Nuclear fallout

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nuclear fallout, or fallout, is the residual radioactive material propelled into the upper atmosphere following a nuclear blast, so called because it "falls out" of the sky after the explosion and the shock wave have passed. It commonly refers to the radioactive dust and ash created when a nuclear weapon explodes. The amount and spread of fallout is a product of the size of the weapon and the altitude at which it is detonated. Fallout may get entrained with the products of a pyrocumulus cloud and fall as black rain (rain darkened by soot and other particulates, which fell within 30–40 minutes of the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki). This radioactive dust, usually consisting of fission products mixed with bystanding atoms that are neutron activated by exposure, is a kind of radioactive contamination.

Types of fallout

Atmospheric nuclear weapon tests almost doubled the concentration of radioactive ¹⁴C in the Southern Hemisphere, before levels slowly declined following the Partial Test Ban Treaty.

 

Fallout comes in two varieties. The first is a small amount of carcinogenic material with a long half-life. The second, depending on the height of detonation, is a huge quantity of radioactive dust and sand with a short half-life. 

All nuclear explosions produce fission products, un-fissioned nuclear material, and weapon residues vaporized by the heat of the fireball. These materials are limited to the original mass of the device, but include radioisotopes with long lives. When the nuclear fireball does not reach the ground, this is the only fallout produced. Its amount can be estimated from the fission-fusion design and weight of the weapon. A modern W89 warhead weighs 324 pounds (147 kg). The fission bomb dropped on Hiroshima (Little Boy) weighed 9,700 pounds (4,400 kg).

Global fallout

After the detonation of a weapon at or above the fallout-free altitude (an air burst), fission products, un-fissioned nuclear material, and weapon residues vaporized by the heat of the fireball condense into a suspension of particles 10 nm to 20 µm in diameter. This size of particulate matter, lifted to the stratosphere, may take months or years to settle, and may do so anywhere in the world. Its radioactive characteristics increase the statistical cancer risk. Elevated atmospheric radioactivity remains measurable after the widespread nuclear testing of the 1950s.

Radioactive fallout has occurred around the world, for example people have been exposed to "Iodine-131" from atmospheric nuclear testing. Fallout accumulates on vegetation, including fruits and vegetables. Starting from 1951 people may have gotten exposure, depending on, whether they were outside, the weather forecast, and whether they drank contaminated milk, vegetables or fruit. Exposure can be on an intermediate time scale or long term. The intermediate time scale results from fallout that has been put into the troposphere and ejected by precipitation during the first month. Long term fallout can sometimes occur from deposition of tiny particles carried in the stratosphere. By the time that stratospheric fallout has begun to reach the earth, the radioactivity is very much decreased. Also, after a year it is estimated that a sizable quantity of fission products move from the northern to the southern stratosphere. The intermediate time scale is between 1–30 days, with long term fallout occurring after that. 

Examples of both intermediate and long term fallout occurred after the Chernobyl accident. Chernobyl was a nuclear power facility in Soviet Russia, and in 1986 it accidentally contaminated over about 5 million acres in Ukraine. The main fuel of the reactor was Uranium, and surrounding this was graphite, both of which were vaporized by the hydrogen explosion that destroyed the reactor and breached its containment. An estimated 31 people died within a few weeks after this happened, including two plant workers killed at the scene. Although residents were evacuated within 36 hours, people started to complain of vomiting, migraines and other major signs of radiation sickness. The officials of Ukraine had to close off an 18-mile area. Long term effects included at least 6000 cases of thyroid cancer, mainly among children. Fallout spread throughout Western Europe, with Northern Scandinavia receiving a heavy dose, contaminating reindeer herds in Lapland, and salad greens becoming almost unavailable in France.

Local fallout

During detonations of devices at ground level (surface burst), below the fallout-free altitude, or in shallow water, heat vaporizes large amounts of earth or water, which is drawn up into the radioactive cloud. This material becomes radioactive when it combines with fission products or other radiocontaminants, or when it is neutron-activated. 

The table below summarizes the abilities of common isotopes to form fallout. Some radiation taints large amounts of land and drinking water causing formal mutations throughout animal and human life. 

The 450 km (280 mi) fallout plume from 15 Mt shot Castle Bravo, 1954

 

Per capita thyroid doses in the continental United States resulting from all exposure routes from all atmospheric nuclear tests conducted at the Nevada Test Site from 1951–1962

 

A surface burst generates large amounts of particulate matter, composed of particles from less than 100 nm to several millimeters in diameter—in addition to very fine particles that contribute to worldwide fallout. The larger particles spill out of the stem and cascade down the outside of the fireball in a downdraft even as the cloud rises, so fallout begins to arrive near ground zero within an hour. More than half the total bomb debris lands on the ground within about 24 hours as local fallout. Chemical properties of the elements in the fallout control the rate at which they are deposited on the ground. Less volatile elements deposit first.

Severe local fallout contamination can extend far beyond the blast and thermal effects, particularly in the case of high yield surface detonations. The ground track of fallout from an explosion depends on the weather from the time of detonation onwards. In stronger winds, fallout travels faster but takes the same time to descend, so although it covers a larger path, it is more spread out or diluted. Thus, the width of the fallout pattern for any given dose rate is reduced where the downwind distance is increased by higher winds. The total amount of activity deposited up to any given time is the same irrespective of the wind pattern, so overall casualty figures from fallout are generally independent of winds. But thunderstorms can bring down activity as rain allows fallout to drop more rapidly, particularly if the mushroom cloud is low enough to be below ("washout"), or mixed with ("rainout"), the thunderstorm.

Whenever individuals remain in a radiologically contaminated area, such contamination leads to an immediate external radiation exposure as well as a possible later internal hazard from inhalation and ingestion of radiocontaminants, such as the rather short-lived iodine-131, which is accumulated in the thyroid.

Factors affecting fallout

Location

There are two main considerations for the location of an explosion: height and surface composition. A nuclear weapon detonated in the air, called an air burst, produces less fallout than a comparable explosion near the ground. A nuclear explosion in which the fireball touches the ground pulls soil and other materials into the cloud and neutron activates it before it falls back to the ground. An air burst produces a relatively small amount of the highly radioactive heavy metal components of the device itself. 

In case of water surface bursts, the particles tend to be rather lighter and smaller, producing less local fallout but extending over a greater area. The particles contain mostly sea salts with some water; these can have a cloud seeding effect causing local rainout and areas of high local fallout. Fallout from a seawater burst is difficult to remove once it has soaked into porous surfaces because the fission products are present as metallic ions that chemically bond to many surfaces. Water and detergent washing effectively removes less than 50% of this chemically bonded activity from concrete or steel. Complete decontamination requires aggressive treatment like sandblasting, or acidic treatment. After the Crossroads underwater test, it was found that wet fallout must be immediately removed from ships by continuous water washdown (such as from the fire sprinkler system on the decks). 

Parts of the sea bottom may become fallout. After the Castle Bravo test, white dust—contaminated calcium oxide particles originating from pulverized and calcined corals—fell for several hours, causing beta burns and radiation exposure to the inhabitants of the nearby atolls and the crew of the Daigo Fukuryū Maru fishing boat. The scientists called the fallout Bikini snow. 

For subsurface bursts, there is an additional phenomenon present called "base surge". The base surge is a cloud that rolls outward from the bottom of the subsiding column, which is caused by an excessive density of dust or water droplets in the air. For underwater bursts, the visible surge is, in effect, a cloud of liquid (usually water) droplets with the property of flowing almost as if it were a homogeneous fluid. After the water evaporates, an invisible base surge of small radioactive particles may persist. 

For subsurface land bursts, the surge is made up of small solid particles, but it still behaves like a fluid. A soil earth medium favors base surge formation in an underground burst. Although the base surge typically contains only about 10% of the total bomb debris in a subsurface burst, it can create larger radiation doses than fallout near the detonation, because it arrives sooner than fallout, before much radioactive decay has occurred.

Meteorological

Comparison of fallout gamma dose and dose rate contours for a 1 Mt fission land surface burst, based on DELFIC calculations. Because of radioactive decay, the dose rate contours contract after fallout has arrived, but dose contours continue to grow.

