However, the NRC glossary defines it as the sum of the deep-dose equivalent
and committed effective dose equivalent
, which would appear to exclude the effective dose to the skin and eyes from non-penetrating radiation such as beta.
These surface doses are included in the NRC’s shallow dose equivalent, along with contributions from penetrating (gamma) radiation. Regulatory limits are imposed on the TEDE for occupationally exposed individuals and members of the general public.
The above chart outlines in a picture form how TEDE works in theory. By taking 3 steps via 3 calculations, the TEDE theory assumes that an accurate risk model can be calculated and cancer or death risks can be assigned from there, without any further considerations. Of course, this very simplistic model ignores many crucial factors and details, and that is where the TEDE theory goes terribly wrong. Of course, how TEDE is applied specifically and who is doing the measuring of radiation and then the inputting of numbers also matters a great deal.
There is many a slip between the lip and the TEDE cup.
WHY ARE THINGS LIKE STATISTICAL AVERAGING METHODS SUCH AS TEDE AND RADIATION EXPOSURE RULES OR ‘WEIGHTS’ CREATED?
Via ChasAha November 16, 2014
“…recommendations for initiation of rulemaking…” “The framework continues to be based on the fundamental principles of ‘justification of exposures’,…”
– Page 3/4 Re: ICRP 103
How radiation risk rules get made and WHY they are created is very important. Are these rules made to protect the nuclear industry and give them a ‘cover’ for justifying radiation releases and increasing diseases as well as cancers and deaths? Are these rules and laws created and applied to protect the nuclear industry from the consequences of nuclear accidents?
Or, are these rules and risk factor ‘weights’ created to protect genetic health, infants, communities, the most fragile members of society, and 7 future generations? Keep these questions in mind as you read the rest of this article, because this article asserts that TEDE is not designed to protect human health, the genome or the public, but rather, it is designed to protect the nuclear industry.
SIMPLISTIC TEDE MODEL IGNORES OR DENIES ALL OF THE FOLLOWING FACTORS THAT INCREASE RISK OF DISEASE, CANCER OR DEATH CAUSED BY RADIATION SPECIFICALLY
- First of all, do you see any specific allowance for age? No..
- Do you see any allowance or modification for sex? No….
- Do you see any allowance or modification for health of the individuals to start with? No
- Do you see any allowance or modification for heavy metal poisoning effect, which is on top of the radiation effect? No
- Do you see any allowance for genetic damage caused by particularly DNA damaging radiation? No
- Do you see any allowance for synergistic effects from chemicals plus radiation? No
- Do you see any allowance for internal radiation effect on sperm or eggs specifically? No
- Do you see any allowance for calculating risks for combinations of inhalation, ingestion, bio accumulation, plus exterior exposure and chemical exposure? No
- Do you see any allowance for calculating increasing risk over time due to bioaccumulation? No
- Do you realistically think that anyone will calculate risks for all 1,900 radioactive elements coming out of a nuclear accident, using this or any other model? No
- Do you see any allowance for ingested ‘hot’ particles, or exposure to ‘hot spots’? No
- Do you see any allowance for ingested ‘buckyballs’ which combine different elements? No
- Do you see any allowance for individuals with genetic weaknesses or defects? No
- Do you see any allowance for individuals having allergic reactions to radioactive elements? No
- Do you see any allowance for individual nutritional deficiencies such as goiter? No
- Do you see any allowance for greater risk due to exposure from multiple radioactive elements? No
- Do you see any allowance for greater risk due to radiation triggering cancers, genetic diseases, physical diseases and latency periods? No
- Do you seen any allowance for cumulative damage from ALL radiation exposures and the breathing in and concentration of hot particles in the lung lymph glands, over time? No
- Do you see any allowance that matches the fact that 70% of all radiation exposure plus bio accumulation over time comes from foods and drinks over a period of years and tracks that increasing risk and negative health effects over time? No
- Do you see any allowance for permanent genetic damage to not just this generation, but also to future generations in an ever escalating manner that just gets worse and worse? No
- Do you see any allowance for GLOBAL effects of atomic radiation? No
- Do you see any allowance for negative radiation effects on animals, insects, birds, fish? No
- Do you see any allowance for the ionization electrical disturbance of human tissues? No
These questions and problems are just the tip of the iceberg. Let’s explore just a few of these issues with the TEDE model, by diving into them, one at a time.
TEDE MODEL IGNORES CELL TO CELL RADIATION LEVELS AND ALL RISKS POSED BY HOT PARTICLES
Via The Betrayal of Mankind by the Radiation Protection Agencies
SCAM NUMBER THREE: Continue to calculate organ doses from internal emitters by averaging the emitted energy over the entire mass of the organ.
This is basically a rewording and summation of Scams One and Two. The work of the Tri-Partite Conferences and Subcommittee Two developed the method for calculating an organ dose from internal emitters by averaging the emitted energy over the mass of the organ. Deceivers use this science to mask the physiological impact of embedded hot particles. They dilute the emitted energy by smearing it over a mass of tissue, as in the Busby example above, and then declare how the dose is too low to be hazardous. This is the centerpiece of the cover-up to forever assure that the medical effects of low levels of radiation produced by internal contamination will never be determined.
Earlier in this chapter, we cited the example of Dietz, who calculated that a particle of depleted uranium, 2.5 microns in diameter, transmits to the cells in its immediate vicinity in one year a dose of 170 rems. He concluded his article by saying, “until these doses can be related to a cancer risk factor, they must be viewed as qualitative indicators of danger, as red flags.” This point unveils another element of this scam. The risk of developing a cancer from internal emitters is calculated from doses delivered to whole organs. The risk posed by localized point sources of hot particles has not been scientifically determined. Thus again, the assertion that uranium/depleted uranium weapons are without risk is premature and lacks scientific validation.
