- Email: [email protected]
World high background natural radiation areas and public life: letter to the editor
Radiation Measurements 59 (2013) 288–289
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Radiation Measurements journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/radmeas
World high background natural radiation areas and public life: letter to the editor Dear Editor: In regard to recent paper entitled “World high background natural radiation areas: Need to protect public from radiation exposure” by Sohrabi (2012) in March 2012, there are some highlighted parts and comments that can be discussed in the following paragraphs: The author believes high background natural radiation (HBNR) areas have a high potential for radiation carcinogenesis and according to the linear non-threshold (LNT) model, the inhabitants of such areas should be protected. In contrast to the author, according to the epidemiological studies, the incidence of cancer among such areas is as low as that in normal areas and there are no significant statistical parameters for decision making (Kochupillai et al., 1976; Nair et al., 1999; Mosavi-Jarrahi et al., 2005; Mortazavi et al., 2006; Hendry et al., 2009; Nair et al., 2009). Also, the chromosomal aberration is not a specific marker for radiation carcinogenicity (Hendry et al., 2009). Further studies are required to find a relationship between cancer incidence and biological markers. Radiation carcinogenesis is a complex process (Mozdarani, 2012) and when the new phenomenon in low dose radiation such as radiation induced adaptive response that occur in HBNR areas are introduced (Mortazavi et al., 2005), many other factors should be taken into account (Mozdarani, 2012). On the other hand, LNT is a conservative risk assessment model and much extrapolation has been applied on the model (Brenner, 2001; Breckow, 2006; Scott, 2008). This model has failed in many epidemiological and laboratory studies (Cohen, 1995, 2002; Cuttler, 2010; Mosse, 2012) and its application is an unscientific act in the existing exposure situations such as HBNR areas where radiation is an inevitable part of life (Cohen, 2008). Although International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) recommended justification and optimization of radiation protection for all exposure situations, (ICRP, 2007) there are no conditions in HBNR areas that radiation exposure being considered as a harm agent. Therefore the justification can be achieved spontaneously. Sohrabi believes that to minimize the exposure of the inhabitants in the HBNR areas, two remedial approaches might be considered: conventional methodologies and collective approach methodology. The author also proposes the establishment of a national environmental radioactivity park which can be provisionally called “Ramsar Research Natural Radioactivity Park” (RRNRP). As to the author’s scientific discussions and suggestion, it must be reminded that high natural background radiation is
DOI of original article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.radmeas.2012.10.002. 1350-4487/$ – see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.radmeas.2012.09.005
a natural part of the universe and it is not a radioactive waste that must be disposed carefully or a radiation crisis that must be managed quickly (Abdollahi and Teymouri, 2012). Also, HBNR areas are not radioactively contaminated sites that must be cleaned. The radiation situation in HBNR areas is an existing exposure not emergency exposure that needs special protection mechanisms. In relation to approaches introduced and discussed by the author, some challenges in the following cases are considered including public life, risk communication, nature protection, science improvements, and policy making. People living in HBNR areas are as much adapted to their situations as the public in normal areas, and their adaptation is not only radioadaptation, but is a social, psychological, environmental, economic and emotional adaptation. Therefore, establishment of any special condition must be done with public permission while it is necessary to be cautious. In this situation, the role of risk perception and communication is very prominent. Previous studies about radiation or nuclear risk conception and communication showed that bad risk communication has caused to have challenging, misleading and misconception criteria (Perko, 2011) and as a result public fear and phobia (Radiophobia)(Zykova, 2007; Drottz-Sjöberg and Sjöberg, 2010) In regard to the author’s approach for people’s relocation from HBNR areas to another places, it sounds the reason is radiation and therefore the radiation risk is the main problem whose misconception can cause misunderstanding and so we can’t predict the final outcome of this history such as rejection of any radiation and peaceful nuclear programs. For the other approach, there is no need to remove natural radiation sources or get involved with nature; the simple approach can be domesticizing the life conditions and constructing and cultivating of living with radiation. Designing the domestic dwellings with traditional and special architecture is a cost and time effective method for radiation protection and also optimization of the process (Sharaf et al., 1999; Mortazavi et al., 2010). The Ramsar Research Natural Radioactivity Park (RRNRP) is a good idea the establishment of which has many advantages, but it should be justified economically, environmentally, psychologically and scientifically. During the organization of the RRNRP, the ordinary public life should be preserved and any measure should be taken cautiously. Sincerely
References Abdollahi, H., Teymouri, M., 2012. High natural background radiation areas and interaction between nature, scientists and public. In: 13th International Congress of the International Radiation Protection Association Scotland.