 

Meteorological conditions greatly influence fallout, particularly local fallout. Atmospheric winds are able to bring fallout over large areas. For example, as a result of a Castle Bravo surface burst of a 15 Mt thermonuclear device at Bikini Atoll on March 1, 1954, a roughly cigar-shaped area of the Pacific extending over 500 km downwind and varying in width to a maximum of 100 km was severely contaminated. There are three very different versions of the fallout pattern from this test, because the fallout was only measured on a small number of widely spaced Pacific Atolls. The two alternative versions both ascribe the high radiation levels at north Rongelap to a downwind hotspot caused by the large amount of radioactivity carried on fallout particles of about 50–100 micrometres size.

After Bravo, it was discovered that fallout landing on the ocean disperses in the top water layer (above the thermocline at 100 m depth), and the land equivalent dose rate can be calculated by multiplying the ocean dose rate at two days after burst by a factor of about 530. In other 1954 tests, including Yankee and Nectar, hotspots were mapped out by ships with submersible probes, and similar hotspots occurred in 1956 tests such as Zuni and Tewa. However, the major U.S. "DELFIC" (Defence Land Fallout Interpretive Code) computer calculations use the natural size distributions of particles in soil instead of the afterwind sweep-up spectrum, and this results in more straightforward fallout patterns lacking the downwind hotspot.

Snow and rain, especially if they come from considerable heights, accelerate local fallout. Under special meteorological conditions, such as a local rain shower that originates above the radioactive cloud, limited areas of heavy contamination just downwind of a nuclear blast may be formed.

Effects

A wide range of biological changes may follow the irradiation of animals. These vary from rapid death following high doses of penetrating whole-body radiation, to essentially normal lives for a variable period of time until the development of delayed radiation effects, in a portion of the exposed population, following low dose exposures.

The unit of actual exposure is the röntgen, defined in ionisations per unit volume of air. All ionisation based instruments (including geiger counters and ionisation chambers) measure exposure. However, effects depend on the energy per unit mass, not the exposure measured in air. A deposit of 1 joule per kilogram has the unit of 1 gray (Gy). For 1 MeV energy gamma rays, an exposure of 1 röntgen in air produces a dose of about 0.01 gray (1 centigray, cGy) in water or surface tissue. Because of shielding by the tissue surrounding the bones, the bone marrow only receives about 0.67 cGy when the air exposure is 1 röntgen and the surface skin dose is 1 cGy. Some lower values reported for the amount of radiation that would kill 50% of personnel (the LD₅₀) refer to bone marrow dose, which is only 67% of the air dose.

Short term

Fallout shelter sign on a building in New York City

 

The dose that would be lethal to 50% of a population is a common parameter used to compare the effects of various fallout types or circumstances. Usually, the term is defined for a specific time, and limited to studies of acute lethality. The common time periods used are 30 days or less for most small laboratory animals and to 60 days for large animals and humans. The LD₅₀ figure assumes that the individuals did not receive other injuries or medical treatment.

In the 1950s, the LD₅₀ for gamma rays was set at 3.5 Gy, while under more dire conditions of war (a bad diet, little medical care, poor nursing) the LD₅₀ was 2.5 Gy (250 rad). There have been few documented cases of survival beyond 6 Gy. One person at Chernobyl survived a dose of more than 10 Gy, but many of the persons exposed there were not uniformly exposed over their entire body. If a person is exposed in a non-homogeneous manner then a given dose (averaged over the entire body) is less likely to be lethal. For instance, if a person gets a hand/low arm dose of 100 Gy, which gives them an overall dose of 4 Gy, they are more likely to survive than a person who gets a 4 Gy dose over their entire body. A hand dose of 10 Gy or more would likely result in loss of the hand. A British industrial radiographer who was estimated to have received a hand dose of 100 Gy over the course of his lifetime lost his hand because of radiation dermatitis. Most people become ill after an exposure to 1 Gy or more. The fetuses of pregnant women are often more vulnerable to radiation and may miscarry, especially in the first trimester.

One hour after a surface burst, the radiation from fallout in the crater region is 30 grays per hour (Gy/h). Civilian dose rates in peacetime range from 30 to 100 µGy per year.

Fallout radiation decays relatively quickly with time. Most areas become fairly safe for travel and decontamination after three to five weeks.

For yields of up to 10 kt, prompt radiation is the dominant producer of casualties on the battlefield. Humans receiving an acute incapacitating dose (30 Gy) have their performance degraded almost immediately and become ineffective within several hours. However, they do not die until five to six days after exposure, assuming they do not receive any other injuries. Individuals receiving less than a total of 1.5 Gy are not incapacitated. People receiving doses greater than 1.5 Gy become disabled, and some eventually die.

A dose of 5.3 Gy to 8.3 Gy is considered lethal but not immediately incapacitating. Personnel exposed to this amount of radiation have their cognitive performance degraded in two to three hours,^[12][13] depending on how physically demanding the tasks they must perform are, and remain in this disabled state at least two days. However, at that point they experience a recovery period and can perform non-demanding tasks for about six days, after which they relapse for about four weeks. At this time they begin exhibiting symptoms of radiation poisoning of sufficient severity to render them totally ineffective. Death follows at approximately six weeks after exposure, although outcomes may vary.

Long term

Comparison of predicted fallout "hotline" with test results in the 3.53 Mt 15% fission Zuni test at Bikini in 1956. The predictions were made under simulated tactical nuclear war conditions aboard ship by Edward A. Schuert.

 

Following the detonation of the first atomic bomb, pre-war steel and post-war steel which is manufactured without atmospheric air, became a valuable commodity for scientists wishing to make extremely precise instruments that detect radioactive emissions, since these two types of steel are the only steels that do not contain trace amounts of fallout.

 

Late or delayed effects of radiation occur following a wide range of doses and dose rates. Delayed effects may appear months to years after irradiation and include a wide variety of effects involving almost all tissues or organs. Some of the possible delayed consequences of radiation injury, with the rates above the background prevalence, depending on the absorbed dose, include carcinogenesis, cataract formation, chronic radiodermatitis, decreased fertility, and genetic mutations.

Presently, the only teratological effect observed in humans following nuclear attacks on highly populated areas is microcephaly which is the only proven malformation, or congenital abnormality, found in the in utero developing human fetuses present during the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. Of all the pregnant women who were close enough to be exposed to the prompt burst of intense neutron and gamma doses in the two cities, the total number of children born with microcephaly was below 50. No statistically demonstrable increase of congenital malformations was found among the later conceived children born to survivors of the nuclear detonations at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The surviving women of Hiroshima and Nagasaki who could conceive and were exposed to substantial amounts of radiation went on and had children with no higher incidence of abnormalities than the Japanese average.

The Baby Tooth Survey founded by the husband and wife team of physicians Eric Reiss and Louise Reiss, was a research effort focused on detecting the presence of strontium-90, a cancer-causing radioactive isotope created by the more than 400 atomic tests conducted above ground that is absorbed from water and dairy products into the bones and teeth given its chemical similarity to calcium. The team sent collection forms to schools in the St. Louis, Missouri area, hoping to gather 50,000 teeth each year. Ultimately, the project collected over 300,000 teeth from children of various ages before the project was ended in 1970.

Preliminary results of the Baby Tooth Survey were published in the November 24, 1961, edition of the journal Science, and showed that levels of strontium 90 had risen steadily in children born in the 1950s, with those born later showing the most pronounced increases. The results of a more comprehensive study of the elements found in the teeth collected showed that children born after 1963 had levels of strontium 90 in their baby teeth that was 50 times higher than that found in children born before large-scale atomic testing began. The findings helped convince U.S. President John F. Kennedy to sign the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty with the United Kingdom and Soviet Union, which ended the above-ground nuclear weapons testing that created the greatest amounts of atmospheric nuclear fallout.

