Radiation Risk: The new era begins
Latvian Academy of Science
Riga 14th August 2009
Chris Busby
University of Ulster/Julius Kuehn Institute/ Green Audit•Scientific Secretary: European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR)•UK Ministry of Defence Depleted Uranium Oversight Board (DUOB)•UK Dept of Health Committee Examining Radiation Risks from Internal Emitters(CERRIE)•Leader: Science/ Policy interface; Policy Information Network for Child Health andthe Environment (PINCHE; European Union).
•Guest Researcher: Julius Kuehn Institute, German Federal Agricultural Laboratories,
Braunschweig, Germany•Visiting Professor, Department of Molecular Biosciences, Faculty of Life and Health
Sciences, University of Ulster, Northern Ireland

christo@greenaudit.org, c.busby@ulster.ac.uk

The ICRP radiation risk model, developed in 1952 andcurrently still the basis of legal limits has failed the humanrace and is now embarrassing in its manifest error
The most recent version of the
ICRP model, Publication No 103
was released in 2007. National
Governments are now in theprocess of adopting the model asa basis for laws on exposure.
The new model is the same astheold ICRP 60 1990 model.
For 20 years, the
ICRP, an independent charity
based in the UK, has had one
permanent staff member,
Dr Jack Valentin.

The report barely mentions Chernobyl. It fails to discuss orrefer to a large number of peer-reviewed and publishedreports which show that its conclusions are incorrect.

This situation has now
become embarrassing to
the scientific community
and to the commitment ofscientific philosophy toaccepting truth fromexperiment and fromobservation.

Example: Chernobyl evidence
It has been widely suggested that theeffects of radiation exposure in the
Chernobyl affected areas are notmeasurable and health deterioration of the
population is due to social changes and„radiophobia‟.
This was cover up by the Soviet
Authorities followed by a cover up by the
UN bodies WHO and UNSCEAR.
This 2005 ECRR book has reviews of all the
Russian language peer reviewed literatureon the health effects.
There is a meltdown of the health of the
Exposed population. All these data wereignored by ICRP.
Download free from www.euradcom.org

The EU funded Atlas of
Caesium
Contamination showsthat significant
quantities of Chernobyl
fallout came to Latvia
and Riga

The Scientific Secretary of
the ICRP was Dr Jack Valentin
until March 2009. He has been theeditor of many of the ICRP reports
and was editor of the recent 2007
Updated risk model report, ICRP103.
At an open meeting in Stockholm
on 22nd April after he had resigned,
there was a discussion between
Valentin and Busby about themerits of the ICRP risk model.
Jack Valentin made someextraordinary statements.

Dr Jack Valentin said:

1. The ICRP risk model could not be used to predict thehealth effects of radiation exposures in humanpopulations.
2. For certain internal exposures the errors in the model
could be as high as two orders (100-999 times)
3. Now that he was no longer employed by ICRP he could
agree that the ICRP committee and the United Nations
radiation committee (UNSCEAR, whose publications
the ICRP model depend on) had been wrong in not
examining the evidence from the Chernobyl accident,
and also much other evidence that showed the ICRP
model to be incorrect for internal exposures.

But evidence that radiation exposures are harmful has
continued to increase throughout the radiation century.
There is no safe dose of radiation. The graph shows (log scale)the reduction in the legal dose limits from 1920 to the present.

In 1997, at an European Commission meeting on this issue
in Brussels, Valentin was faced with these criticisms frommany scientists; Dr Alice Stewart, Dr Rosalie Bertell, Dr
Chris Busby, Dr Jean Francois Viel were the main
speakers and critics. Valentin responded that ICRP was
independent and that governments were free to takeadvice from anywhere they chose, from any committee
they chose to consult.
• The result was the formation of the European Committeeon Radiation Risk ECRR/CERI• The First Report of the ECRR was published in 2003. It
has been reprinted three times and translated into
Japanese, Russian, French and Spanish.
• The new model of the ECRR uses broadly the same
concepts as the ICRP model but includes new weighting
factors for certain internal exposures e.g Sr-90, U-238

