Extermination policies based on bankrupt science: The case
of Chamarajanagar drinking water contamination with
Uranium 238 and its daughters: A comparison of ICRP-72 1996 and ECRR 2010 dose
conversion factors for ingestion.
R. Ashok Kumar, B.E.,M.E., Negentropist, Bombay Sarvodaya
Mandal, 299, Tardeo Road, Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400007.
© 2018 Ramaswami Ashok Kumar
1.0 Summary
The dose conversion factor for ingestion of uranium 238 as
given in ICRP-72 1996 is 4.5E-8 Sv/Bq. That given by ECRR 2010 is 2.5E-4 for infants 0 to <=1
y olds, 1.2E-4 for >1 to 14 y olds and 8.4E-5 for adults, all in Sv/Bq. This is 5560, 2670 and
1870 fold the ICRP dose conversion factor, respectively. Thus the conclusion
drawn by K.M.Nagaraju et al (1) is turned on its head
by the ECRR 2010(2). The uranium contamination levels determined in 1 when used
with the ECRR 2010(2) dose conversion factor for drinking water in Chamarajanagar district of Karnataka lead to an Excess Fatal
Cancer rate/year per household of 2.3
times the All India value(3) for all cancers/household in 2010(0.00518 vs
0.002253). This is based on the excess fatal cancer risk of 0.1/Sv (ECRR 2010). Niti Aayog must diligently follow up on such information and
convert it into policy to enable life to thrive. The government must recognise
the information sources in the digital age, gauge the truth of such information
which may be found only in private but published blogs as distinct from the
false Regulatory Recommendations that are governing the present policies of the
government.
2.0 The analysis.
2.1
See Table 1 for the Uranium concentrations in water samples
in the various locations of Chamarajanagar district of
Karnataka State. Also shown are the annual ingestion doses in uSv/y using ICRP dose conversion factors. These values are taken from Table 1 of Ref 1.
Ref 1 uses an activity level for U238 as 24.8 MBq/kg
while activity level used here is 37 MBq/kg(See Page 147 and Table 12.1,Ref 2). We see from Table 1
below that at almost all the locations where uranium concentration is tabulated, the
ECRR 2010 annual dose in microSv/y
exceeds by orders of magnitude FOLD, the WHO limit of 100 microSv/y.
2.2
Thus it is now essential to calculate the cancer rate/y
/household in Chamarajanagar district based on the
ECRR 2010 dose conversion factors and using the fatal cancer risk of 0.1/Sv as given in the ECRR 2010 recommendations(2). This
figure is computed using the demographic data for Chamarajanagar
from 2011 Census Report of the Government of India(4).
This figure is then used to compare with the All India all Cancer Rate which is
derived here from Ref
3,Ref 4 and Ref 5. SeeTable 2. The uranium
contaminated water ingestion in Chamarajanagar
district of Karnataka imposes an excess fatal cancer per year per household on
the average of 2.3 times the All India fatal cancer deaths in 2010 per
household.
Note the warning in ECRR 2010:
The Committee has had to deal with this very real problem by presenting a real solution; in this case the solution is
to weight Uranium exposures by a factor of 1000 at
normal background gamma photon levels (100nGy/h). This will be modified when experimental results
of Secondary Photoelectron effects become available. It is clear that the
effects of Uranium are wide ranging, and so to consider only genetic effects
from Uranium exposure would be quite wrong. In addition, different types of
exposure will cause different spectra of conditions. In the case of
conventional estimates of risk from internal Uranium, which essentially compare
it with external doses, the errors are arguably greater than for any other
material. There is now sufficient evidence to treat Uranium aerosols as if they
had infinite biological effectiveness. The Committee therefore believes that
using a risk factor to assess causality in Uranium-exposed populations or
individuals should be done with extreme caution, even if that risk factor has
been modified by application of a weighting that approximates observation.. If a disease or condition or genetic heritable effect
of any kind is seen to increase after exposure to Uranium, causality should not
be ruled out whatever the dose differential between a population before and
after the exposure, or between exposed populations relative to unexposed
controls.
3. References
1. Estimation of radiation dose due to uranium in water to
the public in Chamarajanagar district, Karnataka
State, India.K.M. Nagaraju,
M.S. Chandrashekara*, K. S. Pruthvi
Rani and L. Paramesh Department of Studies in Physics
University of Mysore Manasagangotri, Mysore -570 006
INDIA at:K.M. Nagaraju et
al., American International Journal of Research in Science, Technology,
Engineering & Mathematics, 7(2), June-August, 2014, pp. 144-147.
2. ECRR 2010. 2010 Recommendations of the European Committee
on Radiation Risk .The Health Effects of Exposure to Low Doses of Ionizing
Radiation, Regulators’ Edition: Brussels 2010,Edited
by Chris Busby with Rosalie Bertell, Inge Schmitz-Feuerhake,Molly Scott Cato and Alexey Yablokov.
Published on behalf of the European Committee on Radiation Risk, Comité Européen sur le Risque de l’Irradiation, Green
Audit 2010: Available online.
2a. 2010 Recommendations of the European Committee on Radiation Risk: Table A1: Dose coefficients of various isotopes for low-dose exposure following ingestion and inhalation.
2a. 2010 Recommendations of the European Committee on Radiation Risk: Table A1: Dose coefficients of various isotopes for low-dose exposure following ingestion and inhalation.
3. Census of India 2011,KARNATAKA,SERIES-30
PART XII-A, DISTRICT CENSUS HANDBOOK,CHAMARAJANAGAR, VILLAGE AND TOWN
DIRECTORY, link at
4. Houses, Household Amenities and Assets Data,2001 -2011-Visualizing Through Maps,DR.C.
CHANDRAMOULI,Registrar
General & Census Commissioner, India at the URL:
5. Grace Rattue .Medical News Today.What Are The Leading Causes Of
Cancer Deaths In India? Published Thursday 29 March 2012. URL:
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/243547.php
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/243547.php
No comments:
Post a Comment