The baby tooth survey was a "campaign [that] effectively employed a variety of media advocacy strategies" to alarm the public and "galvanized" support against atmospheric nuclear testing, with putting an end to such testing being commonly viewed as a positive outcome for a myriad of other reasons. The survey could not show then at the time, nor in the decades that have elapsed, that the levels of global strontium-90 or fallout in general, were in any way life-threatening, primarily because "50 times the strontium-90 from before nuclear testing" is a minuscule number, and multiplication of minuscule numbers results in only a slightly larger minuscule number. Moreover, the Radiation and Public Health Project which currently retains the teeth has had their stance and publications heavily criticized: A 2003 article in The New York Times states that the group's work has been controversial and has little credibility with the scientific establishment. Similarly, in an April 2014 article in Popular Science, Sarah Fecht explains that the group's work, specifically the widely discussed case of cherry-picking data to suggest that fallout from the 2011 Fukushima accident caused infant deaths in America, is "junk science", as despite their papers being peer-reviewed, all independent attempts to corroborate their results return findings that are not in agreement with what the organization suggests. The organization had earlier also tried to suggest the same thing occurred after the 1979 Three Mile Island accident but this was likewise exposed to be without merit. The tooth survey, and the expansion of the organization into attempting the same test-ban approach with US nuclear electric power stations as the new target, is likewise detailed and critically labelled as the "Tooth Fairy issue" by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Effects on the environment

In the event of a large-scale nuclear exchange, the effects would be drastic on the environment as well as directly to the human population. Within direct blast zones everything would be vaporized and destroyed. Cities damaged but not completely destroyed would lose their water system due to the loss of power and supply lines rupturing. Within the local nuclear fallout pattern suburban areas' water supplies would become extremely contaminated. At this point stored water would be the only safe water to use. All surface water within the fallout would be contaminated by falling fission products.

Within the first few months of the nuclear exchange the nuclear fallout will continue to develop and detriment the environment. Dust, smoke, and radioactive particles will fall hundreds of kilometers downwind of the explosion point and pollute surface water supplies. Iodine-131 would be the dominant fission product within the first few months, and in the months following the dominant fission product would be strontium-90. These fission products would remain in the fallout dust, resulting rivers, lakes, sediments, and soils being contaminated with the fallout.

Rural areas' water supplies would be slightly less polluted by fission particles in intermediate and long-term fallout than cities and suburban areas. Without additional contamination, the lakes, reservoirs, rivers, and runoff would be gradually less contaminated as water continued to flow through its system.

Groundwater supplies such as aquifers would however remain unpolluted initially in the event of a nuclear fallout. Over time the groundwater could become contaminated with fallout particles, and would remain contaminated for over 10 years after a nuclear engagement. It would take hundreds or thousands of years for an aquifer to become completely pure. Groundwater would still be safer than surface water supplies and would need to be consumed in smaller doses. Long term, cesium-137 and strontium-90 would be the major radionuclides affecting the fresh water supplies.

The dangers of nuclear fallout do not stop at increased risks of cancer and radiation sickness, but also include the presence of radionucleides in human organs from food. A fallout event would leave fission particles in the soil for animals to consume, followed by humans. Radioactively contaminated milk, meat, fish, vegetables, grains and other food would all be dangerous because of fallout.

From 1945 to 1967 the U.S. conducted hundred of nuclear weapon tests. Atmospheric testing took place over the US mainland during this time and as a consequence scientists have been able to study the effect of nuclear fallout on the environment. Detonations conducted near the surface of the earth irradiated thousands of tons of soil. Of the material drawn into the atmosphere, portions of radioactive material will be carried by low altitude winds and deposited in surrounding areas as radioactive dust. The material intercepted by high altitude winds will continue to travel. When a radiation cloud at high altitude is exposed to rainfall, the radioactive fallout will contaminate the downwind area below.

Agricultural fields and plants will absorb the contaminated material and animals will consume the radioactive material. As a result, the nuclear fallout may cause livestock to become ill or die, and if consumed the radioactive material will be passed on to humans.

The damage to other living organism as a result to nuclear fallout depends on the species. Mammals particularly are extremely sensitive to nuclear radiation, followed by birds, plants, fish, reptiles, crustaceans, insects, moss, lichen, algae, bacteria, mollusks, and viruses.

Climatologist Alan Robock and atmospheric and oceanic sciences professor Brian Toon created a model of a hypothetical small-scale nuclear war that would have approximately 100 weapons used. In this scenario, the fires would create enough soot into the atmosphere to block sunlight, lowering global temperatures by more than one degree Celsius. The result would have the potential of creating widespread food insecurity (nuclear famine). Precipitation across the globe would be disrupted as a result. If enough soot was introduced in the upper atmosphere the planet's ozone layer could potentially be depleted, affecting plant growth and human health.

Radiation from the fallout would linger in soil, plants, and food chains for years. Marine food chains are more vulnerable to the nuclear fallout and the effects of soot in the atmosphere.

Fallout radionuclides' detriment in the human food chain is apparent in the lichen-caribou-eskimo studies in Alaska. The primary effect on humans observed was thyroid dysfunction. The result of a nuclear fallout is detrimental to human survival and the biosphere. Fallout alters the quality of our atmosphere, soil, and water and causes species to go extinct.

Fallout protection

During the Cold War, the governments of the U.S., the USSR, Great Britain, and China attempted to educate their citizens about surviving a nuclear attack by providing procedures on minimizing short-term exposure to fallout. This effort commonly became known as Civil Defense.

Fallout protection is almost exclusively concerned with protection from radiation. Radiation from a fallout is encountered in the forms of alpha, beta, and gamma radiation, and as ordinary clothing affords protection from alpha and beta radiation, most fallout protection measures deal with reducing exposure to gamma radiation. For the purposes of radiation shielding, many materials have a characteristic halving thickness: the thickness of a layer of a material sufficient to reduce gamma radiation exposure by 50%. Halving thicknesses of common materials include: 1 cm (0.4 inch) of lead, 6 cm (2.4 inches) of concrete, 9 cm (3.6 inches) of packed earth or 150 m (500 ft) of air. When multiple thicknesses are built, the shielding is additive. A practical fallout shield is ten halving-thicknesses of a given material, such as 90 cm (36 inches) of packed earth, which reduces gamma ray exposure by approximately 1024 times (2¹⁰). A shelter built with these materials for the purposes of fallout protection is known as a fallout shelter.

Personal protective equipment

As the nuclear energy sector continues to grow, the international rhetoric surrounding nuclear warfare intensifies, and the ever-present threat of radioactive materials falling into the hands of dangerous people persists, many scientists are working hard to find the best way to protect human organs from the harmful effects of high energy radiation. Acute Radiation Syndrome (ARS) is the most immediate risk to humans when exposed to ionizing radiation in dosages greater than around 0.1 Gy/hr. Radiation in the low energy spectrum (alpha and beta radiation) with minimal penetrating power is unlikely to cause significant damage to internal organs. The high penetrating power of gamma and neutron radiation, however, easily penetrates the skin and many thin shielding mechanisms to cause cellular degeneration in the stem cells found in bone marrow. While full body shielding in a secure fallout shelter as described above is the most optimal form of radiation protection, it requires being locked in a very thick bunker for a significant amount of time. In the event of a nuclear catastrophe of any kind, it is imperative to have mobile protection equipment for medical and security personnel to perform necessary containment, evacuation, and any number of other important public safety objectives. The mass of the shielding material required to properly protect the entire body from high energy radiation would make functional movement essentially impossible. This has led scientists to begin researching the idea of partial body protection: a strategy inspired by hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). The idea is to use enough shielding material to sufficiently protect the high concentration of bone marrow in the pelvic region, which contains enough regenerative stem cells to repopulate the body with unaffected bone marrow. More information on bone marrow shielding can be found in the Health Physics Radiation Safety Journal article Selective Shielding of Bone Marrow: An Approach to Protecting Humans from External Gamma Radiation, or in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA)'s 2015 report: Occupational Radiation Protection in Severe Accident Management.

The Seven Ten Rule

The danger of radiation from fallout also decreases rapidly with time due in large part to the exponential decay of the individual radionuclides. A book by Cresson H. Kearny presents data showing that for the first few days after the explosion, the radiation dose rate is reduced by a factor of ten for every seven-fold increase in the number of hours since the explosion. He presents data showing that "it takes about seven times as long for the dose rate to decay from 1000 roentgens per hour (1000 R/hr) to 10 R/hr (48 hours) as to decay from 1000 R/hr to 100 R/hr (7 hours)." This is a fairly rough rule of thumb based on observed data, not a precise relation.

Government Guides to Fallout Protection in the 1960s

The United States government, often the Office of Civil Defense in the Department of Defense, provided guides to fallout protection in the 1960s, frequently in the form of booklets. These booklets provided information on how to best survive nuclear fallout. They also included instructions for various fallout shelters, whether for a family, a hospital, or a school shelter were provided. There were also instructions for how to create an improvised fallout shelter, and what to do to best increase a person’s chances for survival if they were unprepared.