The Lesvos Statement, May 5th 2009
• Between 1997 and 2009, more than 40 radiation experts
from countries all over the world joined the ECRR.
• At the 3rd International Conference of the ECRR on May
5/7th 2009 held on the Greek Island of Lesvos, incollaboration with the Environment Department of the
University of the Aegean, more than 20 of thesescientists from England, USA, Canada, Japan, India,
Russia, Germany, Belarus, France, Ukraine gathered tomake presentations of evidence of the adverse healtheffects of radiation exposures at very low internal doses.
• All of these renowned scientists discussed the serious
inadequacy of the ICRP model and created and signed astatement calling for national and international bodies toabandon the ICRP model as a matter of urgency.

Among these scientists were
Prof. Shoji Sawada, Japan
Prof. Carmel Mothershill, Canada
Prof. Alexey Yablokov, Russia
Prof. Roza Goncharova, Belarus
Prof. Mikhail Malko, Belarus
Prof. Angelina Nyagu, Ukraine
Prof. Alexey Nesterenko, Belarus
Prof. Michel Fernex, France
Prof. Inge Schmitz Feuerhake,
Germany
Prof. Daniil Gluzman, Ukraine
Prof. Chris Busby, UK
Prof Yuri Bandashevsky, Belarus

Dr Hagen Scherb, Germany
Dr Marvin Rsnikoff, USA
Dr Alfred Koerblein, Germany
Dr Sebastian Pflugbeil, Germany
Dr Christos Matsoukas, Greece
Others, who missed attending but
sent presentations included:
Dr Keith Baverstock (Finland)Prof. Elena Burlakova (Russia)
Dr Paul Dorfman (UK)Dr VT Padmanabhan (India)

The Lesvos statement can be found at www.euradcom.org
The statement includes in the start:. . . B Whereas the ICRP risk model is used world wide byfederal, state and government bodies. . .
. . . C Whereas the Chernobyl accident has provided themost important. . opportunity to discover the yields ofserious ill health following exposure to fission products. .
. . . D Whereas, by common consent, the ICRP risk modelcannot be validly applied to post accident exposures, nor
to incorporated radioactive material resulting in internal
exposure. . . E Whereas the ICRP risk model was developed before
the discovery of DNA structure and that certain
radionuclides have chemical affinities for DNA . . .

The Lesvos Statement continues:
1. We the undersigned assert that the ICRP risk
coefficients are out of date and that (their use) leads torisks being significantly underestimated.
3. Assert that the yield of non-cancer illnesses fromradiation . . . is significant. . .
4. Urge the responsible authorities. . . To no longer rely on
the existing ICRP model. . .
5. Urge the responsible authorities and all those
responsible for causing exposures to adopt a generally
precautionary approach and in the absence of anotherworkable model to apply with undue delay theprovisional ECRR2003 risk model which more accurately
bounds the risks reflected by current observations.

So we are in the middle of a scientific earthquake
Jack Valentin clearly was not prepared to continue tosupport such a rotten system and resigned.
However the ICRP model allows and underpins:• The nuclear energy fuel cycle, mining to licensed
discharges to eventual storage of waste.
• Military reactors (ships, submarines)• Depleted Uranium weapons (Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo)• Uranium mining• Nuclear testing• Many other areas e.g. Fertiliser uranium, prosthetic
materials, nuclear medicine

I will now turn to the science:
Problems with the model• The basic assumptions are incorrect at thephysical and chemical level• Epidemiology shows effects which occur at„doses‟ which the model predicts are far too low
to show any effect• In view of time I will discuss a few examples ofthe failure of the ICRP model. The main failures
include the following:Incorrect assumptions: theory and experiment
Theoretical: Absorbed Dose is a false concept• External and internal isotope or particle doses confer
hugely different ionisation density at the DNA• Epithelia and organelles concentrate certain isotopes
due to biochemical or biophysical affinity• High local ionisation can make 2 strand break andshould be proportional to Dose squared• 2nd Event decays can intercept the repair mechanisim• DNA binding; membranes• Z4 (high Z elements uranium)• Dose response is not linear and can be biphasic• No inclusion of ionisation density enhancement near
DNA from Auger or transmutation• Genomic and bystander effects mean non-cancer effects
and possible field cancerization

