phobia are everywhere accompanying the development of wireless communication technologies. The basis for solving almost all problems of protecting the population can be the transfer of subjective methods and means of monitoring and sanitary-hygienic control of electromagnetic fields into the field of IT.

Letter to the Editor: On the Radiation-Leukemia Dose-Response Relationship among Recovery Workers after the Chernobyl Accident

This letter to the Editor continues the topic of the Chernobyl accident and probable overestimation of its consequences started in the journal Dose-Response (Jaworowski 2010; Jargin 2011) within a broader perspective: the dose-response relationship after low-dose low-rate exposures to ionizing radiation. UNSCEAR (2000) Report concluded that no increased risk of leukemia related to ionizing radiation has been found among recovery operation workers (liquidators) after the Chernobyl accident. According to the UNSCEAR (2008) Report, recent studies suggest an increase in the incidence of leukemia among the liquidators; however, limitations of those studies include low statistical power, uncertainties in dose reconstructions, and internal inconsistencies that suggest potential biases and confounding factors; evidence of the leukemia incidence increase among liquidators thus being “far from conclusive”. An association between a radiation exposure and leukemia incidence among liquidators was reported recently (Ivanov et al. 2012; Zablotska et al. 2013). Participation rates were higher among “cases” than among controls (Zablotska et al. 2013), a phenomenon noticed also by other researchers (Cardis et al. 2005; Kesminiene et al. 2008), being probably caused by higher motivation of the cases. The patients knowing their doses were probably on average more interested in further medical examinations if a dose estimate had been relatively high. In the health care system of the former Soviet Union, thoroughness of an examination sometimes depended on a patient’s initiative. In other words, individuals with higher dose estimates were probably given on average more attention, and cared more about their health themselves. “The dose-dependent participation of self-reported pre-screening cases” was pointed out by Zablotska et al. (2011), which probably can occur in Chernobyl-related research of different kind. Therefore, a probability of discovering a disease without specific local symptoms such as leukemia must be higher in people with higher dose estimates. Therefore, one of the reasons why no statistically significant radiation risks were observed for chronic lymphatic leukemia (CLL) by Ivanov et al. (2012) seems to be clear: this leukemia type is often accompanied by lymphadenopathy therefore probably remaining less frequently undiagnosed in the general population.

14C-Urea breath test is safe for pediatric patients

Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection, quite prevalent in the developing countries, is considered to be one of the causative factors for various gastric pathologies and other nongastric diseases. It is believed that H. pylori infection is almost always acquired in early childhood and persists throughout life unless specific treatment is given. The (13/14)C-urea breath test (UBT) is now considered to be a 'gold standard' technique for the detection of H. pylori infection. However, because of the lack of facilities and high cost, the preferred nonradioactive ¹³C-UBT cannot be performed on pediatric patients in developing countries, whereas the radioactive ¹⁴C-UBT is not used on children because of the fear of radiation exposure. When using 37 kBq (1 μCi) of ¹⁴C-urea for the ¹⁴C-UBT, the patient is not exposed to more radiation than is acquired from the natural environment in one day, as almost all the ingested radioactivity is excreted from the body (urine and breath) within 72-120 h. This article reviews the importance of the ¹⁴C-UBT for the detection of H. pylori and justifies the radiation safety aspects of its use in children without any fear of 'radiation phobia' where the facility for ¹³C-UBT is lacking.

“Fear of radiation” is frightening

The world’s two worst industrial disasters occurred in the early years of my career in radiation physics. The Bhopal gas tragedy was the worst industrial accident and occurred on the night of December 2–3, 1984 at the Union Carbide pesticide plant in Bhopal, India and killed 10,000 people on that one night. The worst ever nuclear accident occurred at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine on 26 April 1986, which led to less than 60 fatalities within 3 months of the accident. These two catastrophic events helped me shape my perception of the risks associated with modern industrial processes. While many have forgotten the Bhopal gas tragedy, the Chernobyl disaster is still fresh in our collective memory. Last year was the 25th anniversary of the Bhopal gas tragedy and I asked my medical radiation students if they had heard of this event. Not a single student out of the 80 in the class had heard of or read about this event. However, more than a handful of students had heard or read about the Chernobyl disaster. The students were shocked to hear that for every one person killed in the immediate aftermath of Chernobyl one hundred more fatalities were recorded in Bhopal. I often wonder why our perception of the risk associated with ionising radiation is so heavily skewed. Who is responsible for this public anxiety? Is it the media, politicians or scientists? I think the burden of responsibility falls equally on all three sections of society. If our perception of the risk is not balanced, we are predisposed to making incorrect judgments. Such decisions are invariably costly and often lead to exposure to the unknown and perhaps more significant risk elements. After more than 100 years of research, the risk radiation poses to humans is still poorly understood at ‘low dose’ level. Most people regard a dose less than 100 mSv as low dose. Public fear of radiation began to develop after the dropping of the A-bombs on Japan during WW2. The fear has been propagated by the blatant lies of the anti-nuclear campaigners and was and is still supported by the mass media seeking sensationalist stories. The saying ‘Never let a fact get in the way of a good story’ unfortunately holds very true when applied to events involving ionising radiation. It is nearly impossible for a scientist to get anything in the mass media that contradicts the prevailing falsehoods. My own experience illustrates that even professional radiation physicists are not spared from radiation phobia. On one occasion I was working near the door of a high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy room, where the dose rate out of the shielding container is typically 5 lSv/h. My colleague, a physicist, insisted that I move away from that area as they considered the area to be characterized by a ‘high radiation level’. I obliged, as at the time, it was easier than to explain why it was safe for me to work there. I was M. Bhat (&) Adelaide Radiotherapy Centre, Adelaide, SA, Australia e-mail: mbhat@adradcentre.com.au