H. Abdollahi / Radiation Measurements 59 (2013) 288–289 Breckow, J., 2006. Linear-no-threshold is a radiation-protection standard rather than a mechanistic effect model. Radiation and Environmental Biophysics 44, 257–260. Brenner, D., 2001. Is the linear-no-threshold hypothesis appropriate for use in radiation protection? Favouring the proposition. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 97, 279. Cohen, B.L., 1995. Test of the linear-no threshold theory of radiation carcinogenesis for inhaled radon decay products. Health Physics 68, 157. Cohen, B.L., 2002. Cancer risk from low-level radiation. American Journal of Roentgenology 179, 1137–1143. Cohen, B.L., 2008. The linear no-threshold theory of radiation carcinogenesis should be rejected. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 13, 70–76. Cuttler, J.M., 2010. Commentary on using LNT for radiation protection and risk assessment. Dose-Response 8, 378–383. Drottz-Sjöberg, B.M., Sjöberg, L., 2010. The perception of risks of technology. Risks in Technological Systems, 255–273. Hendry, J.H., Simon, S.L., Wojcik, A., Sohrabi, M., Burkart, W., Cardis, E., Laurier, D., Tirmarche, M., Hayata, I., 2009. Human exposure to high natural background radiation: what can it teach us about radiation risks? Journal of Radiological Protection 29, A29. ICRP, 2007. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, vol. 37. ICRP Publication 103, pp. 2–4. Kochupillai, N., Verma, I., Grewal, M., Ramalingaswami, V., 1976. Down’s Syndrome and Related Abnormalities in an Area of High Background Radiation in Coastal Kerala. Mortazavi, S., Ghiassi-Nejad, M., Karam, P., Ikushima, T., Niroomand-Rad, A., Cameron, J., 2006. Cancer incidence in areas with elevated levels of natural radiation. International Journal of Low Radiation 2, 20–27. Mortazavi, S., Nowrouzi, S., Kazemi, E., Abdollahi, H., 2010. A novel design for construction of dwelling in radon prone areas of Ramsar. 7th Int. Conf. on High Levels of Natural Radiation and Radon Areas Mumbai, India, Nov., pp. 24–26. Mortazavi, S., Shabestani-Monfared, A., Ghiassi-Nejad, M., Mozdarani, H., 2005. Radioadaptive responses induced in human lymphocytes of the inhabitants of high level natural radiation areas in Ramsar, Iran. Asian Journal of Experimental Sciences 19, 19–39. Mosavi-Jarrahi, A., Mohagheghi, M., Akiba, S., Yazdizadeh, B., Motamedi, N., Shabestani Monfared, A., 2005. Mortality and Morbidity from Cancer in the Population Exposed to High Level of Natural Radiation Area in Ramsar, Iran. Elsevier, pp. 106–109.
289
Mosse, I.B., 2012. Genetic effects of ionizing radiation–some questions with no answers. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 112, 70–75. Mozdarani, H., 2012. Biological complexities in radiation carcinogenesis and cancer radiotherapy: impact of new biological paradigms. Genes 3, 90–114. Nair, M.K., Nambi, K., Amma, N.S., Gangadharan, P., Jayalekshmi, P., Jayadevan, S., Cherian, V., Reghuram, K.N., 1999. Population study in the high natural background radiation area in Kerala, India. Radiation Research 152, 145–148. Nair, R.R.K., Rajan, B., Akiba, S., Jayalekshmi, P., Nair, M.K., Gangadharan, P., Koga, T., Morishima, H., Nakamura, S., Sugahara, T., 2009. Background radiation and cancer incidence in Kerala, India-Karanagappally cohort study. Health Physics 96, 55. Perko, T., 2011. Importance of risk communication during and after a nuclear accident. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 7, 388–392. Scott, B.R., 2008. Low-dose radiation risk extrapolation fallacy associated with the linear-no-threshold model. Human & Experimental Toxicology 27, 163–168. Sharaf, M., Mansy, M., El Sayed, A., Abbas, E., 1999. Natural radioactivity and radon exhalation rates in building materials used in Egypt. Radiation Measurements 31, 491–495. Sohrabi, M., 2012. World high background natural radiation areas: need to protect public from radiation exposure. Radiation Measurements. Zykova, I.A., 2007. Environmental risk perception after Chernobyl. In: Cultures of Contamination. Research in Social Problems and Public Policy, vol. 14. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 205–221.
