22-08-2016, 10:41 AM
Apologies for the length of this post... :|
Most ionizing radiation cancer risk estimates stem from the standard medical cancer BEIR VII lifetime risk model [eg <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17457809">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17457809</a><!-- m -->] which estimates cancer risk from a given level of radiation exposure. This model is assumed to be linear i.e. risks are proportional to dosage so even small doses equate to small risks. The statement by Cancer Research is therefore misleading, as is their “Neither type [of radiation] has been shown to pose a risk to people’s health” which is patently false in the case of ionizing radiation. I don’t recommend them as a source
and in any case information of a quantitative nature is needed.
BEIR is the widely used benchmark – under which an exposure of 10 millisivierts equates to a 1 in 1000 lifetime chance of cancer risk (over and above the normal risk of getting cancer, of course).
Estimates of the radiation exposure from flying vary, this one from the industry by no means the highest: “200 hours on a subsonic aircraft would produce an annual dose equivalent to 1 mSv”
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.aviation-health.co.uk/news/browse.php?load=cosmic_radiation.html">http://www.aviation-health.co.uk/news/b ... ation.html</a><!-- m -->:
This would put the exposure at 0.005 mSv [5 microSv] per hour. This is only a two-thousandth of the level that produces a one in 1000 cancer chance.
But at 800 million flights per year [old estimate] at 5 microsivierts per flight equates to 4000 sivierts (fortunately ‘micro’ and million are reciprocals and cancel out). 4000 Sv is 400,000 times the ‘1 in 1000’ chance cancer dose of 10 mSv, so on average this would work out that about 400 cancers (over the flyers’ lifetimes) will be instigated by each year's flights. Or, one cancer from about 2 million flights.
The exposure levels from scanners that use iodizing radiation are lower than that, about 0.1 microSiviert per scan <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/info.cfm?pg=safety-airport-scanners">http://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/info.cf ... t-scanners</a><!-- m -->. But lower by only a factor of about ten, not ten thousand. This equates very roughly with other estimated risks - maybe 1 in ten million chance of cancer from a backscatter scan, according to David Brenner quoted here <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science-july-dec11-backscatter_12-01/">http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science- ... ter_12-01/</a><!-- m -->, or about 100 cancers a year if these were fully deployed in airports].
Or, one in a million if there are used in eleven Olympiad games – they did say x-rays! But OK, I imagine they probably mean milliliter waves, which are non-ionizing eletromagnetic waves.
The Govt. and the security industry will be hoping that because of the short duration and lower power levels used [meaning, lower than what has been shown to be dangerous], the airport scans will not cause a health problem - or at least if they do, it will not be easily traced back to them.
Unfortunately, “hoping” is probably all that they are doing. The safety reassurances seem not to be based on the results of existing science. Millimeter waves were extensively tested by Russian scientists decades ago, and found (like mobile signals) to have widespread biological effects even at extremely low power levels.
A review of this work can be found in the paper: Influence of High-frequency Electromagnetic Radiation at Non-thermal Intensities on the Human Body (A review of work by Russian and Ukrainian researchers)
Kositsky et al. The review paper is here <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.buergerwelle.de/assets/files/influence_of_high_frequency_electromagnetic_radiation_at_non_thermal_intensities.pdf">http://www.buergerwelle.de/assets/files ... sities.pdf</a><!-- m -->
Just as in the case of mobile frequencies, these Russian papers (ignored by western ‘science’) established, decades ago, biological effects from millimetre waves at extremely low power levels. Actually, different effects were noted within very narrow frequency ranges so the underlying science is quite complex, but the reported outcomes are usually written in an understandable way (except when it's to do with genes, I find
)
I would add that in the case of mobiles, western research when it arrived found the same picture as the old Soviet research – biological effects from low levels. These include oxidative stress, reduced melatonin levels, DNA damage, weakening of the blood-brain barrier – all already linked to serious diseases. There is little to suppose that changing the frequency will give an improved picture.
