Posts
What follows is the continuation, in serial form, of a central chapter from my book A Primer in the Art of Deception: The Cult of Nuclearists, Uranium Weapons and Fraudulent Science.
EXHIBIT F continued:
Observed health effects after Chernobyl have provided further evidence that the ICRP models are in error. For instance, research conducted in Sweden confirmed a 30% increase in the incidence of cancer between 1988 and 1996 as a result of the fallout from Chernobyl [1]. In this study, dosages to the population were estimated on the basis of the deposition of cesium-137 in 450 parishes in northern Sweden and cancer rates were recorded for the 1,143,182 residents of the area. The 22,409 cases of cancer that were diagnosed during the nine-year study period presented an excess of 849 cases compared to what was predicted by ICRP models. According to analysis conducted by the Low Level Radiation Campaign, these excess cancers are 125 times the incidence predicted by the ICRP on the basis of the cesium doses. Due to the fact that this study was concluded nine years after the accident, LLRC warns that, due to the long latency period prior to the onset of cancer, future diagnoses are likely to demonstrate even greater error in ICRP models. If the observed effect up to 1996 is representative of the distribution of increased cancer risk throughout the lifetime of the study population, cancer incidence may prove to be more than 600 times that predicted by the ICRP. The LLRC has offered a further interesting observation about the Tondel study:
“The dose response trend calculated by Tondel on the basis of the various levels of cesium deposition is biphasic, not linear. In other words it does not conform with the ICRP dogma that dose and effect are always strictly proportional or “linear.” The Tondel study does not show twice as much dose causing twice as much cancer.
The doses given by Tondel et al. are calculated from cesium fallout. This may mean nothing since cesium is a gamma emitter which means that its energy deposition (in the form of ionizations) is spatially well distributed in tissue. It is, moreover, soluble and does not form particles. Its health effects are therefore likely to conform with the external irradiation models. However, it is well known that north Sweden received a large amount of fallout in the form of uranium fuel particles. With diameters of less than a few millionths of a meter such particles are highly mobile in the environment and they can be inhaled or swallowed. Once embedded in body tissue they deliver their energy so locally that the few cells immediately next to them are irradiated at very high energies while the rest of the body gets no dose at all. This makes nonsense of the concept of “average dose” – another establishment dogma” [2].
Bibliography
[1] Tondel M., Hjalmarsson P., Hardell L., Carlsson G., Axelson O. Increase of Regional Total Cancer Incidence in North Sweden due to the Chernobyl Accident? Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 2004; 58:1011-1016.
[2] Bramhall R. E-mail Circular from the Low Level Radiation Campaign: New Chernobyl Effects Falsify Radiation Risk Model. November 26, 2004.