Incorrect assumptions: epidemiology andlaboratory studies
Epidemiological observations of high risks at low doses :causality denied on basis of false model• Chernobyl effects in ex-Soviet Union• Chernobyl infants• Child leukemias near radiation contaminated sites• Nuclear site child cancer and adult cancer• Sellafield/ Irish Sea• Cancer epidemic and weapons fallout• A-Bomb test veterans• Gulf Veterans, A-Bomb veterans and Uranium• Uranium effects in cell culture etc.

ICRP Linear No Threshold model:• This model is physically simplistic• It assumes that the outcome of exposure is cancer or
leukemia• It assumes that cancer yield is linearly proportional to aquantity named absorbed dose
• It assumes that the relationship between cancer andabsorbed dose is given by studies of external acuteradiation exposure, mainly the lifetime study of Japanese
A-Bomb victims (Hiroshima, Nagasaki) who were
exposed to the flash, compared with Japanese people
who moved into the destroyed towns after the bomb.

How does radiation cause cancer?
1.

2.
3.

Ionising radiation, whatever its source ortype, is absorbed by materials with thecreation of charged particle tracks whichleave structured paths of ions andreactive chemical species.
It is these fragments that react with DNA
and cause fixed mutations and cancer.
It is the density of the ionisation in the
track that is the key quantity, not the
average dose, the Absorbed DoseICRP phantom: body is modelled as a bag of water andradiation is assumed external. ABSORBED DOSE is
ENERGY divided by MASS, Joules/Kg = Gray
This method gives same dose for warming yourself in frontof a fire or eating a hot coal.

Alpha particle decays- micron diameter particles of
Plutonium particle in a rat lung: „alpha stars‟; high ionisation
at local positions even though ICRP dose is “safe”

The target for radiation effects is the cellular DNA

For many internal exposures, there are situations where
the local dose at the DNA or critical tissue is very muchhigher than the average absorbed dose; examples:• Elements that chemically bind to DNA because of highchemical affinity, Strontium-90, Barium-140, Plutonium239, Uranium.
• Elements that are absorbed as massive micron diameterparticles, hot particles e.g uranium weapons, nuclear
release fuel particles, Chernobyl reactor particles• Elements that form part of a series that decays with fast
daughter isotopes e.g. Sr-90, Tl-132, BA-140• Elements with low energy short range decays e.g.
Tritium where low dose = many hits
• Elements that are not necessarily radioactive but amplify
natural background gamma radiation throughphotoelectron emission e.g. Uranium, Platinum, Gold.

The ECRR2003 model assigns weighting factors to thesetypes of internal exposures. These factors are based on
assessment of epidemiological studies and on theoretical
ionisation density calculations. Epidemiological evidence
includes:• Childhood leukemias near nuclear sites where
exposures must be by inhalation• Infant leukemia in Europe after Chernobyl exposures inutero• Cancer in populations differentially exposed toatmospheric nuclear test fallout in the 1960s• Cancer and leukemia near the shores of the radiation
contaminated Irish Sea
The application of the ECRR 2003 model always gives theobserved cancer yield e.g. In Belarus after Chernobyl.

