Radiation effect on general health

[Jhanananda]

Radon gas is another possible cause of long term health problems.

Radon gas
Radon is a chemical element with symbol Rn and atomic number 86. It is a radioactive, colorless, odorless, tasteless[2] noble gas, occurring naturally as a decay product of radium. Its most stable isotope, 222Rn, has a half-life of 3.8 days. Radon is one of the densest substances that remains a gas under normal conditions. It is also the only gas under normal conditions that only has radioactive isotopes, and is considered a health hazard due to its radioactivity. Intense radioactivity has also hindered chemical studies of radon and only a few compounds are known.

Unlike all the other intermediate elements in the aforementioned decay chains, radon is gaseous and easily inhaled. Thus, naturally-occurring radon is responsible for the majority of the public exposure to ionizing radiation. It is often the single largest contributor to an individual's background radiation dose, and is the most variable from location to location. Despite its short lifetime, some radon gas from natural sources can accumulate to far higher than normal concentrations in buildings, especially in low areas such as basements and crawl spaces due to its heavy nature. It can also be found in some spring waters and hot springs.[5]

Epidemiological studies have shown a clear link between breathing high concentrations of radon and incidence of lung cancer. Thus, radon is considered a significant contaminant that affects indoor air quality worldwide. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, radon is the second most frequent cause of lung cancer, after cigarette smoking, causing 21,000 lung cancer deaths per year in the United States. About 2,900 of these deaths occur among people who have never smoked. While radon is the second most frequent cause of lung cancer, it is the number one cause among non-smokers, according to EPA estimates.[6]

Natural
Radon is produced by the radioactive decay of radium-226, which is found in uranium ores, phosphate rock, shales, igneous and metamorphic rocks such as granite, gneiss, and schist, and to a lesser degree, in common rocks such as limestone.[60] Every square mile of surface soil, to a depth of 6 inches (2.6 km2 to a depth of 15 cm), contains approximately 1 gram of radium, which releases radon in small amounts to the atmosphere.[3] On a global scale, it is estimated that 2,400 million curies (90 TBq) of radon are released from soil annually.[61]

Radon concentration varies widely from place to place. In the open air, it ranges from 1 to 100 Bq/m3, even less (0.1 Bq/m3) above the ocean. In caves or aerated mines, or ill-aerated houses, its concentration climbs to 20–2,000 Bq/m3.[62]

Radon concentration can be much higher in mining contexts. Ventilation regulations instruct to maintain radon concentration in uranium mines under the "working level", with 95th percentile levels ranging up to nearly 3 WL (546 pCi 222Rn per liter of air; 20.2 kBq/m3, measured from 1976 to 1985).[3] The concentration in the air at the (unventilated) Gastein Healing Gallery averages 43 kBq/m3 (1.2 nCi/L) with maximal value of 160 kBq/m3 (4.3 nCi/L).[63]

Radon is found in some petroleum. Because radon has a similar pressure and temperature curve to propane, and oil refineries separate petrochemicals based on their boiling points, the piping carrying freshly separated propane in oil refineries can become radioactive because of decaying radon and its products.[70]

Residues from the petroleum and natural gas industry often contain radium and its daughters. The sulfate scale from an oil well can be radium rich, while the water, oil, and gas from a well often contains radon. Radon decays to form solid radioisotopes that form coatings on the inside of pipework.[70]

Accumulation in buildings
High concentrations of radon in homes were discovered by chance in 1985 after the stringent radiation testing conducted at a nuclear power plant entrance revealed that Stanley Watras, an engineer entering the plant, was contaminated by radioactive substances.[71] Typical domestic exposures are of approximately 100 Bq/m3 (1.3 pCi/L) indoors. Some level of radon will be found in all buildings. Radon mostly enters a building directly from the soil through the lowest level in the building that is in contact with the ground. High levels of radon in the water supply can also increase indoor radon air levels. Typical entry points of radon into buildings are cracks in solid foundations, construction joints, cracks in walls, gaps in suspended floors, gaps around service pipes, cavities inside walls, and the water supply.[2] Radon concentrations in the same location may differ by a factor of two over a period of 1 hour. Also, the concentration in one room of a building may be significantly different from the concentration in an adjoining room.[3]