Hamid Abdollahi* Department of Radiology, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran * Tel.: þ98 9375125818. E-mail address: [email protected] 10 July 2012
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Radiation Measurements journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/radmeas
World high background natural radiation areas and public life: letter to the editor Dear Editor: In regard to recent paper entitled “World high background natural radiation areas: Need to protect public from radiation exposure” by Sohrabi (2012) in March 2012, there are some highlighted parts and comments that can be discussed in the following paragraphs: The author believes high background natural radiation (HBNR) areas have a high potential for radiation carcinogenesis and according to the linear non-threshold (LNT) model, the inhabitants of such areas should be protected. In contrast to the author, according to the epidemiological studies, the incidence of cancer among such areas is as low as that in normal areas and there are no significant statistical parameters for decision making (Kochupillai et al., 1976; Nair et al., 1999; Mosavi-Jarrahi et al., 2005; Mortazavi et al., 2006; Hendry et al., 2009; Nair et al., 2009). Also, the chromosomal aberration is not a specific marker for radiation carcinogenicity (Hendry et al., 2009). Further studies are required to find a relationship between cancer incidence and biological markers. Radiation carcinogenesis is a complex process (Mozdarani, 2012) and when the new phenomenon in low dose radiation such as radiation induced adaptive response that occur in HBNR areas are introduced (Mortazavi et al., 2005), many other factors should be taken into account (Mozdarani, 2012). On the other hand, LNT is a conservative risk assessment model and much extrapolation has been applied on the model (Brenner, 2001; Breckow, 2006; Scott, 2008). This model has failed in many epidemiological and laboratory studies (Cohen, 1995, 2002; Cuttler, 2010; Mosse, 2012) and its application is an unscientific act in the existing exposure situations such as HBNR areas where radiation is an inevitable part of life (Cohen, 2008). Although International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) recommended justification and optimization of radiation protection for all exposure situations, (ICRP, 2007) there are no conditions in HBNR areas that radiation exposure being considered as a harm agent. Therefore the justification can be achieved spontaneously. Sohrabi believes that to minimize the exposure of the inhabitants in the HBNR areas, two remedial approaches might be considered: conventional methodologies and collective approach methodology. The author also proposes the establishment of a national environmental radioactivity park which can be provisionally called “Ramsar Research Natural Radioactivity Park” (RRNRP). As to the author’s scientific discussions and suggestion, it must be reminded that high natural background radiation is
DOI of original article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.radmeas.2012.10.002. 1350-4487/$ – see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.radmeas.2012.09.005
a natural part of the universe and it is not a radioactive waste that must be disposed carefully or a radiation crisis that must be managed quickly (Abdollahi and Teymouri, 2012). Also, HBNR areas are not radioactively contaminated sites that must be cleaned. The radiation situation in HBNR areas is an existing exposure not emergency exposure that needs special protection mechanisms. In relation to approaches introduced and discussed by the author, some challenges in the following cases are considered including public life, risk communication, nature protection, science improvements, and policy making. People living in HBNR areas are as much adapted to their situations as the public in normal areas, and their adaptation is not only radioadaptation, but is a social, psychological, environmental, economic and emotional adaptation. Therefore, establishment of any special condition must be done with public permission while it is necessary to be cautious. In this situation, the role of risk perception and communication is very prominent. Previous studies about radiation or nuclear risk conception and communication showed that bad risk communication has caused to have challenging, misleading and misconception criteria (Perko, 2011) and as a result public fear and phobia (Radiophobia)(Zykova, 2007; Drottz-Sjöberg and Sjöberg, 2010) In regard to the author’s approach for people’s relocation from HBNR areas to another places, it sounds the reason is radiation and therefore the radiation risk is the main problem whose misconception can cause misunderstanding and so we can’t predict the final outcome of this history such as rejection of any radiation and peaceful nuclear programs. For the other approach, there is no need to remove natural radiation sources or get involved with nature; the simple approach can be domesticizing the life conditions and constructing and cultivating of living with radiation. Designing the domestic dwellings with traditional and special architecture is a cost and time effective method for radiation protection and also optimization of the process (Sharaf et al., 1999; Mortazavi et al., 2010). The Ramsar Research Natural Radioactivity Park (RRNRP) is a good idea the establishment of which has many advantages, but it should be justified economically, environmentally, psychologically and scientifically. During the organization of the RRNRP, the ordinary public life should be preserved and any measure should be taken cautiously. Sincerely
References Abdollahi, H., Teymouri, M., 2012. High natural background radiation areas and interaction between nature, scientists and public. In: 13th International Congress of the International Radiation Protection Association Scotland.