And and all health risks or genetic damage can easily be ‘disappeared’ by averaging these risks out over whole organs, multiple organs or the whole body in a theoretical and statistical manner, as the nuclear industry does, over and over again.
TEDE FALSE MODEL ISSUES AND CONTROVERSIES
In a Public debate between ECRR’s Scientific Secretary Prof. Chris Busby and ICRP Scientific Secretary Emeritus Dr. Jack Valentin admits that ICRP recommendations cannot be applied to post-accident situations and that it is a mistake not to address studies which falsify ICRP’s model. Transcript here.
To do the math that TEDE requires in it’s formula, some assumptions have to be made about the danger or risk of each particular form of radiation. For example, the neutron radiation weighting factor is standardized differently depending on the source, study, table or equation and can vary by orders of magnitude. In other words, TEDE involves a guess about what number to use for any specific radiation type. The weighting factor for neutron radiation has been revised historically and remains controversial.
Since a neutron ray can kill you if aimed at your head, but only damage your hand, if aimed at one hand, the number used is very simplistic and does not account for exposure complexities such as this. Neutron radiation hitting fertilized eggs, sperm or infants, have a much different weighting factor, but these things are excluded from TEDE. There are many other factors that would wildly skew the results if these were included, rather than excluded with everything else, and then averaged and smoothed out via TEDE.
Bottom line, TEDE is not accurate and minimizes dangers plus risks overall, by ignoring REAL risks and dangers to individuals. Statistics can be ‘smoothed’ to the point where nothing is happening, when in reality, massive genetic and negative health damage is happening, plus large numbers of deaths and cancers are being triggered. But no one is looking for them in relationship to radiation exposure, because TEDE says it cannot be happening when the ‘experts’ are speaking of statistics and weighted average speaking.
“The radiation weighting factor for neutrons has been revised over time and remains controversial.”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_biological_effectiveness
Neutron radiation is only one of many radiations that people are exposed to both internally and externally. Is each one of these radiation risks calculated separately? Some radioactive elements emit more than one type of radiation, or decay into another element that emits a much more lethal radiation.
For example, radioactive iodine may not hang around very long, but very few people understand that it decays into radioactive xenon gas, which then decays into solid cesium. If this happens inside the body, each of those radioactive elements have to be accounted for in the TEDE risk model, but they aren’t.
The TEDE modeling ‘experts’ only measure the short 8 day radioactive iodine half life,. After it decays ‘away’, somehow and magically all of that radioactive iodine decay radiation disappears completely. But what does Iodine decay into? And what is the risk from that next radioactive element? And then what is the risk from the next decay element, and so on all the way down the chain? TEDE ignores all of these risks and decay chains completely, so all of that radiation just magically disappears, poof!
These nuclear experts also don’t like to talk about the very long lived cousins of radioactive iodine 131, plus 129. Each radioactive iodine has it’s own risk factors, and one of them goes on and on for a much longer time span than the other. Both radioactive iodines come out of reactors together, not separately and alone. Both are absorbed together, not apart. By avoiding measuring or talking about anything but the short lived Radioactive iodine, everything sounds much better and looks much better in the TEDE formula.
TEDE BASED ON UNIFORM EXPOSURE FOR HEALTHY ADULT MALE ONLY, OVER WHOLE BODY AND AVERAGED OUT FOR ALL CELLS, FOR BOTH EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR RADIATION SOURCES
NRC Report; “The TEDE-to-risk factor provided by ISCORS in Technical Report 1 is based upon a static population with characteristics consistent with the U. S. population. There are no separate ISCORS recommendations for workers. For workers (adults), a risk of fatal cancer
of 5 x 10–4 rem-1 and a morbidity risk of 7 x 10–4 rem–1 may be used. However, given the uncertainties in the risk estimates
, for most estimates the value for the general population of 6 x 10–4 rem–1 could be used for workers… For external sources of low linear energy transfer (LET) radiation that provide nearly uniform irradiation of the body,
the risk of cancer incidence (morbidity) and mortality as a function of external dose can be closely approximated using the conversion factors of 8×10 -2 risk per sievert and 6×10-2 risk per sievert respectively…. These conversion factors can also provide a generally high-sided, but less accurate, estimation of risk from internal dose….
These risk coefficients are recommended for use whenever a quantitative risk assessment is required. There are also times when it is useful to make a general qualitative statement about the risk associated with dose, which in the United States at present is expressed as effective dose equivalent (HE). The dose quantity HE is a risk-weighted mean of the dose equivalent for selected groups of organs and tissues. The values of the weighting factors are defined in International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Publication 26 which considered nominal estimates of both genetic and cancer mortality risks due to ionizing radiation.http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1127/ML112720579.pdf
As you can see from the above chart, each specific radioactive element has an interior risk factor and an exterior risk factor. 70% of radiation gets into the body over time and stays there due to ingestion via food or drink. But TEDE does not know how to calculate this complex radiation exposure pathway that takes years to develop and depends on local factors such as diet choices and lifestyle.
Bioaccumulation can result in huge risk factors over several years of ingesting even small 5 Bq/kg food or drinks, becoming lethal over a period of years. But TEDE does not address this risk or count it, especially if it is not measured, which it isn’t in almost all cases. And as we all know, these ‘experts’ don’t like actually measuring anything; they love ‘estimates’ and ‘models’ though. And if a radiation exposure is not measured, in their view, it does not exist.