The central idea in these guides is that materials like concrete, dirt, and sand are necessary to shield a person from fallout particles and radiation. A significant amount of materials of this type are necessary to protect a person from fallout radiation, so safety clothing cannot protect a person from fallout radiation. However, protective clothing can keep fallout particles off a person’s body, but the radiation from these particles will still permeate through the clothing. For safety clothing to be able to block the fallout radiation, it would have to be so thick and heavy that a person could not function.

These guides indicated that fallout shelters should contain enough resources to keep its occupants alive for up to two weeks. Community shelters were preferred over single-family shelters. The more people in a shelter, the greater quantity and variety of resources that shelter would be equipped with. These communities’ shelters would also help facilitate efforts to recuperate the community in the future. Single family shelters should be built below ground if possible. Many different types of fallout shelters could be made for a relatively small amount of money. A common format for fallout shelters was to build the shelter underground, with solid concrete blocks to act as the roof. If a shelter could only be partially underground, it was recommended to mound over that shelter with as much dirt as possible. If a house had a basement, it is best for a fallout shelter to be constructed in a corner of the basement. The center of a basement is where the most radiation will be because the easiest way for radiation to enter a basement is from the floor above. The two of the walls of the shelter in a basement corner will be the basement walls that are surrounded by dirt outside. Cinder blocks filled with sand or dirt were highly recommended for the other two walls. Concrete blocks, or some other dense material, should be used as a roof for a basement fallout shelter because the floor of a house is not an adequate roof for a fallout shelter. These shelters should contain water, food, tools, and a method for dealing with human waste.

If a person did not have a shelter previously built, these guides recommended trying to get underground. If a person had a basement but no shelter, they should put food, water, and a waste container in the corner of the basement. Then items such as furniture should be piled up to create walls around the person in the corner. The more things a person can surround themselves with the better. If the underground cannot be reached, a tall apartment building at least ten miles from the blast was recommended as a good fallout shelter. People in these buildings should get as close to the center of the building as possible and avoid the top and ground floors. Once again, people should surround themselves with whatever they can find and acquire whatever resources they can to create a barrier between themselves and fallout particles and radiation. 

During this time, schools were a favorable place to act as a fallout shelter according to the Office of Civil Defense. For starters, schools, not including universities, contained one-quarter of the population of the United States when they were in session at that time. Schools distribution across the nation reflected the density of the population and were often a best building in a community to act as a fallout shelter. Also, schools also already had organization with leaders set in place. The Office of Civil Defense recommended altering current schools and the construction of future schools to include thicker walls and roofs, better protected electrical systems, a purifying ventilation system, and a protected water pump. The Office of Civil Defense determined 10 square feet of net area per person were necessary in schools that were to function as a fallout shelter. A normal classroom could provide 180 people with area to sleep. If an attack were to happen, all the unnecessary furniture was to be moved out of the classrooms to make more room for people. It was recommended to keep one or two tables in the room if possible to use as a food serving station.

The Office of Civil Defense conducted four case studies to find the cost of turning four standing schools into fallout shelters and what their capacity would be. The cost of the schools per occupant in the 1960's were $66.00, $127.00, $50.00, and $180.00. The capacity of people these schools could house as shelters were 735 ,511, 484, and 460 respectively.

Nuclear reactor accident

Fallout can also refer to nuclear accidents, although a nuclear reactor does not explode like a nuclear weapon. The isotopic signature of bomb fallout is very different from the fallout from a serious power reactor accident (such as Chernobyl or Fukushima). 

The key differences are in volatility and half-life.

Volatility

The boiling point of an element (or its compounds) is able to control the percentage of that element a power reactor accident releases. The ability of an element to form a solid controls the rate it is deposited on the ground after having been injected into the atmosphere by a nuclear detonation or accident.

Half-life

A half life is the time it takes half of the radiation of a specific substance to decay. A large amount of short-lived isotopes such as ⁹⁷Zr are present in bomb fallout. This isotope and other short-lived isotopes are constantly generated in a power reactor, but because the criticality occurs over a long length of time, the majority of these short lived isotopes decay before they can be released.

Preventative measures

Nuclear fallout can occur due to a number of different sources. One of the most common potential sources of nuclear fallout is that of nuclear reactors. Because of this, steps must be taken to ensure the risk of nuclear fallout at nuclear reactors is controlled. In the 1950's and 60's, the United States Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) began developing safety regulations against nuclear fallout for civilian nuclear reactors. Because the effects of nuclear fallout are more widespread and longer lasting than other forms of energy production accidents, the AEC desired a more proactive response towards potential accidents than ever before. One step to prevent nuclear reactor accidents was the Price-Anderson Act. Passed by Congress in 1957, the Price-Anderson Act insured government assistance above the $60 million covered by private insurance companies in the case of a nuclear reactor accident. The main goal of the Price-Anderson Act was to protect the multibillion-dollar companies overseeing the production of nuclear reactors. Without this protection, the nuclear reactor industry could potentially come to a halt, and the protective measures against nuclear fallout would be reduced. However, because of the limited experience in nuclear reactor technology, engineers had a difficult time calculating the potential risk of released radiation. Engineers were forced to imagine every unlikely accident, and the potential fallout associated with each accident. The AEC's regulations against potential nuclear reactor fallout were centered on the ability of the power plant to the Maximum Credible Accident, or MCA. The MCA involved a "large release of radioactive isotopes after a substantial meltdown of the reactor fuel when the reactor coolant system failed through a Loss-of-Coolant Accident". The prevention of the MCA enabled a number of new nuclear fallout preventative measures. Static safety systems, or systems without power sources or user input, were enabled to prevent potential human error. Containment buildings, for example, were reliably effective at containing a release of radiation and did not need to be powered or turned on to operate. Active protective systems, although far less dependable, can do many things that static systems cannot. For example, a system to replace the escaping steam of a cooling system with cooling water could prevent reactor fuel from melting. However, this system would need a sensor to detect the presence of releasing steam. Sensors can fail, and the results of a lack of preventative measures would result in a local nuclear fallout. The AEC had to choose, then, between active and static systems to protect the public from nuclear fallout. With a lack of set standards and probabilistic calculations, the AEC and the industry became divided on the best safety precautions to use. This division gave rise to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or NRC. The NRC was committed to 'regulations through research', which gave the regulatory committee a knowledge bank of research on which to draw their regulations. Much of the research done by the NRC sought to move safety systems from a deterministic viewpoint into a new probabilistic approach. The deterministic approach sought to foresee all problems before they arose. The probabilistic approach uses a more mathematical approach to weigh the risks of potential radiation leaks. Much of the probabilistic safety approach can be drawn from the radiative transfer theory in Physics, which describes how radiation travels in free space and through barriers. Today, the NRC is still the leading regulatory committee on nuclear reactor power plants.

Determining extent of nuclear fallout

The International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (INES) is the primary form of categorizing the potential health and environmental effects of a nuclear or radiological event and communicating it to the public. The scale, which was developed in 1990 by the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Nuclear Energy Agency of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, classifies these nuclear accidents based off the potential impact of the fallout:

• Defence-in-Depth: This is the lowest form of nuclear accidents and refers to events that have no direct impact on people or the environment but must be taken note of to improve future safety measures.
• Radiological Barriers and Control: This category refers to events that have no direct impact on people or the environment and only refer to the damage caused within major facilities.
• People and the Environment: This section of the scale comprises of more serious nuclear accidents. Events in this category could potentially cause radiation to spread to people close to the location of the accident. This also includes an unplanned, widespread release of the radioactive material.

The INES scale is composed of seven steps that categorize the nuclear events, ranging from anomalies that must be recorded to improve upon safety measures to serious accidents that require immediate action.

Chernobyl

The 1986 nuclear reactor explosion at Chernobyl was categorized as a Level 7 accident, which is the highest possible ranking on the INES scale, due to widespread environmental and health effects and “external release of a significant fraction of reactor core inventory”. The nuclear accident still stands as the only accident in commercial nuclear power that led to radiation-related deaths. The steam explosion and fires released approximately 5200 PBq, or at least 5 percent of the reactor core, into the atmosphere. The explosion itself resulted in the deaths of two plant workers, while 28 people died over the weeks that followed of severe radiation poisoning. Furthermore, young children and adolescents in the areas most contaminated by the radiation exposure showed an increase in the risk for thyroid cancer, although the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation stated that "there is no evidence of a major public health impact" apart from that. The nuclear accident also took a heavy toll on the environment, including contamination in urban environments caused by the deposition of radionuclides and the contamination of “different crop types, in particular, green leafy vegetables … depending on the deposition levels, and time of the growing season”.

