Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Community Environmental Monitoring Program

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Community Environmental Monitoring Program"— Presentation transcript:

1 Community Environmental Monitoring Program
Dr. Antone L. Brooks July, Brian Head, Ut

2 My Background Early interest in radiation (Watching atomic weapons in Southern Utah) MS in radiation ecology (Chasing fallout),PhD in radiation biology and genetics Studied health effects induced by low doses from internally deposited radio-nuclides Invested my life in research on genetic effects and cancer from low doses and dose-rate radiation (DOE Low Dose Radiation Research Program)

3 Bad Diet Why Me?? Drinker Radiation Smoker

4 RADIATION I am Blamed for much Human Disease
Cancer of all kinds Mutations Birth Defects Heart attacks Stroke

5 I have even been blamed for !!!
Ninja Turtles Spider Man Incredible Hulk

6 I am natural, Radiation is everywhere
Cosmic Inhaled Radon Bodies Plants Radioactive Elements Rocks We live in a sea of radiation…

7 Normal annual exposure from natural radiation
About 240 mrem/yr Radon gas mrem Human body mrem Rocks, soil mrem Cosmic rays mrem Normal annual exposure from man-made radiation About 300 mrem/yr Medical procedures mrems Consumer products mrems One coast to coast airplane flight mrems Watching color TV mrem Sleeping with another person mrem Weapons test fallout less that 1 mrem Nuclear industry less than 1 mrem This slide demonstrates that we all receive a total of about 370 mrem (0.37 mSv) of radiation exposure each year from background sources. The range of exposures from background is very high in different environments. Background radiation increases as a function of elevation, as a function of radon in homes and from natural radioactive materials in the environments. There are some areas where the natural background radiation dose is increased by more than a factor of ten. Many of the man made exposure are being regulated at levels much below background. For example there are some very vigorous discussions on whether the level for exposure from man-made sources should be 15 or 25 mrem per year. Since both of these levels are far below the background level, and the range of background level is so high, it is difficult to justify the needed expense required to comply with the lower standard.

8 U.S Dose Rates from Natural Background

9 Nevada Test Fallout Simon et al. 2006

10 World wide fallout in the United States

11 The high and variable background rate of cancer is illustrated in every county in the United States. This slide shows cancer rate broken down into percentiles with the highest rates shown as red and the lowest rates illustrated as blue. This interesting map illustrates that some geographical regions have very high cancer rates while other regions are low. One of the features of this map is that it illustrates that in the high elevation, high cosmic radiation western states that the cancer rate is low. The highest cancer rates seem to be along the Mississippi river where the background radiation is very low. There are so many confounding factors in the environment that the cancer rate cannot be linked to any one of them. The map helps illustrate that radiation is not one of the big hitters in the production of cancer.

12 Cancer Rate is Highly Variable
Race White 136/100,000 Black 294/100,000 Sex Males 60.6% Females 39.4% Geographic Distribution No link between high Background Radiation and Cancer Areas with top 10 percentile of cancer= cancers/100,000 person-years (low background) Areas with lowest 10 percentile of cancer= cancers/100/000 person-years (high background)

13 What Causes Cancer? I am not a big hitter!!!

14 What Radiation Exposures Can we Modify?

15 What Radiation Exposures can we Modify?

16 Medical Radiation Exposures, YES, BUT I DO A LOT OF GOOD!!!
200 million medical x-rays/year X-ray 0.1 mGy 100 million dental x-rays/year Dental 0.06 mGy 16 million doses of radiopharmaceuticals/yr 80 million CT scans/year Head scan 4-6 mGy/scan Body scan mGy/scan Large doses from radiation therapy Brenner and Hall AAPM TG-204, 2011

17

18 What about the A-Bomb!! You did a lot of damage there.
Cancer Mutations Birth Defects Heart attacks Strokes

19 Effects of the Atomic Bomb
Killed outright by the bomb or acute radiation effects. Survived for lifespan study More than 200,000 people 86,572 people

20 A-BOMB SURVIVOR STUDIES
10,159 “Controls” 3 Km (2 mSv) 46,249 “Exposed” 2.45 Km (5 mSv) 5% less cancer than total controls 5 Km Pierce and Preston 2000