As Little As 10-30 Bq/kg of Cesium Radiation In Kids Causes Health Problems; via @AGreenRoad
Each of the above factors can greatly increase the risk, lethality and disease potential for any given single radioactive element. And who in their right mind is going to calculate the damage caused by 1,946 individual radioactive elements on specific organs, glands or the whole body, plus the individual risk from more than one type of radiation coming from each of those elements, isotopes or actinides? No one. At best, nuclear ‘experts’ use a few of the most common radioactive elements and stop there. Of course, this one technique alone minimizes the dose and risk as well as the deaths.
1,946 Lethal Radioactive Man Made Isotopes Are Created By Nuclear Plants And Atomic Bombs; via @AGreenRoad
There is a huge problem with this. For example, take plutonium. If you factor in the risk and weigh it for plutonium 239, that is all well and good, but what about all of the other forms of radioactive plutonium, some of which are much more lethal and toxic?
Again, by ignoring this simple fact and minimizing by picking only the less toxic or lethal forms of radioactive elements, TEDE can ignore, deny, minimize or eliminate much of what is actually happening in real life.
PREGNANT WOMEN AND FETUSES ARE ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE MORE SENSITIVE TO RADIATION, BUT TEDE IGNORES THIS
The above ‘weighting factors’ sound good and they look scientific at first glance
, until you get the output of the data. This data is massaged to apply only to healthy adult young males working in nuclear facilities. Women are twice as sensitive to any given radiation dose compared to men. TEDE ignores this completely. Infants and fetus are even more sensitive to radiation than a woman is, but TEDE ignores this fact as well.
Negative Effect Of Man Made Radiation On Human Eggs, Embryo, Sperm, Fetus, And Newborn
Even a single miniscule Xray dose of radiation greatly increases the risk of leukemia to an infant in later life, years down the road.
Dr. Caldicott MD – Lethal Danger of CT Scans, X-Rays; Cancer Or Leukemia Caused By Low Doses Of Medical Radiation; via @AGreenRoad
Even the relatively small dose of a ONE SECOND time external radiation exposure from Xray machines involves a degree of risk, which can then result in breast cancer in the woman or leukemia in the child due to that increased risk. TEDE dismisses this risk completely, by averaging and smoothing it out over the whole body, and applies it to adult healthy males, despite the fact that the radiation only exposed the breast in a woman or a fetus in the belly, not a healthy man in the prime of life.
Studies have recently confirmed that the benefits of Xrays are outweighed by the risks long term, but the TEDE model does not agree with this and says all of this radiation has no effect at all, because all of this risk is spread out over the whole population and the whole body or whole organs.
Xray Mammograms Are Biggest Cause Of Breast Cancer; One Million Women Falsely Diagnosed With Big C Due To Mammography; via A Green Road
INFANTS AND FETUSES ARE ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE MORE SENSITIVE TO RADIATION, BUT TEDE IGNORES THIS
This is just another problem with TEDE, as the population is made up of not just healthy adult males, but pregnant moms, fetuses, infants, children, the elderly, old unhealthy men and women. Each of these populations has a higher risk factor than adult healthy males working in a nuclear facility, but these risk factors are ignored by TEDE and all pro nuclear industry risk calculations.
When these pro nuclear organizations start making policies and setting up regulations that affect communities and children specifically, that is when all of the fancy data and computer models fall apart, including TEDE. Anyone with common sense can see through the insanity of the ICRP and NRC computer model world, without even going any further. According to TEDE, infant deaths are not possible in the womb, but they happen anyway.
Of course, all of these deaths, diseases, and birth defects are blamed on Radiophobia, which means mothers are worrying too much, not the TEDE theory, and definitely not the poisonous, heavy metal, radioactive elements from a nuclear accident having a much different effect internally than externally. These infant deaths can and do happen many thousands of miles away from a nuclear accident, but TEDE theory and modeling says this cannot happen.
14,000 US Infant Mortality/Deaths From Fukushima Nuclear Disaster – Peer Reviewed Study; via @AGreenRoad
Radiation does not work on the whole body equally or even on a whole organ equally, and it certainly does not work the same way internally, as it does externally, as the ICRP claims above. The whole theory that TEDE is based on is bogus.
If you see a TEDE weighted risk factor score, ask them which radioactive elements they used in their calculations, and you will probably see something like the following chart…
As you can see, there are many radioactive element risk ‘pieces’ missing. The more radioactive elements are left out, means that the risk score can be lowered by orders of magnitude. By excluding interior or exterior doses, the risk score goes down again. And of course, if it was not measured, it is not included.
After every nuclear accident, the radiation monitors are labeled ‘broken’, or defective, because such super high readings cannot be real. Any very high readings are just ignored, because they mess up the calculations that lead to the conclusion of no one will die, and no one will get cancer from any nuclear accident. This process of downplaying the amount of radiation coming out of any nuclear accident happens after every accident. The real radiation meter reading or result is thrown out, so a much lower ‘estimate’ or computer model can be put in it’s place.
At TMI for example, a circle of radiation meters circled the nuclear plant. After the accident, the one meter directly downwind pegged out at the highest reading and it was thrown out as ‘defective’. The rest of the readings were ‘averaged out’, including the ones that were upwind for the whole accidental radiation release. From this ‘average’, an ‘estimate’ was made of the total radiation release. Then TEDE was plugged in, giving a conclusion that no one could possibly ever get cancer or die. This is how radiation is made to disappear after every nuclear accident. Since all radiation is invisible, no one knows any different, plus everyone is trained to ‘trust’ the experts.