The distribution of radon concentrations will generally change from room to room, and the readings are averaged according to regulatory protocols. Indoor radon concentration is usually assumed to follow a lognormal distribution on a given territory.[72] Thus, the geometric mean is generally used for estimating the "average" radon concentration in an area.[73]

The mean concentration ranges from less than 10 Bq/m3 to over 100 Bq/m3 in some European countries.[74] Typical geometric standard deviations found in studies range between 2 and 3, meaning (given the 68–95–99.7 rule) that the radon concentration is expected to be more than a hundred times the mean concentration for 2 to 3% of the cases.

The highest average radon concentrations in the United States are found in Iowa and in the Appalachian Mountain areas in southeastern Pennsylvania.[75] Some of the highest readings ever have been recorded in the Irish town of Mallow, County Cork, prompting local fears regarding lung cancer. Iowa has the highest average radon concentrations in the United States due to significant glaciation that ground the granitic rocks from the Canadian Shield and deposited it as soils making up the rich Iowa farmland.[76] Many cities within the state, such as Iowa City, have passed requirements for radon-resistant construction in new homes.

In a few locations, uranium tailings have been used for landfills and were subsequently built on, resulting in possible increased exposure to radon.[3]

Concentration scale
Bq/m3    pCi/L    Occurrence example
1    ~0.027    Radon concentration at the shores of large oceans is typically 1 Bq/m3.

Radon trace concentration above oceans or in Antarctica can be lower than 0.1 Bq/m3.
10    0.27    Mean continental concentration in the open air: 10 to 30 Bq/m3.

Based on a series of surveys, the global mean indoor radon concentration is estimated to be 39 Bq/m3.
100    2.7    Typical indoor domestic exposure. Most countries have adopted a radon concentration of 200–400 Bq/m3 for indoor air as an Action or Reference Level. If testing shows levels less than 4 picocuries radon per liter of air (150 Bq/m3), then no action is necessary. A cumulated exposure of 230 Bq/m3 of radon gas concentration during a period of 1 year corresponds to 1 WLM. Allowable concentrations in uranium mines are approximately 1,220 Bq/m3 (33 pCi/L)[80]
1,000    27    Very high radon concentrations (>1000 Bq/m3) have been found in houses built on soils with a high uranium content and/or high permeability of the ground. If levels are 20 picocuries radon per liter of air (800 Bq/m3) or higher, the home owner should consider some type of procedure to decrease indoor radon levels.
10,000    270    

The concentration in the air at the (unventilated) Gastein Healing Gallery averages 43 kBq/m3 (about 1.2 nCi/L) with maximal value of 160 kBq/m3 (about 4.3 nCi/L).[63]
100,000    ~2700    

About 100,000 Bq/m3 (2.7 nCi/L) was measured in Stanley Watras's basement.[81][82]
1,000,000    27000    Concentrations reaching 1,000,000 Bq/m3 can be found in unventilated uranium mines.
5.54 × 1019    ~1.5 × 1018    Theoretical upper limit: Radon gas (222Rn) at 100% concentration (1 atmosphere, 0 °C); 1.538×105 curies/gram;[83] 5.54×1019 Bq/m3.