21 A-BOMB SURVIVOR STUDIES
3 Km Preston et al. 2004 CONTROL AREA 2. Km Excess Excess Solid Tumors Leukemias 1 Km 113 116 99 41 44 2 28.2 27.7 18.9 10.4 4.7 4.0 0.1 64 572 Total Excess Cancers 479 Total 93 Total

22 Atomic Bomb Survivor Excess Cancer
Population of Survivors Studied ,572 40% of these people are still alive 60 years after the bomb Cancer Mortality observed after the bomb 10,127 Cancers Mortality observed without the bomb ,555 Total Cancer Mortality Excess Excess Solid Tumor 479 Excess Leukemia 94 + = 572

23 Where do we get these excess cancers
Where do we get these excess cancers?? Aggregation of data on Solid Cancers Total Solid Cancers 9555 Stomach 2867 Life Style, Diet, stomach bacteria Liver 1236 Long Latency Influence of chronic Infections Alcohol Lung 1264 Smoking Non-linear Dose-response Preston et al. 2003

24 Biology of Solid Cancers
Can we really group all Solid Cancers then apply the LNT to estimate responses at low doses? Stomach Cancer Lung Cancer Liver Cancer All these cancers are known to be produced by environmental factors Bone Cancer These cancers have very non-linear Dose-Response Relationships Thyroid Cancer Prostrate, Pancreas, Uterus, Rectum???

25 Aggregation of Solid Cancer: Influence on Policy
Pay for the types of cancers seen to be elevated in the A-bomb population. Solid Cancers Leukemia Current Pay-out Cancers for Down-Winders, Nuclear Veterans, Uranium Miners Bone, renal, leukemia, lung, multiple myeloma, bile duct, brain, breast, colon, esophagus, stomach, bladder, gal bladder, liver, ovary, pharynx, salivary gland, small intestine, thyroid, lymphoma (five years after exposure) Current payout RECA = 1.3 Billion EEOICA = 3.2 Billion

26 Interaction with Environmental factors (I get the blame!!!)
Smoking and Uranium mining Radiation and alcohol Radon in homes

27 Radon in Homes (BEIR VI)
Total Cancers Ever-Smokers Never Smokers 157, , ,000 Radon induced Cancer (Exposure-age-Concentration model) (Radiation only) 22, , ,700 (Exposure-age-Duration model) 15, , ,200

28 What about when you get deposited in the body??
Inhalation and lung cancer Low dose rate and non-uniform distribution Deposition in target organs Strontium-90 Bone Iodine -131 Thyroid Cancer Cesium-137 Whole Body Exposure Tritium Whole Body Exposure

29 Dose Dose-Rate Effectiveness (DDREF) Factor is it 1.0?
Dose-Dose-Rate-Effectiveness-Factor (DDREF), regulatory bodies considering making it (1.0) Dose-rate has a marked effect at all levels of biological orgainztion All you have to do to make DDREF 1.0 is accept a couple of low dose-rate epidemiological studies which cannot demonstrate a difference in risk for high and low dose rates All you have to do to make a DDREF of 1.0 is to ignore 70 years of radiation biology

30 Dose-Rate Effects at all Levels of Biological Organization
Molecular Cellular Tissue Whole Organ Cancer Life Shortening

31 Dose and Dose-Rate Effects
DDREF derived with curve fitting of the human data. DDREF BEIR VII DDREF ICRP (2007) DDREF 1.0 Considered by Germans DREF derived from animal and experimental data. Experimental Molecular/Cellular 4-??? Chromosome Aberrations 4-6 Mouse data Lung Adenocarcinomas 3-7 Ovarian Tumors Thymic lymphoma Mammary tumors 1-4 Myeloid Leukemia 2-6 Dog Data (Acute Death Bone Marrow) 3-4 (Acute Death Lung) Dog Data (Cancer)

32 Should we consider separating DDREF from DREF?
Summary DDREF A large dose-rate effectiveness factor is required due to the marked decrease in biological effects observed following low dose-rate radiation exposure. At radiation doses less than 20 Gy (20,000 mGy) to the lung following inhalation of radioactive materials, there is little life shortening and a decrease in the frequency of lung cancer. When the dose delivered at a low dose-rate gets very, very large ( Gy in Bone and Gy in lung), the cancer frequency approaches 100%. At low dose-rates the total dose required to produce acute radiation lethality is similar to the dose required to produce a high cancer frequency. Genetic background plays an important role in the response to large total radiation doses delivered at a low dose-rate. Such data should be considered in decisions about evacuation (10-50 mSv projected dose) and relocation (20 mSv projected dose first year) of the public following radiation accidents or terrorist events. Current research suggests that the mechanisms of action of these very large doses delivered at low dose-rates are different to those after acute low doses. Should we consider separating DDREF from DREF?