In 2008, the largest study of child leukemia near nuclear
sites was carried out in Germany by the KinderKrebs
Register. The KiKK study of children living near nuclear
sites in Germany 1980-2004 confirmed the existence
increased child leukemia rates in those living <5km

These many peer reviewed studies began with the
Sellafield Gardner study in the 1980s. The only
explanation is an error in the ICRP risk model of about 4001000-fold for such exposures.
• Scoping the exposures leaves only one possibility. The
causal exposure route is inhalation or ingestion ofmaterial released by the plants or re-suspended fromcontaminated environments.
• The error factors are supported by the Chernobyl Infantsstudies. Examination of increased infant leukemias after
Chernobyl in four countries in Europe where ICRP doses
were known accurately (Greece, Germany, Scotland,
Wales) showed leukemias in infants who were in thewomb at the time of the Chernobyl fallout contamination.
The ICRP error defined by these observations was 4001000 fold.

Whole body Caesium trendsSellafieldSellafield and the Irish Sea
The Irish Sea has restricted and local
circulation and is effectively closed at
the north entrance. Insoluble material
discharged from the Sellafield pipeline
becomes attached to sediment andthen is redistributed by tidal currents
and concentrates in coastal areas
where the tidal energy is low. This
results in three areas ofconcentration:•The coastal areas of Cumbria (e.g.
Seascale and coastal villages•The North Wales Coast (e.g. theMenai Strait, Carnarfon and Bangor)•North East Ireland (e.g. Dundalk andCarlingford Bay

Plutonium and Caesium and other isotopes attach to fine mud in bays
and estuaries. This is Carlingford, in County Louth photographed at
half-tide. Sellafield isotopes are found here by the Irish RadiologicalProtection Institute (IRPI). Data from local GP Andy MacDonald
analysed by Green Audit in 1998 showed a 4.6-fold excess of childleukemia in the period 1965-85. Ireland had no national cancer registry
until 1994.

Results for Adults: Wales 1974-89

This shows results for all
malignancy all adults 1974-89. The
details for the AOR bands are givenin the table above. Top right is abubble plot of the individual RRs,
radius weighted for expectation by
distance from the sea. Bottom rightshows a LOESS plot of the risks in
the AOR bands. Note the sharp
increase in risk in the 1km strip.
This is a common feature of theresults for adults and children.

Results for Adults: Wales 1974-89

This shows results for all
malignancy all adults 1974-89. The
details for the AOR bands are givenin the table above. Top right is abubble plot of the individual RRs,
radius weighted for expectation by
distance from the sea. Bottom rightshows a LOESS plot of the risks in
the AOR bands. Note the sharp
increase in risk in the 1km strip.
This is a common feature of theresults for adults and children.

The sea coast effect was seen in most of the main cancer
sites in adults and was much greater in children• The graph shows an
exponential fit to data points
for RR in the AOR bands for all
malignancy, leukemia, female
breast cancer, lung and coloncancer in adults. For all ofthese the regression of
SEADIST (distance from thesea) on log(RR) was
statistically significant at
p<0.05 level.
• The effect was driven by highrisks in towns on the North
Wales coast near known areasof radioactive pollution in theintertidal sediment.

Childhood cancer in Wales by
distance from Irish Sea (km)The painting by a Welsh artist, Steven Jones, and is of two little girls in thesea on the Menai. Top right: Plutonium in childrens‟ teeth by distance from
Sellafield (log scale). Bottom: hot particle in edible mussel, CR39 tracks.

Penetration of Plutonium inland
follows penetration of sea derived
particles, mainly sodium chloride.
In USA the map opposite shows this(Junge 1963). Below, concentrationof Pu-239 in sheep faeces across UK
on West East transect from
Sellafield. Bottom right, the formationof the ejected particle from seaspray.

Results of STAD/ Green Audit questionnaire study in Carlingford andGreenore, Ireland, 2000;
red dots are cancer cases; blue region is contaminated mud.

Breast cancer mortality in wards near contaminated mudnear Bradwell NPP, Essex, UKI turn to Uranium and photoelectrons. This research is new.
It was published last year and reported in the New Scientist
in September 6th 2008 as the main news story• Following the military use of depleted uranium in Iraq
and elsewhere, and the increases in leukemia, cancer
and birth defects, there has been increased inherent in
the genotoxic effects of uranium.
• Many studies have shown such effects but there has
been no plausible mechanism suggested.
• In 2003 in the UK government CERRIE committee and in
the UK Ministry of Defence depleted Uranium Oversight
Board I drew attention to the ability of Ureanium to bindchemically to DNA and also to absorb natural
background gamma radiation owing to its high atomic
number (92).