Cheers
Most ionizing radiation cancer risk estimates stem from the standard medical cancer BEIR VII lifetime risk model [eg <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17457809">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17457809</a><!-- m -->] which estimates cancer risk from a given level of radiation exposure. This model is assumed to be linear i.e. risks are proportional to dosage so even small doses equate to small risks. The statement by Cancer Research is therefore misleading, as is their “Neither type [of radiation] has been shown to pose a risk to people’s health” which is patently false in the case of ionizing radiation. I don’t recommend them as a source
and in any case information of a quantitative nature is needed. BEIR is the widely used benchmark – under which an exposure of 10 millisivierts equates to a 1 in 1000 lifetime chance of cancer risk (over and above the normal risk of getting cancer, of course).
Estimates of the radiation exposure from flying vary, this one from the industry by no means the highest: “200 hours on a subsonic aircraft would produce an annual dose equivalent to 1 mSv”
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.aviation-health.co.uk/news/browse.php?load=cosmic_radiation.html">http://www.aviation-health.co.uk/news/b ... ation.html</a><!-- m -->:
This would put the exposure at 0.005 mSv [5 microSv] per hour. This is only a two-thousandth of the level that produces a one in 1000 cancer chance.
But at 800 million flights per year [old estimate] at 5 microsivierts per flight equates to 4000 sivierts (fortunately ‘micro’ and million are reciprocals and cancel out). 4000 Sv is 400,000 times the ‘1 in 1000’ chance cancer dose of 10 mSv, so on average this would work out that about 400 cancers (over the flyers’ lifetimes) will be instigated by each year's flights. Or, one cancer from about 2 million flights.
The exposure levels from scanners that use iodizing radiation are lower than that, about 0.1 microSiviert per scan <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/info.cfm?pg=safety-airport-scanners">http://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/info.cf ... t-scanners</a><!-- m -->. But lower by only a factor of about ten, not ten thousand. This equates very roughly with other estimated risks - maybe 1 in ten million chance of cancer from a backscatter scan, according to David Brenner quoted here <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science-july-dec11-backscatter_12-01/">http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science- ... ter_12-01/</a><!-- m -->, or about 100 cancers a year if these were fully deployed in airports].
Or, one in a million if there are used in eleven Olympiad games – they did say x-rays! But OK, I imagine they probably mean milliliter waves, which are non-ionizing eletromagnetic waves.
The Govt. and the security industry will be hoping that because of the short duration and lower power levels used [meaning, lower than what has been shown to be dangerous], the airport scans will not cause a health problem - or at least if they do, it will not be easily traced back to them.
Unfortunately, “hoping” is probably all that they are doing. The safety reassurances seem not to be based on the results of existing science. Millimeter waves were extensively tested by Russian scientists decades ago, and found (like mobile signals) to have widespread biological effects even at extremely low power levels.
A review of this work can be found in the paper: Influence of High-frequency Electromagnetic Radiation at Non-thermal Intensities on the Human Body (A review of work by Russian and Ukrainian researchers)
Kositsky et al. The review paper is here <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.buergerwelle.de/assets/files/influence_of_high_frequency_electromagnetic_radiation_at_non_thermal_intensities.pdf">http://www.buergerwelle.de/assets/files ... sities.pdf</a><!-- m -->
Just as in the case of mobile frequencies, these Russian papers (ignored by western ‘science’) established, decades ago, biological effects from millimetre waves at extremely low power levels. Actually, different effects were noted within very narrow frequency ranges so the underlying science is quite complex, but the reported outcomes are usually written in an understandable way (except when it's to do with genes, I find
) I would add that in the case of mobiles, western research when it arrived found the same picture as the old Soviet research – biological effects from low levels. These include oxidative stress, reduced melatonin levels, DNA damage, weakening of the blood-brain barrier – all already linked to serious diseases. There is little to suppose that changing the frequency will give an improved picture.
Cheers