ABSTRACT
The Chernobyl accident was probably the worst possible catastrophe of a nuclear power station. It was the only such catastrophe since the advent of nuclear power 55 years ago. It resulted in a total meltdown of the reactor core, a vast emission of radionuclides, and early deaths of only 31 persons. Its enormous political, economic, social and psychological impact was mainly due to deeply rooted fear of radiation induced by the linear non-threshold hypothesis (LNT) assumption. It was a historic event that provided invaluable lessons for nuclear industry and risk philosophy. One of them is demonstration that counted per electricity units produced, early Chernobyl fatalities amounted to 0.86 death/GWe-year), and they were 47 times lower than from hydroelectric stations ( approximately 40 deaths/GWe-year). The accident demonstrated that using the LNT assumption as a basis for protection measures and radiation dose limitations was counterproductive, and lead to sufferings and pauperization of millions of inhabitants of contaminated areas. The projections of thousands of late cancer deaths based on LNT, are in conflict with observations that in comparison with general population of Russia, a 15% to 30% deficit of solid cancer mortality was found among the Russian emergency workers, and a 5% deficit solid cancer incidence among the population of most contaminated areas.
ABSTRACT
Personal reflections on radiation hormesis for the past 50 years are presented. The causes of ignoring and rejections of this phenomenon by international and national bodies and by radiation protection establishment are analyzed. The opposition against nuclear weapons and preparations for nuclear war was probably the main factor in inducing the concern for adverse effects of low doses of ionizing radiation, a byproduct of activism against the nuclear weapon tests. UNSCEAR was deeply involved in preparation of the scientific basis for cessation of nuclear test, and contributed to elaboration of the LNT assumption, which is in contradiction with the hormetic phenomenon. However, this authoritative body recognized also the existence of radiation hormesis, termed as 'adaptive response.' The political and vested interests behind exclusion of hormesis from the current risk assessment methodology are discussed.
Subject(s)
Dose-Response Relationship, Radiation , Fear , Public Health , Public Opinion , Radiation Injuries/prevention & control , Radiation, Ionizing , Adaptation, Physiological/radiation effects , Animals , Chernobyl Nuclear Accident , Health Policy , History, 20th Century , History, 21st Century , Humans , Nuclear Weapons , Occupational Exposure , Public Health/history , Radiation Dosage , Radiation Injuries/etiology , Radiation Protection , Radioactive Pollutants/adverse effects , Risk AssessmentABSTRACT
Many biological subdisciplines that regularly assess dose-response relationships have identified an evolutionarily conserved process in which a low dose of a stressful stimulus activates an adaptive response that increases the resistance of the cell or organism to a moderate to severe level of stress. Due to a lack of frequent interaction among scientists in these many areas, there has emerged a broad range of terms that describe such dose-response relationships. This situation has become problematic because the different terms describe a family of similar biological responses (e.g., adaptive response, preconditioning, hormesis), adversely affecting interdisciplinary communication, and possibly even obscuring generalizable features and central biological concepts. With support from scientists in a broad range of disciplines, this article offers a set of recommendations we believe can achieve greater conceptual harmony in dose-response terminology, as well as better understanding and communication across the broad spectrum of biological disciplines.
Subject(s)
Adaptation, Physiological , Biology , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Stress, Physiological , Terminology as Topic , Animals , HumansABSTRACT
Doce expertos analizan una variedad de asuntos ambientales y sanitarios. Se revela que, si bien algunos temas podrían ser causa de preocupación genuina, en otros las consecuencias son exageradas. Se muestra que muchas acciones regulatorias tendientes a reducir la exposición humana a substancias particulares no están basadas en información o evidencia científica. Dichas regulaciones han resultado muy costosas para la sociedad y han minado los esfuerzos serios por mejorar la salud humana y proteger el medio ambiente. Se ofrece una reseña de la evidencia científica disponible relacionada al impacto de los pesticidas, dioxina, nitrato, radiación, inhibidores endócrinos (alteradores de géneros), y calentamiento global
Subject(s)
Environmental Health , Public HealthABSTRACT
Doce expertos analizan una variedad de asuntos ambientales y sanitarios. Se revela que, si bien algunos temas podrían ser causa de preocupación genuina, en otros las consecuencias son exageradas. Se muestra que muchas acciones regulatorias tendientes a reducir la exposición humana a substancias particulares no están basadas en información o evidencia científica. Dichas regulaciones han resultado muy costosas para la sociedad y han minado los esfuerzos serios por mejorar la salud humana y proteger el medio ambiente. Se ofrece una reseña de la evidencia científica disponible relacionada al impacto de los pesticidas, dioxina, nitrato, radiación, inhibidores endócrinos (alteradores de géneros), y calentamiento global