33 Cancer in Beagle Dogs following Acute Radiation Exposure
Benjamin et al 1998

34 Dose Response for Life Shortening Following Inhalation of
90-Strontium Fused Clay Particles Cancer Other Heart Cancer Lung Cancer TBLN Cancer Acute

35 Total Cancer and Lung Cancer
All cancers Total Cancer and Lung Cancer Control dogs Control dogs Lung cancer 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 Percent of Dogs with Cancer Total dose to lung (Gy)

36 % Total Cancer (Controls) by Location

37 % Lung Cancer (Control) by Location

38 LNT FIT ITRI Exposed

39 Selection of Proper Controls??
Dog Data Add more control dogs for greater accuracy Adding dogs greater genetic variation Adding dogs different environmental and life styles Human Data Match controls for life-style, stress and environment, Age, Sex etc. “the distal group has about 5% higher cancer rates than estimated for zero dose from the proximal group.” (Pierce and Preston 2000) Adding more people increases variation in genetic variation, record keeping, environment, life-style.

40 How much is a Bq? Scientific definition Social definition Risk
Will I be OK?

41

42

43

44 Comparing Environmental and Health Effects (Bq?)
The levels in the environment are very non-uniform The amount of radiation required to produce health effects is much higher than that in the environment (large safety factor) There is a decrease in effectiveness with partial body exposures There is a decrease in effectiveness with decreasing dose-rate.

45 Mechanistic Studies of Low Dose Effects
The risk for radiation induced cancer in human populations is low and undetectable at low doses and dose-rates thus mechanistic studies are required. DOE Low Dose Radiation Research Program Cells can detect and respond to very low doses of ionizing radiation Radiation responses at all levels of biological organization are different at high doses than at low doses. High dose-rate produces more biological damage than low dose-rate exposures Bystander effects, adaptive responses, ROS status of the cells, and genomic instability are interrelated and can be related to protective mechanisms. This resulted in major paradigm shifts in Radiation biology. Thus, mechanisms of radiation action change as a function of dose and dose-rate. Data suggest that radiation exposures are detrimental at high doses and protective at low doses.

46 Mechanistic studies of Low Dose Effects
Cells can detect and respond to very low doses of ionizing radiation Radiation responses at all levels of biological organization are different at high doses than at low doses Thus, mechanisms of radiation action change as a function of dose. Data suggest that they are detrimental at high doses and protective at low doses. Low Dose research require paradigm shifts in radiation biology to support the data. Bystander effects, adaptive responses, ROS status of the cells, and genomic instability are interrelated and can be related to protective mechanisms. The risk for radiation induced cancer in human populations is low and undetectable at low doses and dose-rates. Linear low dose (LNT) extrapolation is not supported by low dose radiation research

47 Helpful Reviews of Health Effects from Low dose and dose-rate radiation
Health Physics 97: November 2009, Special Issue: 44th Annual Meeting of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements: Low Dose and Low Dose-Rate Radiation Effects and Models. Dauer, LT, Brooks, AL, Hoel, D, Morgan W, Stram D, Tran P. (2010) Evaluation of updated research on the health effects associated with low-dose ionizing radiation, Radiation Protection Dosimetry 140 (2) Health Physics 100:, March 2011, Special Issue: Proceedings of the Conference on Biological Consequences and Health Risks of Low-Level Exposure to Ionizing Radiation: In honor of Victor P. Bond.

48 Radiation Risk: What Is the Public Perception?
Radiation is very bad There is good and bad radiation, (Medical and Environmental) Each and every ionization increases their risk for cancer (LNT) Many conclude that if you are exposed to radiation you are going to get cancer If you were exposed to radiation and you get cancer the radiation caused the cancer

49 It is not all my Fault!! At low doses I do way more good than harm!!!


Download ppt "Community Environmental Monitoring Program"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google