H. Abdollahi / Radiation Measurements 59 (2013) 288–289 Breckow, J., 2006. Linear-no-threshold is a radiation-protection standard rather than a mechanistic effect model. Radiation and Environmental Biophysics 44, 257–260. Brenner, D., 2001. Is the linear-no-threshold hypothesis appropriate for use in radiation protection? Favouring the proposition. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 97, 279. Cohen, B.L., 1995. Test of the linear-no threshold theory of radiation carcinogenesis for inhaled radon decay products. Health Physics 68, 157. Cohen, B.L., 2002. Cancer risk from low-level radiation. American Journal of Roentgenology 179, 1137–1143. Cohen, B.L., 2008. The linear no-threshold theory of radiation carcinogenesis should be rejected. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 13, 70–76. Cuttler, J.M., 2010. Commentary on using LNT for radiation protection and risk assessment. Dose-Response 8, 378–383. Drottz-Sjöberg, B.M., Sjöberg, L., 2010. The perception of risks of technology. Risks in Technological Systems, 255–273. Hendry, J.H., Simon, S.L., Wojcik, A., Sohrabi, M., Burkart, W., Cardis, E., Laurier, D., Tirmarche, M., Hayata, I., 2009. Human exposure to high natural background radiation: what can it teach us about radiation risks? Journal of Radiological Protection 29, A29. ICRP, 2007. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, vol. 37. ICRP Publication 103, pp. 2–4. Kochupillai, N., Verma, I., Grewal, M., Ramalingaswami, V., 1976. Down’s Syndrome and Related Abnormalities in an Area of High Background Radiation in Coastal Kerala. Mortazavi, S., Ghiassi-Nejad, M., Karam, P., Ikushima, T., Niroomand-Rad, A., Cameron, J., 2006. Cancer incidence in areas with elevated levels of natural radiation. International Journal of Low Radiation 2, 20–27. Mortazavi, S., Nowrouzi, S., Kazemi, E., Abdollahi, H., 2010. A novel design for construction of dwelling in radon prone areas of Ramsar. 7th Int. Conf. on High Levels of Natural Radiation and Radon Areas Mumbai, India, Nov., pp. 24–26. Mortazavi, S., Shabestani-Monfared, A., Ghiassi-Nejad, M., Mozdarani, H., 2005. Radioadaptive responses induced in human lymphocytes of the inhabitants of high level natural radiation areas in Ramsar, Iran. Asian Journal of Experimental Sciences 19, 19–39. Mosavi-Jarrahi, A., Mohagheghi, M., Akiba, S., Yazdizadeh, B., Motamedi, N., Shabestani Monfared, A., 2005. Mortality and Morbidity from Cancer in the Population Exposed to High Level of Natural Radiation Area in Ramsar, Iran. Elsevier, pp. 106–109.
289
Mosse, I.B., 2012. Genetic effects of ionizing radiation–some questions with no answers. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 112, 70–75. Mozdarani, H., 2012. Biological complexities in radiation carcinogenesis and cancer radiotherapy: impact of new biological paradigms. Genes 3, 90–114. Nair, M.K., Nambi, K., Amma, N.S., Gangadharan, P., Jayalekshmi, P., Jayadevan, S., Cherian, V., Reghuram, K.N., 1999. Population study in the high natural background radiation area in Kerala, India. Radiation Research 152, 145–148. Nair, R.R.K., Rajan, B., Akiba, S., Jayalekshmi, P., Nair, M.K., Gangadharan, P., Koga, T., Morishima, H., Nakamura, S., Sugahara, T., 2009. Background radiation and cancer incidence in Kerala, India-Karanagappally cohort study. Health Physics 96, 55. Perko, T., 2011. Importance of risk communication during and after a nuclear accident. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 7, 388–392. Scott, B.R., 2008. Low-dose radiation risk extrapolation fallacy associated with the linear-no-threshold model. Human & Experimental Toxicology 27, 163–168. Sharaf, M., Mansy, M., El Sayed, A., Abbas, E., 1999. Natural radioactivity and radon exhalation rates in building materials used in Egypt. Radiation Measurements 31, 491–495. Sohrabi, M., 2012. World high background natural radiation areas: need to protect public from radiation exposure. Radiation Measurements. Zykova, I.A., 2007. Environmental risk perception after Chernobyl. In: Cultures of Contamination. Research in Social Problems and Public Policy, vol. 14. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 205–221.
Hamid Abdollahi* Department of Radiology, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran * Tel.: þ98 9375125818. E-mail address: [email protected] 10 July 2012