TMI – Three Mile Island Nuclear Plant Meltdown And Radiation Release Coverup Exposed – 1 Billion Curies Released; via @AGreenRoad
The Battle Of Chernobyl Movie; via A Green Road
Los Angeles Nuclear Plant Meltdown; Completely Covered Uphttp://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/03/los-angeles-nuclear-plant-meltdown.html
What really happened at Fukushima?
Is Fukushima really in cold shutdown?
Windscale: Biggest Covered Up UK Nuclear Disaster? via A Green Road
The ‘rule’ after every nuclear accident is that there are no actual measurements of anything close to or downwind of any plume coming out, just lots of computer models and estimates. These estimates that are then plugged into TEDE are bogus made up numbers made up by the pro nuclear industry ‘experts’ who have a goal of minimizing or eliminating everything by not really measuring anything.
ALL WEIGHTING FACTORS ARE DESIGNED BY ICRP, WHICH HAS BEEN CAUGHT MANIPULATING AND FAKING SCIENTIFIC DATA
According to the NRC, the ICRP is supposed to come out with the ‘right’ numbers to use in the TEDE weighting factors. The old numbers are obsolete, don’t work and the NRC points this out in the following link. They also note that the new numbers won’t be ready until after 2015. In other words, the weighting factors being used now by TEDE, NRC, ICRP, IAEA, UNSCEAR, WHO and everyone else are out of whack and don’t really reflect reality.
“The SECY-08-0197 paper noted that the ICRP Publication 103 (2007) recommendations provided new values for the tissue weighting factors. (13) The paper also noted that ICRP estimated the following dates and deliverables for updated scientific information and guidance for its new dosimetry system: a. A dose conversion factors for calculating occupational exposure from the most commonly used radioisotopes by 2011, b. dose conversion factors for calculating dose limits for members of the public by 2012, and c. dose conversion factors for calculating exposure for all radionuclides by 2014. At present, this information is still being developed. The ICRP’s development of biokinetic and dosimetric models and dose coefficients for both worker and public exposure to radionuclides based on the ICRP recommendations was projected for completion by 2014. It is anticipated that this information will not be available until after 2015.“
Another issue with the ICRP is that they have been caught making things up, by manipulating and faking data. By now, you are probably feeling all warm and fuzzy, with total trust and confidence in ICRP, right?
ICRP [International Commission on Radiological Protection] Caught Manipulating And ‘Faking’ Scientific Data; via @AGreenRoad
The problem being pointed at with the ICRP is not an isolated one. The whole nuclear industry seems to suffer with a systemic problem around the peer review scientific paper review and publishing process. To find out more, click on the following link…
The Problem With Scientific Peer Review And Nuclear Industry Review Panels In Particular
Based on these same made up false computer models presented by fake studies with made up data, the nuclear experts and lobbyists as well as ICRP, IAEA and UNSCEAR came up with the wild claim (using TEDE) that residents could safely be exposed to between 20 and 100 mSv/yr, when the previous maximum for civilians was 1 mSv/yr, including pregnant moms, infants, children and women. Read the German physicians study and statement about why this is a hoax at the following link…
IAEA, WHO, UNSCEAR and ICRP are the organizations that reported and/or supported the policy of allowing residents to be exposed to between 20 and 100 m/Sv of radiation per year, when the previous maximum was 1 m/Sv per year.
The pro nuclear organizations are making the outrageous and false claim that no one will experience any negative health consequences or deaths from the amount of radiation released by Fukushima, which they claim is 5 to 10% of Chernobyl. Based on these same computer models and TEDE data, they can safely claim no one will die from Chernobyl or Fukushima or TMI.
These ‘official’ IAEA/IRCP and pro nuclear industry expert reports are being used by the Japanese government to move people back into the highly radiation contaminated areas close to the Fukushima nuclear disaster site, an area which is contaminated with more radiation than the Chernobyl exclusion zones, where no one is allowed to live, generations after that nuclear disaster.
Of course, the easiest solution is to pretend that decontamination is possible and successful, and then move people back into these areas and then on top of that, pretend that all radiation is good for you, via the hormesis ICRP and their fad TEDE theory. Anyone complaining about radiation caused diseases, cancers or deaths is labeled as being Radiophobic.
2014 – Japanese Government Moving People Into Areas with Up To 10 Times Maximum Nuclear Workers Annual Radiation Exposure Limit; via @AGreenRoad
TEDE ASSUMES ALL RADIATION IS SAFE UNTIL MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DOSE IS EXCEEDED; DEATHS ONLY HAPPEN WITH ACUTE DOSES
The TEDE model and the nuclear lobbyists, scientists and experts start with a basic assumption that any level of radiation under 100 mSv/yr is harmless and not worth talking about, since the numbers of cancers caused will be so low, as to not be countable.
This is why the IAEA and other pro nuclear industry regulators and experts are promoting the elimination of evacuations from contaminated areas, moving people back into radiation contaminated areas, and eliminating all benefits paid to people who were or are still being exposed to cumulative doses of radiation from nuclear accidents. In other words, almost all radiation is safe, except for lethal doses that cause acute radiation disease. Remember Radiophobia and hormesis? They combine these bogus theories with TEDE to make it seem like the world is safe.
Their desires to remove all limits on exposure of people to cancer and disease causing radiation levels comes from their belief in hormesis theory. It fits in nicely with the TEDE theory, by minimizing or eliminating all danger from radiation exposure.
Hormesis; What Does Not Kill You, Is Good For You
IS ANY DOSE OF RADIATION SAFE?
