A RADIATION RENAISSANCE

"To the Contrary,'' by Gregg M. Taylor, the lead editorial in Nuclear News, March 1996, p 3, published by the American Nuclear Society, is an example. Taylor writes, "There is growing support among radiation specialists for the view that the biological effects of radiation exposure do not follow a linear path between low and high levels of dose. In fact, some interpret the evidence to imply that low levels of radiation exposure accelerate DNA-repair mechanisms in cells, resulting in a net decreased risk of cancer.'' The experimental evidence is much stronger than Taylor indicates, but this editorial is indicative of the rapid change of established opinion.

"The Radiation Rebellion'' in Nuclear Issues 18, No. 1, p 4, Janu-ary 1996, available from 8 Ruvigny Mansions, Embankment, Putney, London SW15 1LE, also discusses radiation's new image. Listing three influential recent books on hormesis and radiation safety, Nuclear Issues points out that Germany spent $350 million battling Cher-nobyl caused radiation levels - which averaged only 1% above normal background. The surface radiation rise from use of phosphate fertilizers over the ten years since Chernobyl was 5%, five times greater.

The three books are Has Radiation Protection Become a Health Hazard? by Walinder, Health Effects of Low Level Radiation by Kondo, and My Life with Radiation - The Truth about Hiroshima by Ralph Lapp. The Lapp book illustrates the benefits that are being derived from careful studies of very large releases of radioisotopes. The actual health effects from such releases have been quite moderate.

Chernobyl itself is becoming a substantial example of nuclear power safety. (See Nuclear Issues 17, No. 11 and 18, No. 2.) During this accident, a graphite reactor with no containment building melted down and burned, with the result that radioisotopes were spread over a very wide area. Moreover, firefighters and other disaster personnel were utilized with very little regard for their own safety. Involving very improper design and severe human error, the Chernobyl accident is one of the worst nightmares that could possibly occur with a nuclear power plant. After 10 years, what have been the effects?

This thyroid cancer was caused by iodine-131, which has a half-life of 8 days, so this is a short-term hazard. Moreover, the effects of iodine-131 could have been mitigated by prompt oral administration of blocking doses of iodine, but the Russians did not take this precaution. (See Nuclear War Survival Skills by Cresson H. Kearny available for $12.50 postage-paid from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, P. O. Box 1279, Cave Junction, OR 97523.) Other than thyroid cancer in children, there has been no observed increase in cancer rates, even in leukemia, in any population - even including those groups that were close to the accident.

There has, however, been one much larger human cost as a result, not of the Chernobyl accident itself, but of the self-serving cacophony of propaganda and fear-mongering by the world-wide anti-nuke industry both before and after the disaster. Psychological effects on frightened people have been dramatic. (See "Chernobyl, Cancer, and Creeping Paranoia'' in The Economist, March 9, 1996, pp 81-82.) One example - the birth rate in central Europe dropped by one-third in 1986-1987 as a result of the abortion of children whom the parents feared would be malformed as a result of Chernobyl radiation. No such increases in malformation were, however, observed even in regions close to the accident. So, the accident killed few, but the anti-nuke propaganda killed tens of thousands of children and caused very widespread psychological suffering.