Three Mile Island

 

The nuclear meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979 was categorized as a Level 5 accident on the INES scale because of the “severe damage to the reactor core” and the radiation leak caused by the incident. The explosion was the most serious accident in the history of American commercial nuclear power plants, yet the effects were different than that of the Chernobyl accident. A study done by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission following the incident reveals that the nearly 2 million people surrounding the Three Mile Island plant “are estimated to have received an average radiation dose of only 1 millirem above the usual background dose”. Furthermore, unlike those affected by radiation in the Chernobyl accident, the development of thyroid cancer in the people around Three Mile Island was “less aggressive and less advanced”.

Fukushima

Like the Three Mile Island incident, the incident at Fukushima was initially categorized as a Level 5 accident on the INES scale after a tsunami disabled the power supply and cooling of three reactors, which then suffered significant melting in the days that followed. However, after combining the accidents on the three reactors rather than assessing them as individual events, the explosion was upgraded to a Level 7 accident. The radiation exposure from the incident caused a recommended evacuation for inhabitants up to 30 km away from the plant. However, it was also hard to track such exposure because 23 out of the 24 radioactive monitoring stations were also disabled by the tsunami. Removing contaminated water, both in the plant itself and run-off water that spread into the sea and nearby areas, became a huge challenge for the Japanese government and plant workers. During the containment period following the accident, thousands of cubic meters of slightly contaminated water were released in the sea to free up storage for more contaminated water in the reactor and turbine buildings. However, the fallout from the Fukushima accident had a minimal impact on the surrounding population. According to the Institut de Radioprotection et de Surêté Nucléaire, over 62 percent of assessed residents within the Fukushima prefecture received external doses of less than 1 mSv in the four months following the accident. In addition, comparing screening campaigns for children inside the Fukushima prefecture and in the rest of the country revealed no significant difference in the risk of thyroid cancer.

International nuclear safety standards

Founded in 1974, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was created to set forth international standards for nuclear reactor safety. However, without a proper policing force, the guidelines set forth by the IAEA were often treated lightly or ignored completely. In 1986, the disaster at Chernobyl was evidence that international nuclear reactor safety was not to be taken lightly. Even in the midst of the Cold War, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission sought to improve the safety of Soviet nuclear reactors. As noted by IAEA Director General Hans Blix, "A radiation cloud doesn't know international boundaries." The NRC showed the Soviets the safety guidelines used in the US: capable regulation, safety-minded operations, and effective plant designs. The soviets, however, had their own priority: keeping the plant running at all costs. In the end, the same shift between deterministic safety designs to probabilistic safety designs prevailed. In 1989, the World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO) was formed to cooperate with the IAEA to ensure the same three pillars of reactor safety across international borders. In 1991, WANO concluded (using a probabilistic safety approach) that all former communist-controlled nuclear reactors could not be trusted, and should be closed. Compared to a "Nuclear Marshall Plan", efforts were taken throughout the 1990s and 2000s to ensure international standards of safety for all nuclear reactors.

Health effects of sunlight exposure

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sunbaker, by Max Dupain

 

The ultraviolet radiation in sunlight has both positive and negative health effects, as it is both a principal source of vitamin D₃ and a mutagen. A dietary supplement can supply vitamin D without this mutagenic effect. Vitamin D has been suggested as having a wide range of positive health effects, which include strengthening bones and possibly inhibiting the growth of some cancers. UV exposure also has positive effects for endorphin levels, and possibly for protection against multiple sclerosis. Visible sunlight to the eyes gives health benefits through its association with the timing of melatonin synthesis, maintenance of normal and robust circadian rhythms, and reduced risk of seasonal affective disorder.

Long-term sunlight exposure is known to be associated with the development of some types of skin cancer, skin aging, immune suppression, and eye diseases such as cataracts and macular degeneration. Conversely, sun avoidance is associated with increased mortality.

Since UV rays, and therefore sunlight and sunlamps, are carcinogens that also have health benefits, a number of public health organizations state that there needs to be a balance between the risks of having too much sunlight or too little. There is a general consensus that sunburn should always be avoided.

Synthesis of vitamin D₃

Radiograph of a child with rickets, usually caused by insufficient vitamin D

UVB radiation with a wavelength of 290–315 nanometers penetrates uncovered skin and converts cutaneous 7-dehydrocholesterol to previtamin D₃, which in turn becomes vitamin D₃. UVB radiation does not penetrate glass, so exposure to sunshine indoors through a window does not produce vitamin D. Time of day, time of year, geographic latitude, ground altitude, cloud cover, smog, skin melanin content, and sunscreen are among the factors that greatly affect UV intensity and vitamin D synthesis, making it difficult to provide general guidelines. It has been suggested by some researchers, for example, that adequate amounts of vitamin D can be produced with moderate sun exposure to the face, arms and legs, averaging 5–30 minutes twice per week without sunscreen. (The darker the complexion, or the weaker the sunlight, the more minutes of exposure are needed, approximating 25% of the time for minimal sunburn. Vitamin D overdose is impossible from UV exposure; the skin reaches an equilibrium where the vitamin degrades as fast as it is created.) Individuals with limited sun exposure need to include good sources of vitamin D in their diet or take a supplement. 

The only way to quantify adequate levels of vitamin D is with a serum 25(OH)D₃ (calcifediol) test. In the United States, serum 25(OH)D₃ was below the recommended level for more than a third of white men in a 2005 study, with serum levels even lower in women and in most minorities. This indicates that vitamin D deficiency may be a common problem in the US. Australia and New Zealand have had similar findings, which indicate insufficient protection against rickets for children and osteoporosis for adults.

Over the past several years, levels of ultraviolet radiation have been tracked at over 30 sites across North America as part of the United States Department of Agriculture's UVB Monitoring and Research Program at Colorado State University. The first map at right shows levels of UVB radiation in June 2008, expressed in Vitamin D Equivalents.

UV map (Vitamin D Equivalents)

 

Using satellite data, measurements from the European Space Agency produce similar maps expressed in units of the widely followed UV Index, for locations around the world. Effects of UV-radiation at high latitudes, where snow stays on the ground into early summer and the sun then remains at a low position even at its zenith, have been reviewed by Meyer-Rochow.

UV map (UV Index)

 

Exposure to ultraviolet radiation from the sun is a source of vitamin D. One minimal erythemal dose of sunlight UV radiation provides the equivalent of about 20,000 IU of vitamin D2, taken as an oral supplement. If an adult's arms and legs are exposed to a half minimal erythemal UV radiation, it is the same as taking 3,000 IU of vitamin D3 through an oral supplement. This exposure of 10–15 minutes, on a frequency of two to three times per week will cause the adult's skin to produce enough vitamin D. It is not necessary to expose the face to the UV, as facial skin provides little vitamin D3. Individuals whose metabolism makes taking oral vitamin D ineffective are able, through exposure to an ultraviolet lamp that emits UV-B radiation, to achieve a 25 (OH) D blood level.

Three benefits of UV exposure are production of vitamin D, improvement in mood, and increased energy.

UVB induces production of vitamin D in the skin at rates of up to 1,000 IUs per minute. This vitamin helps to regulate calcium metabolism (vital for the nervous system and bone health), immunity, cell proliferation, insulin secretion, and blood pressure. In third-world countries, foods fortified with vitamin D are "practically nonexistent." Most people in the world depend on the sun to get vitamin D.

There are not many foods that naturally have vitamin D. Examples are cod liver oil and oily fish. If people cannot get sunlight, then they will need 1,000 IU of vitamin D per day to stay healthy. A person would have to eat oily fish three or four times per week in order to get enough vitamin D from that food source alone. 