According to TEDE, low doses of radiation are safe and cause no harm, not enough to count anyway. They go further and make the radiation in bananas equal to and just as healthy as what is coming out of a nuclear reactor. However, there are many doctors, physicists, and other experts who say there is no safe dose of radiation is safe and all radiation must be counted in a risk model, because radiation damage is CUMULATIVE. In other words, each dose adds to the last dose, in a cumulative fashion, so all doses received from an egg or sperm all they to now must be counted in the total.
TEDE only inputs radiation exposure if it is measured. In other words if the radiation was not measured, it does not exist, so it is not part of the TEDE formula. If a meter or radiation detector only ‘sees’ cesium, than that is the only element put into the TEDE formula, while ignoring all of the other 1,900 radioactive elements that were also there, but not measured.
jec November 13, 2014 CDC explains danger of radiation, and the equations used for DOSE, and exposure! We ENENEWSers have been trying to figure out what and how DOSE was considered. Take a look, will not be up long! Bet this is what was used by TEPCO and Japan to smooth the data; the equations are there..they just removed the weighting factor for the nuclear particle. Read:
All radiation exposure is cumulative. Chronic exposure to even small amounts of man made heavy metal poisons and radiation accumulate and cause long term damage.
ALL ICRP DATA IS BASED ON PEER REVIEWED STUDIES, BUT NUCLEAR PEER REVIEW PROCESS IS COMPLETELY BOGUS AND CORRUPTED BY INSIDERS MAKING UP THINGS
The pro nuclear apologists will point at their own ‘studies’. They say that their ‘peer reviewed’ studies ‘prove’ that low dose radiation is safe. However, the foundation computer models and statistical assumptions that they base their peered studies on are flawed and wrong, so it makes these studies worthless, especially when it comes to kids, infants and fetuses.
The Problem With Scientific Peer Review And Nuclear Industry Review Panels In Particular
The study ‘experts’ assign values from exterior radiation and transfer those very low risks from alpha radiation for example, to internal radiation exposure. There is no way to transfer external alpha radiation risks externally, to internal damage that alpha radiation does when it has entered the body; it cannot be done. Interior radiation and exterior radiation operate by totally different mechanisms, but that does not stop the pro nuclear apologists from doing it anyway, and then proclaiming that there is no danger from any man made radiation… They point at their flawed statistical analysis and models as proof.
FAKED, FRAUDULENT STUDIES PRETEND ONLY YOUNG HEALTHY MALES EXIST IN THE WORLD, BUT NO INFANTS, EGGS, SPERM OR FETUSES
Then these same fake studies look at only young healthy adult males and ignore fetuses or newborns and the effect of a hot particle on them. It is like trying to compare fish breathing air underwater, with humans breathing underwater, like fish. This also cannot be done.
How Dangerous Is 400-6000 Pounds Of Plutonium Nano Particle Dust Liberated By Fukushima? Via @AGreenRoad
These same ‘pro nuclear scientists’ also use a bag of water with a diluted dose of external radiation hitting the bag in a diffuse manner, to calculate harm caused by internal radiation, when a totally different mechanism is at work with low dose internal radiation from hot particles and a sperm or egg in close proximity to the alpha radiation from plutonium for example. TEDE ignores the effect of such radiation causing such things as infertility for example. Certainly, the sperm and fertility rate globally has been going down, but that statistic is covered up and suppressed, especially in relationship to low dose, cumulative radiation exposure.
Infertility; Hazard And Effect Of Exposure To Low Dose Radiation, via @AGreenRoad
Radioactive elements concentrate in certain glands or organs, depending on the type of radioactive element and radiation in most cases it is not diffuse. Radioactive iodine concentrates in the thyroid gland and causes cancer there, and so on. But the pro nuclear apologists ignore this and pretend all radiation stays diffuse inside the organ. They average any radiation going into the organ over the whole organ, which is bogus, because a couple of hot particles affect only a few cells around them if it is alpha radiation, and it is the most lethal radiation at short range. But by averaging and smoothing the radiation emitted by this tiny super radioactive particle over the whole organ, it makes things look harmless and good for you. Underneath the ‘model’ the hot particle is causing cancer and genetic defects in the DNA around it, but TEDE ignores and denies this is happening.
Now add to this the ‘estimate’ that almost all radiation coming into the body is ‘washed out’ by the body shortly after exposure, and it further denies and suppresses any harm from radiation exposure. Bio accumulation, bio concentration and the local cellular effects of hot particles inside the body are denied and ignored completely by TEDE and all pro nuclear experts.
ICRP COMES TO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS THAN EQUIVALENT ECRR OR OTHER ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF THE SMALL PRO NUCLEAR CLUB
A typical pro ICRP, pro nuclear apologist will admit that there are huge differences between the data and outcomes that IRCP is finding and reporting on, when compared to studies and conclusions outside of the small nuclear industry ‘club’.
Art And Science Of Deception; Global Corporations And The 1%
When it comes time to try and explain why there are such huge differences in the outcomes between the ECRR and ICRP, all that happens is that the pro nuclear apologists attack the organizations and experts who do not agree with them as being nothing more than a cult, or they label everything that disagrees with the ICRP conclusions and data as junk science…
VoxDei November 13, 2014
“Yes why use anything from ECRR? That is junk science. Can you explain the “cult”?
In other words, if you do not belong to the nuclear good ol boys club, you are viciously smeared, attacked, demeaned and put down as a cult member, fraud or scam artist. There is no debating these ‘experts’, as they quickly resort to put downs and personal attacks if their studies, methods or interpretations are questioned. Again, it is not about science with this small, closed, isolated and cult driven nuclear club, but it is all about appearance, power, money and control. Dr. Gofman, who was the head of a nuclear lab, talks about this cult like belief and fakery, in the following article.
