tissue (i.e., far beyond the 0.007 cm penetration depth assumed by
Standards setting bodies in estimating skin dose.
Also, one should
determine whether or not there are co-relations or synergistic relation between beta-radiation and UV as there are between UV-A and UV-B
in the induction of skin cancer.
One might suspect that skin cancer
is the predominate malignancy on the sun baked islands.
5.
Since a large fraction of the radioactive contamination on the
islands should be 905, + 90y | and since 99 percent of Sr is deposited
in the skeleton, why did the authors not discuss bone dose and radia-
tion induced bone sarcoma and carcinoma as well as leukemia from
active bone marrow irradiation in the trabecular bone matrix?
Published values of bone cancer coefficients range from 2 x 10°
to 2.2 x 104 cancers per person rem depending on age, radionuclide,
type radiation, etc.
6.)
Some of the comparisons of population exposure given do not add
to the quality of the report.
U.S.
If natural background radiation in the
causes 6 x 104 (c/pr) 80 mrem/y x 220 x 10° persons x 107.
10,000 lethal cancers/y in the U.S., the objective should be to reduce
this background radiation - especially that due to phosphate rock,
etc. - and not use this as an excuse to permit more malignancies.
bad thing does not justify another!
radiation workers in the U.S.
7.
One
The comparison with exposures to
weakens the report.
It seems odd that these writers were able to use data from BEIR
III report.
I have been trying unsuccessfully to get a copy of this
unpublished report for over a year.
I guess the fact that this report
is paid for by tax monies does not entitle university professors to a
copy?
8
In estimating the genetic risk, it is not stated whether or not
the risk was reduced by a factor of 10 (as is often the practice)
because the exposures are at low dose and low dose rate, i.e.:
3 (dose rate effect for spermatogonia) x 2 (2 sexes)
x 2 (dose effect)= 10.
Data of Lyon et al. (Nature New Biol. 101, July 1972) suggest use of
is factor of 10 may not be warranted at very low dose rates.
When the authors suggested small doses of radiation might even
be beneficial genetically, they might have added also that influenza
I
o¢