People with higher levels of vitamin D tend to have lower rates of diabetes, heart disease, and stroke and tend to have lower blood pressure. However, it has been found that vitamin D supplementation does not improve cardiovascular health or metabolism, so the link with vitamin D must be in part indirect. People who get more sun are generally healthier, and also have higher vitamin D levels. It has been found that ultraviolet radiation (even UVA) produces nitric oxide (NO) in the skin, and nitric oxide can lower blood pressure. High blood pressure increases the risk of stroke and heart disease. Although long-term exposure to ultraviolet contributes to non-melanoma skin cancers that are rarely fatal, it has been found in a Danish study that those who get these cancers were less likely to die during the study, and were much less likely to have a heart attack, than those who did not have these cancers.

People in certain situations, such as people with intellectual disabilities and neurodevelopmental disorders who stay inside most of the time have low vitamin D levels. Getting enough vitamin D can help stave off "autoimmune diseases, cardiovascular disease, many types of cancer, dementia, types 1 and 2 diabetes mellitus, and respiratory tract infections."

Fetuses and children who do not get enough vitamin D can suffer from "growth retardation and skeletal deformities."

Lower prevalence of multiple sclerosis

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is least prevalent in the sunniest regions. Exposure to the ultraviolet-B radiation of sunlight appears to be most important and this may operate via vitamin D synthesis.

Risks to skin

Melanoma on human skin

 

Sunburn peeling

 

Ultraviolet (UV) irradiation present in sunlight is an environmental human carcinogen. The toxic effects of UV from natural sunlight and therapeutic artificial lamps are a major concern for human health. The major acute effects of UV irradiation on normal human skin comprise sunburn inflammation erythema, tanning, and local or systemic immunosuppression. The most deadly form, malignant melanoma, is mostly caused by indirect DNA damage from UVA radiation. This can be seen from the absence of a direct UV signature mutation in 92% of all melanoma. UVC is the highest-energy, most-dangerous type of ultraviolet radiation, and causes adverse effects that can variously be mutagenic or carcinogenic.

Despite the importance of the sun to vitamin D synthesis, it is prudent to limit the exposure of skin to UV radiation from sunlight and from tanning beds. According to the National Toxicology Program Report on Carcinogens from the US Department of Health and Human Services, broad-spectrum UV radiation is a carcinogen whose DNA damage is thought to contribute to most of the estimated 1.5 million skin cancers and the 8,000 deaths due to metastatic melanoma that occur annually in the United States. The use of sunbeds is reported by the World Health Organization to be responsible for over 450,000 cases of non-melanoma skin cancer and over 10,000 cases of melanoma every year in the U.S., Europe, as well as Australia. Lifetime cumulative UV exposure to skin is also responsible for significant age-associated dryness, wrinkling, elastin and collagen damage, freckling, age spots and other cosmetic changes. The American Academy of Dermatology advises that photoprotective measures be taken, including the use of sunscreen, whenever one is exposed to the sun. Short-term over-exposure causes the pain and itching of sunburn, which in extreme cases can produce more-severe effects like blistering. 

Several countries (such as Australia) provide public forecasts of UV irradiation in the form of the UV Index. The index can be used as a guide to the public of dangers from over-exposure to sunlight, especially at noon, when direct sunlight is at its most intense.

Benefits of optic exposure

Light to the eyes, primarily blue-wavelength light, is important for the entrainment and maintenance of robust circadian rhythms. Exposure to sunlight in the morning is particularly effective; it leads to earlier melatonin onset in the evening and makes it easier to fall asleep. Bright morning light has been shown to be effective against insomnia, premenstrual syndrome and seasonal affective disorder (SAD).

Effects on eyes

Prolonged optical exposure to sunlight, especially intense ultraviolet light, may be linked to cortical cataracts, and high levels of visible light may be linked to macular degeneration. 

However, significant daily exposure to bright light may be necessary for children to avoid myopia (nearsightedness).

Short-term over-exposure can cause snow blindness, which is analogous to sunburn of the cornea, or can cause solar retinopathy, which is long-lasting retinal damage and vision impairment from sungazing.

Frequent exposure to the sun can cause yellow non-cancerous bumps on the middle part of the sclera of the eye, called pingueculae. It is most common in younger people, mainly those who spend a lot of their time outdoors and do not protect their eyes from UV rays. To decrease the risk of developing pingueculae, it may be wise to wear sunglasses when outdoors, even on overcast days.

Folate degradation

Blood levels of folate, a nutrient vital for fetal development, can be degraded by UV radiation, raising concerns about sun exposure for pregnant women. Lifespan and fertility can be adversely affected for individuals born during peaks of the 11-year solar cycle, possibly because of UV-related folate deficiency during gestation.

Safe level of sun exposure

According to a 2007 study submitted by the University of Ottawa to the US Department of Health and Human Services, there is not enough information to determine a safe level of sun exposure that imposes minimal risk of skin cancer. In addition, there is not yet conclusive evidence on which components of ultraviolet radiation (UVA, UVB, UVC) are actually carcinogenic. UVC is almost completely absorbed by the atmosphere and does not reach the surface in any appreciable quantity. As a result, only the broad-spectrum combination (UVA, UVB, UVC) known as "ultraviolet radiation" is listed as a carcinogen; the components are only "likely to become" known carcinogens. Solar radiation (sunlight) and sunlamps are listed as carcinogens because they contain ultraviolet radiation.

Lifetime sun exposure

Map of human skin color distribution for native populations, by R. Biassutti in the Von Luschan's chromatic scale for classifying skin color. It was reproted that for areas with no data Biasutti simply filled in the map by extrapolation from findings obtained in other areas.

 

There are currently no recommendations on a safe level of total lifetime sun exposure. According to epidemiologist Robyn Lucas at Australian National University, analysis of lifespan versus disease shows that far more lives worldwide could be lost to diseases caused by lack of sunlight than to those caused by too much, and it is inappropriate to recommend total avoidance of sunlight.

Over thousands of years, in many climate zones, genetic selection has helped indigenous human populations adapt toward skin pigmentation levels that provide a healthy level of UV exposure. This largely explains the tendency toward darker-skinned populations in the sunniest tropical environments, and lighter skin tones in less-sunny regions and for those who most need vitamin D for rapid bone growth, specifically children and reproductive-age women. The map below illustrates the geographic distribution of skin color for native populations prior to 1940, based on von Luschan's chromatic scale. These long-term adaptations for optimal health can be confounded by patterns of food, clothing and shelter, especially at a time when large populations have migrated far from the climates for which their skin was genetically adapted.

Linear no-threshold model

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Different assumptions on the extrapolation of the cancer risk vs. radiation dose to low-dose levels, given a known risk at a high dose:
(A) supra-linearity, (B) linear
(C) linear-quadratic, (D) hormesis

The linear no-threshold model (LNT) is a model used in radiation protection to quantify radiation exposure and set regulatory limits. It is most frequently used to calculate the probability of radiation induced cancer at both high doses where epidemiology studies support its application but, controversially, it likewise finds applications in calculating the effects of low doses, a dose region that is fraught with much less statistical confidence in its predictive power but that nonetheless has resulted in major personal and policy decisions in regards to public health. The model assumes that the long-term, biological damage caused by ionizing radiation (essentially the cancer risk) is directly proportional to the dose. This allows the summation by dosimeters of all radiation exposure, without taking into consideration dose levels or dose rates. In other words, radiation is always considered harmful with no safety threshold, and the sum of several very small exposures are considered to have the same effect as one larger exposure (response linearity).

One of the organizations for establishing recommendations on radiation protection guidelines internationally, the UNSCEAR, recommended in 2014 policies that do not agree with the Linear No-Threshold model at exposure levels below background levels of radiation to the UN General Assembly from the Fifty-Ninth Session of the Committee. Its recommendation states that "the Scientific Committee does not recommend multiplying very low doses by large numbers of individuals to estimate numbers of radiation-induced health effects within a population exposed to incremental doses at levels equivalent to or lower than natural background levels." This is a reversal from previous recommendations by the same organization.

There are three active (2016) challenges to the LNT model currently being considered by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. One was filed by Nuclear Medicine Professor Carol Marcus of UCLA, who calls the LNT model scientific "baloney".

Whether the model describes the reality for small-dose exposures is disputed. It opposes two competing schools of thought: the threshold model, which assumes that very small exposures are harmless, and the radiation hormesis model, which claims that radiation at very small doses can be beneficial. Because the current data are inconclusive, scientists disagree on which model should be used. Pending any definitive answer to these questions and the precautionary principle, the model is sometimes used to quantify the cancerous effect of collective doses of low-level radioactive contaminations, even though it estimates a positive number of excess deaths at levels that would have had zero deaths, or saved lives, in the two other models. Such practice has been condemned by the International Commission on Radiological Protection.