Dr. Sternglass And Dr. Gofman; Total Numbers Of Infant/Child Deaths From X-Rays, Nuclear Power Plants And Nuclear Bomb Testing
NOT ALL RADIATION IS EQUAL, AS TEDE CLAIMS
Not all radiation is created equal, and the body does not treat all radiation the same way. Even a 3 step simple theory like TEDE does not work when applied to various radioactive elements. The body regulates the amount of potassium 40 that is retained in the body. TEDE claims that radiation is equal, just like potassium, no matter where it comes from or what effect it has. Potassium can never build up in the body because it reaches homeostasis, but all of the man made radioactive elements don’t do this and they accumulate and concentrate in the body, unlike potassium.
TEDE claims that neutron, alpha, beta or gamma radiation hitting any cell in the body is roughly equal, with minor differences such as weighting factors. Of course this claim is patently absurd. A more in depth analysis of the difference between Potassium 40, uranium and a few other man made radioactive elements is itemized via the following article…
Radioactive Potassium In Bananas Compared To Cesium, Plutonium, Uranium And Iodine via @AGreenRoad
The committed dose in the human body due to bananas is not cumulative because the amount of potassium (and therefore of 40K) in the human body is fairly constant because of homeostasis
so that any excess absorbed from food is quickly compensated by the elimination of an equal amount.
Other radioactive man made artificial elements such as cesium, strontium, plutonium and others, do not act like potassium, and are bio accumulated. TEDE makes no accommodation for this difference in effect, nor in the difference in effect between the heavy metal poison actions, combined WITH the much higher energy level lethality of alpha, beta and/or gamma radiation. There is also no weighting factor when chemicals are combined with radioactive heavy metal poisons, causing a known synergistic effect.
HUGE RISK DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DIFFERENT RADIOACTIVE ELEMENTS, SUCH AS POTASSIUM AND PLUTONIUM
TEDE uses potassium as the ‘model’ to base it’s theory on, but it is a very poor element to choose, for several reasons. Potassium does not build up to toxic and dangerous levels in the body, as other man made radioactive elements do. Potassium is regulated by the body in a homeostatic manner. Other radioactive elements such as iodine, plutonium or uranium build up in the body via bio accumulation and reach toxic levels, and the body seems to have no natural mechanism to achieve homeostasis with them.
Plutonium And Cesium BioAccumulation Up To 26,000 Times In Ocean Algae, Up To 5,570,000 Bq/Kg in Land Algae, BioMagnification From There; via @AGreenRoad
“Geoff Meggitt—a retired health physicist, and former editor of the Journal of Radiological Protection—to find out more. Meggitt worked for the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and its later commercial offshoots for 25 years. He says there’s an enormous variation in the risks associated with swallowing the same amount of different radioactive materials—and even some difference between the same dose, of the same material, but in different chemical forms.
It all depends on two factors:
1)The physical characteristics of the radioactivity—i.e, What’s its half-life? Is the radiation emitted alpha, beta or gamma?
2) The way the the radioactivity travels around and is taken up by the body—i.e., How much is absorbed by the blood stream? What tissues does this specific isotope tend to accumulate in?
The Potassium-40 in bananas is a particularly poor model isotope to use, Meggitt says, because the potassium content of our bodies seems to be under homeostatic control. When you eat a banana, your body’s level of Potassium-40 doesn’t increase. You just get rid of some excess Potassium-40. The net dose of a banana is zero.”
ICRP STUDIES AND DATA IGNORE DOUBLE DNA HIT THAT SOME RADIATION CAUSES, AS WELL AS THE PERMANENT GENETIC DAMAGE IT CAUSES
TEDE also ignores completely both the temporary and the permanent genetic damage that radioactive elements cause. There is no consideration for how much DNA breakage happens as a result of exterior or interior radiation, much less how that DNA damage is carried through into future generations.
According to realnews; “It is now well established that living cells in vitro respond to sub-lethal radiation damage by proceeding into cell-cycle arrest which involves the setting up of an irreversible sequence of chromosomal DNA repair, followed by a forced replication.
This repair-replication cycle, which lasts for 8 – 15 hours, is known to contain a period which is exquisitely susceptible to radiation damage. In the last ten years the existence of such a critical period has been used to explain a number of anomalous low dose effects involving split or protracted doses. In addition, and in support of the existence of a critical phase, the very earliest reearch shows that dividing cells are much more susceptible to radiation than cells in G0 or quiescent phase.
Since 1945 there have existed on earth a number of novel beta emitters which have sequential decay pathways. Examples of such isotopes are the series
Strontium-90 – Yttrium-90
Tellurium-132 – Iodine-132
The Second Event theory argues that when such isotopes are incorporated and immobilised in body tissue their initial decay is capable of initiating cell cycle repair/replication sequences, during which the second decay damages the repair at some critical point. The repair sequence is irreversible, and sub-lethal damage sustained during the sequence will be passed on to one or both daughter cells and to their progeny.
At natural background levels of radiation (NBR) cells receive on average one hit per cell per year. Calculations using simple probability theory show that the chances of NBR intercepting the critical window in a replicating cell are very low, but that dose for dose, internal radiation from incorporated sequential emitters is thousands of times more likely to cause the two event hazard
ECRR SAYS ICRP – TEDE MODEL OF WEIGHTED RISKS UNDERESTIMATES RADIATION RISKS BY FACTOR OF 10 OR MUCH MORE
The Council of Europe directive was a wide-ranging ruling regarding the use and transport of natural and artificial radioactive materials within the European Union,
but the inaugural ECRR meeting concentrated on the proposal of Article 4.1.c: “…radioactive substances in the production and manufacture of consumer goods…”.