Radiation: Facts, fallacies and phobias

There is frequent debate in the media and the scientific published reports about the use of radiation for diagnosis and treatment, the benefits and risks of the nuclear industry, uranium mining and the storage of radioactive wastes. Driving this debate is increasing concern about reliance on fossil fuels for power generation for which alternatives are required. Unfortunately, there is generally a poor understanding of the relevant basic sciences compounded by widespread irrational fear of irradiation (radiation phobia). Radioactivity, with special reference to uranium and plutonium is simply described. How radiation affect tissues and the potential hazards to individuals and populations are explained. The origins of radiation phobia and its harmful consequences are examined. Whether we like it or not, Australia is heavily involved in the uranium industry by virtue of having one-third of the world's known reserves, exports of which are worth approximately $470m annually. As this paper has been written as simply as possible, it may also be of interest to readers who may have had little scientific training. It may be downloaded from the web using references provided in this article. It is concluded that ignorance and fear are major impediments to rational debate on radiation issues.

Rationale for a diagnostic chain in gestational breast tumor diagnosis

Due to the physiological tissue alterations of the breast during pregnancy and lactation the diagnosis of a breast tumor by palpation, imaging and fine-needle biopsy is difficult and often unreliable. The purpose of our study was to review the value of imaging (mammography and ultrasonography) and biopsy techniques in order to work out a reliable protocol for evaluating gestational tumors. We performed a retrospective analysis of 25 patients with clinical diagnosis of gestational breast tumors during a 4-year period from 1995 to 1999. Specimens were obtained by core biopsy for histological examination. Invasive breast cancer was diagnosed in five patients, malignant lymphoma of the skin in one patient. The tumors in the remaining 19 patients proved benign. The overall accuracy was 0.91 for conventional mammography, 0.76 for conventional and panoramic ultrasound and 0.48 for color-coded sonography. Mammography as the most reliable imaging method should be used to evaluate all patients in whom ultrasonographic findings are suspicious for tumor. Radiation phobia should not prevent the performance of mammography under these circumstances. Nevertheless, all pre-operative methods of diagnosing gestational breast tumors other than core biopsy are unreliable.

SRP Scientific Meeting: Dosimetry, Biology and Risks October 2000

SRP Scientific Meeting: Dosimetry, Biology and Risks October 2000

The 1951-98 experience of the Paris Institut Curie Radiopathology Unit: a preliminary report

From 1 January 1951 to 30 June 1998, 696 patients presented spontaneously or were referred to the French Institut Curie Radiopathology Unit following a more or less severe accidental irradiation. Of these, 568 patients came from France, while 128 were sent by various foreign countries. The very great majority of irradiation accidents occurred in the workplace, particularly in industry. Interestingly, `non-nuclear' industry was responsible for three times more events than the nuclear industry. While incidental irradiation of the public by lost radioactive sources was exceedingly rare in France, it seemed to be more frequent in our cohort of foreign patients. Radiation phobia accounted for about 10% of cases in the French cohort, but the number of cases did not seem to increase with time. Overall, the accrual of patients over time appears to be stable, with 10 to 25 new cases consulting each year. Fortunately, a majority of cases corresponded to low-level irradiation (and even no irradiation at all). In the French cohort, only 21.6% of patients, showing deterministic effects, required some form of treatment, with 4.9% considered as `severe' cases. Not unexpectedly, more patients required treatment in the foreign cohort (35.2%), with 24.2% of severe cases, including four deaths. The main features of this database are consistent with the data previously reported by the IAEA, UNSCEAR and REAC/TS. Although the number of severe cases is small, it should still be considered to be too high, especially as most of these accidents could have been easily avoided if a few basic radioprotection rules had been fully respected.