BEIR VII Phase 2: Understanding Radiation Risks and Health Effects

1 BEIR VII Phase 2 Essay John Russo Boise State IMGSCI 402 Professor Poxleitner January 30, 2024

2 BEIR VII Phase 2 Essay I found that the BEIR VII phase 2 study does a thorough job in assessing the risk estimates for cancer, leukemia, and other health effects from exposure to low-level ionizing radiation. One of the first facts that I learned from this report was about the detailed information concerning U.S. atomic veterans from 1945 to 1962. I was aware that the U.S. government did atomic weapon tests in the Nevada and New Mexico deserts, and exposed our troops to radiation. However, I had no idea the numbers of U.S. troops and civilians exposed exceeding 210,000. I am shocked that the numbers of individuals exposed were that high. The dose exposure range of 0.4 mSv to 31 mSv was quite surprising to say the least. My father-in-law, Ken was a staff sargent in the U.S. army in the early 1950’s. In January 1951, my father-in-law was in the Nevada desert about two hours northwest of Las Vegas when his platoon was in their tents just as an atomic bomb was dropped nearby. Not only did these troops have stay outdoors being exposed to an atomic blast and it’s radiation, but these U.S. troops stayed in the deserts for over two weeks. Over 14 days of being constantly bombarded from the radioactive fallout. Sadly, my father-in-law died from cancer in 1995. With no family history of cancer, I’m convinced that there’s a correlation between his cancer and being exposed to an atomic bomb test in 1951. When I think about the U.S. troops exposed to a-bomb and the people of the Marshall islands being exposed to atomic fallout due to the Bikini Atoll test, I also think about the Tuskegee syphilis experiment. In my opinion these are examples how the U.S. government used innocent people as “guinea pigs” to learn about how factors such as radiation exposure and untreated diseases (ex: syphilis) would impact a selection set of humans. The information learned from the Tuskegee experiment and the Nevada/New Mexico a-bomb tests has proven to be invaluable. But I believe that the price was too high in terms of human life lost and the fact that I

3 feel that our government sacrificed it’s morality when they put our soldiers and civilians in harms way for scientific research. Another new fact that I learned, which is fascinating, is the human genetic studies conducted in Japan of the children of A-bomb survivors and to measure the adverse effects of being direct descent of Hiroshima/Nagasaki survivors (Council et al., 2006). These scientists measured adverse pregnancy outcomes, infant deaths, childhood growth/development, genetic diseases, and diagnosed mutations (Council et al., 2006). By studying this information, scientists developed the double dosing radiation test module which measures the amount of radiation that is needed to produce a target level of mutations occurring spontaneously during one generation (Council et al., 2006). Fortunately, the Japanese used mice and not humans to test the double dose theory. The value that I receive from the BEIR VII Phase 2 study is the emphasis on the linear no-threshold (LNT) model, a linear and causal relationship between ionizing radiation and human cancer risk (Council et al., 2006). I believe that the risk of cancer proceeds in a linear fashion at lower doses without a threshold and that the smallest dose has the potential to cause a small increase in risk to humans (Council et al., 2006). The BEIR VII report concludes that the current scientific evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that, at the low doses of interest in this report, there is a linear dose-response relationship between exposure to ionizing radiation and the development of solid cancers in humans (Council et al., 2006). The reports suggests that there is a threshold below which cancers are not induced, but at low doses the number of radiation- induced cancers will be small. Other health effects (such as heart disease and stroke) occur at higher radiation doses, but additional data must be gathered before an assessment of any

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

4 possible dose response can be made between low doses of radiation and non- cancer health effects (Council et al., 2006). As a technologist, I believe in ALARA and the theory of the LNT model. I honestly feel that we as radiologic technologists must do all that is possible to ensure that we’re providing the best quality diagnostic imaging and at the lowest possible radiation dose to our patients. Too often, I see technologists getting careless in their techniques due to the flexibility that digital radiography has provided our profession. I fear some technologists get careless in their positioning, collimation, and exposure setting due to post-processing features available with digital radiography. Post-processing collimation, adjusting image quality after exposure, easy to delete an image and re-take, dose creep, etc. are many issues that have been growing in our profession due to technological advances in digital radiography. Radiologic technologists more than ever need to be committed to being true professionals and producing the best quality diagnostic imaging, minimizing patient dose, proper positioning, collimate, and keeping those repeats to a minimum. One of the main things that I’ve learned from this BEIR VII Phase 2 study is that more research is needed in order for scientists to better under the health risks of low levels of ionizing radiation. Examples of area to study that should be conducted include (Council et al., 2006):  Determination of the level of various molecularmarkers of DNA damage as a function of low dose ionizing radiation  Determination of DNA repair fidelity, especially double and multiple strand breaks at low doses, and whether repair capacity is independent of dose.  Evaluation of the relevance of adaptation, low-dose hypersensitivity, bystander effect, hormesis, and genomic instability for radiation carcinogenesis.

5  Identification of molecular mechanisms for postulated hormetic effects at low doses.  Reduction of current uncertainties on the specific role of radiation in how tumors form.  Studies on the genetic factors that influence radiation response and cancer risk.  Studies on the heritable genetic effects of radiation.  Continued medical radiation and occupational radiation studies.  Epidemiologic studies to supplement studies of atomic-bomb survivors, for example studies of nuclear industry workers and persons exposed in countries of the former Soviet Union. Although scientists have learned so much about ionizing radiation and its effect on the human population, I surmise that science has only just “scratched the surface” in terms of what we understand about radiation exposure. We still have so much more to learn about ionizing radiation today that will be used to benefit our children and generations to come.

6 References Council, N. R., Division on Earth and Life Studies, Board on Radiation Effects Research, & Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation. (2006). Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation: Beir vii phase 2 (Illustrated ed.). National Academies Press.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

BEIR VII Phase 2 Essay - Jan. 30 @ 6_32 pm

Related Documents