The LNT model is sometimes applied to other cancer hazards such as polychlorinated biphenyls in drinking water.

Origins

Increased Risk of Solid Cancer with Dose for A-bomb survivors, from BEIR report. Notably this exposure pathway occurred from essentially a massive spike or pulse of radiation, a result of the brief instant that the bomb exploded, which while somewhat similar to the environment of a CT scan, it is wholly unlike the low dose rate of living in a contaminated area such as Chernobyl, were the dose rate is orders of magnitude smaller. However LNT does not consider dose rate and is an unsubstantiated one size fits all approach based solely on total absorbed dose. When the two environments and cell effects are vastly different. Likewise, it has also been pointed out that bomb survivors inhaled carcinogenic benzopyrene from the burning cities, yet this is not factored in.

 

The association of exposure to radiation with cancer had been observed as early as 1902, six years after the discovery of X-ray by Wilhelm Röntgen and radioactivity by Henri Becquerel. In 1927, Hermann Muller demonstrated that radiation may cause genetic mutation. He also suggested mutation as a cause of cancer. Muller, who received a Nobel Prize for his work on the mutagenic effect of radiation in 1946, asserted in his Nobel Lecture, "The Production of Mutation", that mutation frequency is "directly and simply proportional to the dose of irradiation applied" and that there is "no threshold dose".

The early studies were based on relatively high levels of radiation that made it hard to establish the safety of low level of radiation, and many scientists at that time believed that there may be a tolerance level, and that low doses of radiation may not be harmful. A later study in 1955 on mice exposed to low dose of radiation suggest that they may outlive control animals. The interest in the effect of radiation intensified after the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and studies were conducted on the survivors. Although compelling evidence on the effect of low dosage of radiation was hard to come by, by the late 1940s, the idea of LNT became more popular due to its mathematical simplicity. In 1954, the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) introduced the concept of maximum permissible dose. In 1958, United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) assessed the LNT model and a threshold model, but noted the difficulty in acquiring "reliable information about the correlation between small doses and their effects either in individuals or in large populations". The United States Congress Joint Committee on Atomic Energy (JCAE) similarly could not establish if there is a threshold or "safe" level for exposure, nevertheless it introduced the concept of "As Low As Reasonably Achievable" (ALARA). ALARA would become a fundamental principle in radiation protection policy that implicitly accepts the validity of LNT. In 1959, United States Federal Radiation Council (FRC) supported the concept of the LNT extrapolation down to the low dose region in its first report.

By the 1970s, the LNT model had become accepted as the standard in radiation protection practice by a number of bodies. In 1972, the first report of National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR), an expert panel who reviewed available peer reviewed literature, supported the LNT model on pragmatic grounds, noting that while "dose-effect relationship for x rays and gamma rays may not be a linear function", the "use of linear extrapolation . . . may be justified on pragmatic grounds as a basis for risk estimation." In its seventh report of 2006, NAS BEIR VII writes, "the committee concludes that the preponderance of information indicates that there will be some risk, even at low doses".

Radiation precautions and public policy

Radiation precautions have led to sunlight being listed as a carcinogen at all sun exposure rates, due to the ultraviolet component of sunlight, with no safe level of sunlight exposure being suggested, following the precautionary LNT model. According to a 2007 study submitted by the University of Ottawa to the Department of Health and Human Services in Washington, D.C., there is not enough information to determine a safe level of sun exposure at this time.

If a particular dose of radiation is found to produce one extra case of a type of cancer in every thousand people exposed, LNT projects that one thousandth of this dose will produce one extra case in every million people so exposed, and that one millionth of the original dose will produce one extra case in every billion people exposed. The conclusion is that any given dose equivalent of radiation will produce the same number of cancers, no matter how thinly it is spread.

The model is simple to apply: a quantity of radiation can be translated into a number of deaths without any adjustment for the distribution of exposure, including the distribution of exposure within a single exposed individual. For example, a hot particle embedded in an organ (such as lung) results in a very high dose in the cells directly adjacent to the hot particle, but a much lower whole-organ and whole-body dose. Thus, even if a safe low dose threshold was found to exist at cellular level for radiation induced mutagenesis, the threshold would not exist for environmental pollution with hot particles, and could not be safely assumed to exist when the distribution of dose is unknown.

The linear no-threshold model is used to extrapolate the expected number of extra deaths caused by exposure to environmental radiation, and it therefore has a great impact on public policy. The model is used to translate any radiation release, like that from a "dirty bomb", into a number of lives lost, while any reduction in radiation exposure, for example as a consequence of radon detection, is translated into a number of lives saved. When the doses are very low, at natural background levels, in the absence of evidence, the model predicts via extrapolation, new cancers only in a very small fraction of the population, but for a large population, the number of lives is extrapolated into hundreds or thousands, and this can sway public policy.

A linear model has long been used in health physics to set maximum acceptable radiation exposures.

The United States-based National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), a body commissioned by the United States Congress, recently released a report written by the national experts in the field which states that, radiation's effects should be considered to be proportional to the dose an individual receives, regardless of how small the dose is. 

A 1958 analysis of two decades of research on the mutation rate of 1 million lab mice showed that six major hypotheses about ionizing radiation and gene mutation were not supported by data. Its data was used in 1972 by the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation I committee to support the LNT model. However, it has been claimed that the data contained a fundamental error that was not revealed to the committee, and would not support the LNT model on the issue of mutations and may suggest a threshold dose rate under which radiation does not produce any mutations. The acceptance of the LNT model has been challenged by a number of scientists, see controversy section below.

Fieldwork

The LNT model and the alternatives to it each have plausible mechanisms that could bring them about, but definitive conclusions are hard to make given the difficulty of doing longitudinal studies involving large cohorts over long periods. 

A 2003 review of the various studies published in the authoritative Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences concludes that "given our current state of knowledge, the most reasonable assumption is that the cancer risks from low doses of x- or gamma-rays decrease linearly with decreasing dose."

A 2005 study of Ramsar, Iran (a region with very high levels of natural background radiation) showed that lung cancer incidence was lower in the high-radiation area than in seven surrounding regions with lower levels of natural background radiation. A fuller epidemiological study of the same region showed no difference in mortality for males, and a statistically insignificant increase for females. 

A 2009 study by researchers that looks at Swedish children exposed to fallout from Chernobyl while they were fetuses between 8 and 25 weeks gestation concluded that the reduction in IQ at very low doses was greater than expected, given a simple LNT model for radiation damage, indicating that the LNT model may be too conservative when it comes to neurological damage. However, in medical journals, studies detail that in Sweden in the year of the Chernobyl accident, the birth rate, both increased and shifted to those of "higher maternal age" in 1986. More advanced maternal age in Swedish mothers was linked with a reduction in offspring IQ, in a paper published in 2013. Neurological damage has a different biology than cancer. 

In a 2009 study cancer rates among UK radiation workers were found to increase with higher recorded occupational radiation doses. The doses examined varied between 0 and 500 mSv received over their working lives. These results exclude the possibilities of no increase in risk or that the risk is 2-3 times that for A-bomb survivors with a confidence level of 90%. The cancer risk for these radiation workers was still less than the average for persons in the UK due to the healthy worker effect.

A 2009 study focusing on the naturally high background radiation region of Karunagappalli, India concluded: "our cancer incidence study, together with previously reported cancer mortality studies in the HBR area of Yangjiang, China, suggests it is unlikely that estimates of risk at low doses are substantially greater than currently believed." A 2011 meta-analysis further concluded that the "Total whole body radiation doses received over 70 years from the natural environment high background radiation areas in Kerala, India and Yanjiang, China are much smaller than [the non-tumour dose, "defined as the highest dose of radiation at which no statistically significant tumour increase was observed above the control level"] for the respective dose-rates in each district."

In 2011 an in vitro time-lapse study of the cellular response to low doses of radiation showed a strongly non-linear response of certain cellular repair mechanisms called radiation-induced foci (RIF). The study found that low doses of radiation prompted higher rates of RIF formation than high doses, and that after low-dose exposure RIF continued to form after the radiation had ended.