EU legislators had found it convenient to incorporate the findings of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) model for assessing radiation risk from internal emitters, but the ECRR challenged this and suggested that the model underestimates the risks by at least a factor of 10 “while..studies relating to certain types of exposure..suggest that the error is even greater”. The ECRR have proposed a method of re-weighting the risk factors to take into account the biophysical properties of the particular isotopes involved
IT IT WAS NOT MEASURED, IT DOES NOT EXIST ACCORDING TO TEDE
The official radiation measurements that are applied by ICRP, IAEA, UNSCEAR, NRC and other nuclear ‘experts’ are all based on ‘estimates’ and computer models of what was released by a particular nuclear accident. Around Fukushima, most pro nuclear experts claim that only 10% of Chernobyl radiation was released on 3/11, and no plutonium was released, despite building #3 blowing up and all contents of a reactor or spent fuel pool going up in the air, 3 reactors melting down and out 100%, plus multiple spent fuel pool fires, and multiple leaking/broken open reactors with high level nuclear waste going into the Pacific from 3/11 to today, from leaking MOX fuel reactors.
What Really Happened At Fukushima Reactor And Spent Fuel Pool #3? via @Green Road
Bottom line, the computer models and estimates that are used to determine deaths and cancers after any accident rely totally on minimized garbage data. If no plutonium was released, then that is a risk weighting factor that can be eliminated and thus reduce the number of deaths. Because officials claim only 2 grams of reactor contents was released by Fukushima and no plutonium was released at all, they can safely claim that no one will die or be injured. But is that the truth? Is that what really happened?
Plutonium-238 From Fukushima Traveled Around The World – ‘Misleading’ Experts Said It Would Stay Close By, Or Did Not Happen; via @AGreenRoad
Fukushima Released Massive Amounts of Plutonium; Being Found In Japan, The Pacific Ocean And Inside Many US Cities; via @AGreenRoad
Scientists Prove Fukushima Plutonium Detected In EU, Lithuania And Norway – Toxicity Of Plutonium Proved Via Scientific Animal Studies; via @AGreenRoadhttp://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2013/10/fukushima-plutonium-detected-in.html
Even if TEDE were accurate as far as a model for predicting ONLY cancers and/or deaths, it relies 100% on accurate data coming in to calculate the end numbers that go out to the mass media and the public. If the data coming in is only made up of minimized or denied garbage, then the end number coming out of the TEDE process is also garbage.
So far, what we have is this;
TEDE = Garbage in = garbage out.
For a moment, let’s assume that TEDE is valid. Let’s compare it to another risk model called ECRR and see how the two compare side by side just for the number of cancers, and nothing else. These two models were compared at Chernobyl, and you can decide after doing your own research about epimediology statistics that came out after Chernobyl, who is telling the truth and who is lying about the number of deaths and cancers.
ECRR RISK MODEL APPLIED TO FUKUSHIMA
An example of the ECRR Risk Model Applied To Fukushima
The ICRP model then takes this dose and multiplies it by a risk factor for cancer based on the cancer yield at high acute doses of the Japanese populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki who have been studied since 1952. This method cannot apply to internal doses from radioactive substances, called radionuclides, which have been inhaled or ingested in food or water. This is because these substances have varying affinities for DNA and different parts of the body and can deliver very high energy to local tissue. The ICRP method cannot be applied to inhaled or ingested hot particles, which are solid but microscopic and can lodge in tissue delivering high doses to local cells. There is a great deal of evidence that exposure to internal radionuclides is up to 1,000 times more harmful than the ICRP model concludes.
The ECRR risk model deals with this issue by adding hazard enhancement weighting factor to the doses calculated for internal radionuclide or particle exposures. the ICRP risk model was conceded to be strictly invalid for internal exposures since the uncertainty was as high as 500-fold or more for certain internal radionuclide exposures. This followed many studies of the effects of the Chernobyl Catastrophe which showed much higher cancer yields than had been predicted by the ICRP model.
For surface radiation contamination… the error factor relating the ICRP risk model, which employs external radiation, was upwards of 600-fold.
NUMBER OF CANCERS ESTIMATED AND COMPARED USING 3 RISK MODELS AND WEIGHTING FACTORS
Cancer excess in 100 km population
This is an extremely conservative set of assumptions. On the basis of the measurements and arguments above, I assume the 100km radius is contaminated uniformly to 600kBqm-2. The dose associated with this level of contamination is 2 mSv/h. Assuming that no one moves away and that the contamination remains at this level, using the Tondel et al 2004 regression coefficient of 11% cancer increase per 100kBqm-2 and assuming the same spectrum of radionuclides and pathways for
exposure the cancer increase in the 100km population is 66% and these cancers will be manifest in the next ten years.
The cancer rate for all malignancies in the Japanese population is 462 per 100,000 per year. Therefore the annual number of cancers in the 3,388,900 population of the 100km radius is 15,656. In ten years there will be 156,560 cancers normally if this 2005 rate is maintained plus an extra 66% of this number diagnosed from Fukushima that is 103,329 extra cancers due to the Fukushima exposures.
The annual dose from this contamination can be calculated in mSv. If we assume 365 days and 24 hour a day exposures then for 2 mSv/h the annual dose is 17mSv. The population is 3,338,900 so the collective dose is 56,761 person Sieverts. The ICRP absolute cancer risk factor is 0.05 per Sievert. Thus the ICRP predicts 2838 extra cancers in this population from the Fukushima fallout.