I have been interested in the health effects of uranium since 1997.
I visited Kosovo and Iraq in 2000 and 2001 and was the first to
detect and measure depleted uranium in Kosovo.

Secondary Photoelectrons• Since 2003 I have been drawing attention to the
Photoelectric Enhancement (PE) of natural
background radiation by elements of high atomic
number Z. Uranium has the highest atomic number(Z=92) for all naturally occurring elements.
• This has led me to look at the idea of „heavy metal‟
toxicity and carcenogenicity• We need to consider what is really going on in thecell when the DNA is mutated by an agent. What is„Oxidative Stress‟ and where else do we see it? We
see it after radioactive exposure. But with Uranium,
there is not enough intrinsic radioactivity. Is there?

Fact (1) : Absorption of gamma and X-radiation is
proportional to the fourth powerof the atomic number Z
Material

Z

Z4

H2O = 1

H2O

3.33

123

1.0

DNAP

5.5

915

7.4

Ca

20

0.15E6

1220

Sr

38

2.1E6

17,073

Ba

56

9.8E6

79,675

Au

79

38E6

308,943

U

92

72E6

585,365

And Fact (2): Uranium, as UO2++ (uranyl) binds
strongly to DNAP
• The affinity constant is 1010M-1 measured by Nielsen etal (1992)• This means that at a concentration of
10-10M (23.6ng/l) the DNAP will be half-saturated at a
stoichiometry of 1 mole uranium to 2 moles PO4-- .
The affinity for DNAP was first pointed out in 1961 when it
began to be used as an electron microscope stain:
Huxley and Zubay (1961) stated that DNA takes up its own
dry weight in uranium from a 2% fixing solution

Evidence for this effect; it is not a new idea
• Photoelectron enhancement of dose has been examined since
Speirs (1949) calculated that there is an enhancement of 10-foldnear bones in X-raying• Since then, Matsudeira et al (1980) used Iodine contrast media toenhance X-ray radiotherapy• Castillo et al (1988) showed enhanced doses near mandibular
reconstruction plates• Regulla et al (1998) measured 100-fold photoelectron
enhancements near gold foils• Herold et al (1999) used 400nm gold particles to enhance X-ray
doses in radiotherapy• Hainfeld et al (2005) showed that gold 10-50nm nanoparticles(Z=79) could be successfully used to enhance X-ray radiotherapy fortumours in mice and patented the method.

I am currently researching these Uranium effects incollaboration with colleagues at the University of Ulster.
Initial photoelectron computer models show that thepredictions are accurate.
• Uranium particles trap natural background gamma
radiation and release the energy as photoelectrons
directly into the DNA• The ICRP has been examining this issue since I raisedit; they have not yet responded• But shortly after it was raised, Jack Valentin resigned.
• I show the initial CERN FLUKA results on the next slide.

Conclusions
The ICRP model, on which all current radiation risk laws forhuman exposures is based, is finished. It is scientificallybankrupt.
ECRR calculations show that this has resulted in more than
60 million excess cancer deaths worldwide due toexposures up to 1995 (principally from atmospherictests).
The ECRR 2003 model makes clear that the contaminationof the environment from nuclear discharges comes at avery great cost in human suffering for those now living
and their descendants.
The committee continue to refine the model and a newversion which includes photoelectron effect factors will
be published in 2010

The ICRP model must be abandoned as a matter ofurgency
Releases of fission productradionuclides and uranium to theenvironment must be strictly
regulated on the basis of the
ECRR2003 risk model,
Otherwise there will be more sick
adults and sick children.
Development of nuclear energy
must be based on politicaldecisions that address the true
effects.