In 2012 a historical cohort study of >175 000 patients without previous cancer who were examined with CT head scans in UK between 1985 and 2002 was published. The study, which investigated leukaemia and brain cancer, indicated a linear dose response in the low dose region and had qualitative estimates of risk that were in agreement with the Life Span Study (Epidemiology data for low-linear energy transfer radiation). 

In 2013 a data linkage study of 11 million Australians with more than 680,000 people exposed to CT scans between 1985 and 2005 was published. The study confirmed the results of the 2012 UK study for leukaemia and brain cancer but also investigated other cancer types. The authors conclude that their results were generally consistent with the linear no threshold theory.

Controversy

The LNT model has been contested by a number of scientists. It is been claimed that the early proponent of the model Hermann Joseph Muller intentionally ignored an early study that did not support the LNT model when he gave his 1946 Nobel Prize address advocating the model.

It is also argued that LNT model had caused an irrational fear of radiation. In the wake of the 1986 Chernobyl accident in Ukraine, Europe-wide anxieties were fomented in pregnant mothers over the perception enforced by the LNT model that their children would be born with a higher rate of mutations. As far afield as the country of Denmark, hundreds of excess induced abortions were performed on the healthy unborn, out of this no-threshold fear. Following the accident however, studies of data sets approaching a million births in the EUROCAT database, divided into "exposed" and control groups were assessed in 1999. As no Chernobyl impacts were detected, the researchers conclude "in retrospect the widespread fear in the population about the possible effects of exposure on the unborn was not justified". Despite studies from Germany and Turkey, the only robust evidence of negative pregnancy outcomes that transpired after the accident were these elective abortion indirect effects, in Greece, Denmark, Italy etc., due to the anxieties created.

In very high dose radiation therapy, it was known at the time that radiation can cause a physiological increase in the rate of pregnancy anomalies, however, human exposure data and animal testing suggests that the "malformation of organs appears to be a deterministic effect with a threshold dose" below which, no rate increase is observed. A review in 1999 on the link between the Chernobyl accident and teratology (birth defects) concludes that "there is no substantive proof regarding radiation‐induced teratogenic effects from the Chernobyl accident". It is argued that the human body has defense mechanisms, such as DNA repair and programmed cell death, that would protect it against carcinogenesis due to low-dose exposures of carcinogens.

Ramsar, located in Iran, is often quoted as being a counter example to LNT. Based on preliminary results, it was considered as having the highest natural background radiation levels on Earth, several times higher than the ICRP-recommended radiation dose limits for radiation workers, whilst the local population did not seem to suffer any ill effects. However, the population of the high-radiation districts is small (about 1800 inhabitants) and only receive an average of 6 millisieverts per year, so that cancer epidemiology data are too imprecise to draw any conclusions. On the other hand, there may be non-cancer effects from the background radiation such as chromosomal aberrations or female infertility.

A 2011 research of the cellular repair mechanisms support the evidence against the linear no-threshold model. According to its authors, this study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America "casts considerable doubt on the general assumption that risk to ionizing radiation is proportional to dose". 

However, a 2011 review of studies addressing childhood leukaemia following exposure to ionizing radiation, including both diagnostic exposure and natural background exposure, concluded that existing risk factors, excess relative risk per Sv (ERR/Sv), is "broadly applicable" to low dose or low dose-rate exposure.

Several expert scientific panels have been convened on the accuracy of the LNT model at low dosage, and various organizations and bodies have stated their positions on this topic:

Support

• In 2004 the United States National Research Council (part of the National Academy of Sciences) supported the linear no threshold model and stated regarding Radiation hormesis:

  The assumption that any stimulatory hormetic effects from low doses of ionizing radiation will have a significant health benefit to humans that exceeds potential detrimental effects from the radiation exposure is unwarranted at this time.

• In 2005 the United States National Academies' National Research Council published its comprehensive meta-analysis of low-dose radiation research BEIR VII, Phase 2. In its press release the Academies stated:

The scientific research base shows that there is no threshold of exposure below which low levels of ionizing radiation can be demonstrated to be harmless or beneficial.

• The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (a body commissioned by the United States Congress). endorsed the LNT model in a 2001 report that attempted to survey existing literature critical of the model.
• The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) wrote in its 2000 report

  Until the [...] uncertainties on low-dose response are resolved, the Committee believes that an increase in the risk of tumour induction proportionate to the radiation dose is consistent with developing knowledge and that it remains, accordingly, the most scientifically defensible approximation of low-dose response. However, a strictly linear dose response should not be expected in all circumstances.

• the United States Environmental Protection Agency also endorses the LNT model in its 2011 report on radiogenic cancer risk:

  Underlying the risk models is a large body of epidemiological and radiobiological data. In general, results from both lines of research are consistent with a linear, no-threshold dose (LNT) response model in which the risk of inducing a cancer in an irradiated tissue by low doses of radiation is proportional to the dose to that tissue.

Oppose

A number of organisations disagree with using the Linear no-threshold model to estimate risk from environmental and occupational low-level radiation exposure:

• The French Academy of Sciences (Académie des Sciences) and the National Academy of Medicine (Académie Nationale de Médecine) published a report in 2005 (at the same time as BEIR VII report in the United States) that rejected the Linear no-threshold model in favor of a threshold dose response and a significantly reduced risk at low radiation exposure:

In conclusion, this report raises doubts on the validity of using LNT for evaluating the carcinogenic risk of low doses (< 100 mSv) and even more for very low doses (< 10 mSv). The LNT concept can be a useful pragmatic tool for assessing rules in radioprotection for doses above 10 mSv; however since it is not based on biological concepts of our current knowledge, it should not be used without precaution for assessing by extrapolation the risks associated with low and even more so, with very low doses (< 10 mSv), especially for benefit-risk assessments imposed on radiologists by the European directive 97-43.

• The Health Physics Society's position statement first adopted in January 1996, as revised in July 2010, states:

In accordance with current knowledge of radiation health risks, the Health Physics Society recommends against quantitative estimation of health risks below an individual dose of 5 rem (50 mSv) in one year or a lifetime dose of 10 rem (100 mSv) above that received from natural sources. Doses from natural background radiation in the United States average about 0.3 rem (3 mSv) per year. A dose of 5 rem (50 mSv) will be accumulated in the first 17 years of life and about 25 rem (250 mSv) in a lifetime of 80 years. Estimation of health risk associated with radiation doses that are of similar magnitude as those received from natural sources should be strictly qualitative and encompass a range of hypothetical health outcomes, including the possibility of no adverse health effects at such low levels.

• The American Nuclear Society recommended further research on the Linear No Threshold Hypothesis before making adjustments to current radiation protection guidelines, concurring with the Health Physics Society's position that:

  There is substantial and convincing scientific evidence for health risks at high dose. Below 10 rem or 100 mSv (which includes occupational and environmental exposures) risks of health effects are either too small to be observed or are non-existent.

Intermediate

The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission takes the intermediate position that "accepts the LNT hypothesis as a conservative model for estimating radiation risk", but noting that "public health data do not absolutely establish the occurrence of cancer following exposure to low doses and dose rates — below about 10,000 mrem (100 mSv). Studies of occupational workers who are chronically exposed to low levels of radiation above normal background have shown no adverse biological effects."

Mental health effects

The consequences of low-level radiation are often more psychological than radiological. Because damage from very-low-level radiation cannot be detected, people exposed to it are left in anguished uncertainty about what will happen to them. Many believe they have been fundamentally contaminated for life and may refuse to have children for fear of birth defects. They may be shunned by others in their community who fear a sort of mysterious contagion.

Forced evacuation from a radiation or nuclear accident may lead to social isolation, anxiety, depression, psychosomatic medical problems, reckless behavior, even suicide. Such was the outcome of the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster in the Ukraine. A comprehensive 2005 study concluded that "the mental health impact of Chernobyl is the largest public health problem unleashed by the accident to date". Frank N. von Hippel, a U.S. scientist, commented on the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster, saying that "fear of ionizing radiation could have long-term psychological effects on a large portion of the population in the contaminated areas".

Such great psychological danger does not accompany other materials that put people at risk of cancer and other deadly illness. Visceral fear is not widely aroused by, for example, the daily emissions from coal burning, although, as a National Academy of Sciences study found, this causes 10,000 premature deaths a year in the US. It is "only nuclear radiation that bears a huge psychological burden — for it carries a unique historical legacy".