The three predictions are given in Table 5
ICRP TEDE MODEL PREDICTS ONLY 2,800 CANCER CASES IN 50 YEARS AFTER FUKUSHIMA, NO DEATHS, NO OTHER DISEASES
Table 5. The predicted cancer increases in the 100 km zone near the Fukushima site over 50 years
Model Total # Of Cancers
ICRP (TEDE) 2,838
In 50 years, based on collective doses at exposure of 2 mSv/h for one year
ECRR Tondel 103,329
In ten years following the catastrophe, based on surface contamination only
ECRR absolute 191,986
In 50 years, based on collective doses at exposure of 2 mSv/h for one year; probably half of these expressed in the first ten years.
Of course, if people are ingesting radiation contaminated foods and building up more exposure from internal radioactive heavy metal sources, this number goes up. If these people are living in radiation contaminated areas that give them much higher doses of radiation than the estimated 2 mSv/h for one year, the numbers go up. So far at least, it looks like the radiation exposure numbers used will have to be increased, and the number of cancer cases and deaths will also have to be increased.
2014 – Japanese Government Moving People Into Areas with Up To 10 Times Maximum Nuclear Workers Annual Radiation Exposure Limit; via @AGreenRoad
ICRP MODEL ONLY MODELS CANCER, ECRR MODEL PREDICTS MANY OTHER DISEASES, SUCH AS HEART DISEASE, DIABETES, CONGENITAL ISSUES
TEDE ignores all other diseases and genetic problems caused by exposure to heavy metal radioactive poisons over the long term. ECRR includes these things, because that is what happens in real life.
Second, it must be understood that unlike ICRP, the ECRR model does not only model cancer. Studies of populations exposed internally show that a wide spectrum of diseases and conditions follow; these include heart disease, diabetes, and all the normal conditions and illnesses that contribute to mortality and morbidity.
In addition, studies of nuclear Test veterans, Chernobyl-affected populations and those exposed to Uranium show us that alarming increases in congenital disease in children and grandchildren are to be expected. The ECRR 2010 report should be studied for details.
April 2010: Committee publishes new Recommendations
. ECRR 2010: The Health Effects of Ionising Radiation Exposure at Low Doses and Low Dose Rates for Radiation Protection Purposes: Regulators’ Edition (Purchasing information
As a response to the Fukushima catastrophe a pdf of the Recommendations is free to download
The Negative Health Effects Of Low Dose Radiation On Residents Of Belarus, Dr. Vasily Hectepenko
Dr. John S. Sanford; Mutagenesis And Entropy; Dangers Of Low Dose Ionizing Radiation Leading To Human Extinction; via A Green Road
List Of All Genetically Linked Diseases Caused By Low Level Radiation Exposure; via @AGreenRoad
TEDE IGNORES AND DENIES THE INCREASING ENTROPY OVER TIME OF GENETIC DEFECTS CAUSED BY LOW DOSE CUMULATIVE RADIATION EXPOSURE
Dr. John S. Sanford; Mutagenesis And Entropy; Dangers Of Low Dose Ionizing Radiation Leading To Human Extinction; via A Green Road
URANIUM/PLUTONIUM MAY INCREASE THE MORTALITY BECAUSE IT INCREASES RISK; UN REPORTS 7 MILLION VICTIMS FROM CHERNOBYL
Finally, all these predictions are based on the assumption that the spectrum of internal exposures is the same as weapons test fallout (ECRR Absolute) or Chernobyl Sweden (Tondel). There may be more uranium and/or plutonium in the Fukushima spectrum and this may affect the risk by increasing it. They are also based on the contamination reports to date and will have to be altered when the more accurate reports become available or if there is further contamination.
3 Million Children Require Treatment Because Of Chernobyl, Many Will Die Prematurely – 7 Million Total Victims – U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan; via @AGreenRoad
1. The ECRR risk model has been applied to the 3 million people living in the 100km radius of the Fukushima catastrophe. Assuming these people remain living there for one year the number of excess cancers predicted by the method is approximately 200,000 in the next 50 years with 100,000 being diagnosed in the next 10 years. If they are evacuated immediately, the number will fall by a significant amount.
For those 7 million living between 100km and 200km from the site, the predicted number of cancers is slightly greater with 220,000 extra cancers in the next 50 years and about 100,000 being expressed in the next ten years. These predictions are based on the ECRR risk model and also the findings of cancer risk on Sweden after the Chernobyl accident.
2. The ICRP model predicts 2,838 extra cancers in the 100km population. The eventual yield will therefore be another test of the two risk models.
3. Calculations based on official gamma dose rates published by the Japanese Ministry MEXT can be used to back calculate surface contamination at the positions of the measurements using accepted scientific methods. The results show that the IAEA reports have significantly under reported the contamination levels.
4. It is recommended that urgent attention is given to making isotope specific ground contamination measurements.
5. It is recommended that populations living within the 100 km zone to the North West of the site are immediately evacuated and the zone is made an exclusion zone.
6. The ICRP risk model should be abandoned and all political decisions should be made on the basis of the recommendations of the European Committee on Radiation Risk www.euradcom.org
7. Investigation and legal sanctions should be brought against those who knowingly held back data from the public.
8. Investigation and legal sanctions should be brought against those minimizing the health effects of this event in the media.
IPPNW PHYSICIANS GROUP FIND 10 GRAVE ERRORS IN UNSCEAR FUKUSHIMA REPORT
The UNSCEAR report uses TEDE numbers/weighting and uses IRCP/IAEA as their official consultants to put together their report. A professional group of physicians found lots of glaring errors, omissions and mistakes, but focused on ten ‘grave’ errors in their report. This analysis shows how just because someone in the nuclear industry says something, citing TEDE, that it is ‘accepted’ and is holy truth. There is controversy about the numbers, models, weights and risks.