05.06.2013 Views

PNNL-13501 - Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

PNNL-13501 - Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

PNNL-13501 - Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Figure 3. Relative risk of bone and liver cancer among a cohort of 5,500 Mayak workers as a function of plutonium body burden<br />

by a factor of four. If it can be shown that cancer<br />

incidences for some of the other organs have a threshold,<br />

then it is possible that current standards are too restrictive<br />

by a factor of ten.<br />

Summary and Conclusions<br />

The notion of a “dose-response” relationship is simplistic.<br />

Knowing dose alone is not enough to predict detriment.<br />

Radiation measurements sufficient to predict detriment<br />

would be a challenge. For external sources,<br />

measurements can be imagined, but for internal sources,<br />

inference from models is necessary. Risks to populations<br />

may be inferred from studies of populations only to a very<br />

limited extent. Risks to individuals may be inferred only<br />

by exhaustive study of variables that we already<br />

understand. Our examination of human data for bone<br />

cancer and liver cancer from alpha-emitters shows the<br />

strong possibility of thresholds for liver cancer, and an<br />

almost certain threshold for bone cancer. Applying these<br />

thresholds to the case of plutonium shows that DOE’s<br />

current cleanup standards are too restrictive by a factor of<br />

at least four.<br />

The DOE could benefit if a comprehensive radiationdetriment<br />

model were to be developed and applied to<br />

DOE cleanup of legacy materials. Worker safety and<br />

peace of mind would represent other direct benefits.<br />

References<br />

Advisory Committee on Radiological Protection. 1996.<br />

Biological effects of low doses of radiation at low dose<br />

rate. ACRP-18. Ottawa, Canada: Atomic Energy<br />

Control Board of Canada.<br />

Ames BN and LS Gold. 1990. “Too many rodent<br />

carcinogens: mitogenesis increases mutagenesis.”<br />

[published erratum appears in Science 1990 Sep<br />

28;249(4976):1487] [see comments] Science<br />

249(4972):970-971.<br />

Andersson M and HH Storm. 1992. “Cancer incidence<br />

among Danish Thorotrast patients.” Journal of the<br />

<strong>National</strong> Cancer Institute 84(17):1318-1325.<br />

Andersson M, M Vyberg, J Visfeldt, B Carstensen, and<br />

HH Storm. 1994. “Primary liver tumors among Danish<br />

patients exposed to Thorotrast.” Radiat. Res. 137:262-<br />

273.<br />

Chomentowski M, AM Kellerer, and DA Pierce. 2000.<br />

“Radiation dose dependences in the atomic bomb survivor<br />

cancer mortality data: a model-free visualization.”<br />

Radiat. Res. 153(3):289-294.<br />

dos Santos-Silva I, M Jones, F Malveiro, and A<br />

Swerdlow. 1999. “Mortality in the Portuguese thorotrast<br />

study.” Radiat. Res. 152(6 Suppl):S88-S92.<br />

Gilbert ES, NA Koshurnikova, M Sokolnikov,<br />

VF Khokhryakov, S Miller, DL Preston, SA Romanov,<br />

NS Shilnikova, KG Suslova, and VV Vostrotin. 2000.<br />

“Liver cancers in Mayak workers.” Radiat. Res. 246-252.<br />

International Commission on Radiological Protection<br />

(ICRP). 1990. Recommendations of the International<br />

Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP<br />

Publication No. 60. Annals of the ICRP 21(1-3); 1991.<br />

Human Health and Safety 281

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!