Health risks
Main article: Health effects of radon
In mines

Radon-222 decay products have been classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as being carcinogenic to humans,[102] and as a gas that can be inhaled, lung cancer is a particular concern for people exposed to elevated levels of radon for sustained periods. During the 1940s and '50s, when safety standards requiring expensive ventilation in mines were not widely implemented,[103] radon exposure was linked to lung cancer among non-smoking miners of uranium and other hard rock materials in what is now the Czech Republic, and later among miners from the Southwestern United States[104][105][106] and South Australia.[107] Despite these hazards being known in the early 1950s,[108] this occupational hazard remained poorly managed in many mines until the 1970s. During this period, several entrepreneurs opened former uranium mines in the USA to the general public and advertised alleged health benefits from breathing radon gas underground. Health benefits claimed including pain, sinus, asthma and arthritis relief[109][110] but these were proven to be false.[111]

Since that time, ventilation and other measures have been used to reduce radon levels in most affected mines that continue to operate. In recent years, the average annual exposure of uranium miners has fallen to levels similar to the concentrations inhaled in some homes. This has reduced the risk of occupationally induced cancer from radon, although health issues may persist for those who are currently employed in affected mines and for those who have been employed in them in the past.[112] As the relative risk for miners has decreased, so has the ability to detect excess risks among that population.[113]

In addition to lung cancer, researchers have theorized a possible increased risk of leukemia due to radon exposure. Empirical support from studies of the general population is inconsistent, and a study of uranium miners found a correlation between radon exposure and chronic lymphocytic leukemia.[114]

Miners (as well as milling and ore transportation workers) who worked in the uranium industry in the United States between the 1940s and 1971 may be eligible for compensation under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA). Surviving relatives may also apply in cases where the formerly employed person is deceased.
Domestic-level exposure

Radon exposure (mostly radon progeny) has been linked to lung cancer in numerous case-control studies performed in the United States, Europe and China. There are approximately 21,000 deaths per year in the US due to radon-induced lung cancers.[6] One of the most comprehensive radon studies performed in the United States by Dr. R. William Field and colleagues found a 50% increased lung cancer risk even at the protracted exposures at the EPA's action level of 4 pCi/L. North American and European Pooled analyses further support these findings.[115]

Most models of residential radon exposure are based on studies of miners, and direct estimates of the risks posed to homeowners would be more desirable.[112] Because of the difficulties of measuring the risk of radon relative to smoking, models of their effect have often made use of them.

Radon has been considered the second leading cause of lung cancer and leading environmental cause of cancer mortality by the United States Environmental Protection Agency.[119] Others have reached similar conclusions for the United Kingdom[112] and France.[120] Radon exposure in homes and offices may arise from certain subsurface rock formations, and also from certain building materials (e.g., some granites). The greatest risk of radon exposure arises in buildings that are airtight, insufficiently ventilated, and have foundation leaks that allow air from the soil into basements and dwelling rooms.

Yavapai County Radon Information

State Radon Officer
Patricia Chase
(602) 255-4845
Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency
4814 S. 40th Street
Phoenix AZ, 85040

About Radon Levels in Yavapai County
The average national indoor radon level is 1.3 pCi/L. (What is a picocurie?)
The average indoor radon levels of Yavapai County, as determined by radon test results from Air Chek, Inc, is 3 pCi/L

Radon Gas: A geologic hazard in Arizona

pg. 9
Phase 2 charcoal-canister testing in 1988 and 1989 was also primarily done during the cooler months. Canisters were distributed by county health departments using various criteria. Combined Phase 1 and Phase 2 data from homes on the Colorado Plateau (mainly the Flagstaff area) indicated that indoor-radon levels were slightly higher than statewide levels, with a median of 1.2 pCi/1 and 9.5 percent of homes above 4 pCi/l. Combined Phase 1 and Phase 2 data from areas where a significant number of homes are on granite or related (crystalline) rocks, primarily in the Prescott and Payson areas, indicated that the median indoor-radon level for these homes was 1.3 pCi/I, with 14 per- cent of homes above 4 pCi/1 (Table 2). Higher radon levels in these areas are attributed to slightly higher uranium concentrations in underlying rocks and to the greater permeability of weathered granitic rocks, which allows more rapid radon movement (see also Kearfott, 1989).

pg. 14

Prescott (Granite Dells)
The Granite Dells, located about 5 miles northeast of Prescott, AZ (Figure 10; Krieger, 1965), is underlain by the Dells Granite, a member of a group of 1.4-billion-year- old granites that are scattered across North America.  Many of these granites contain anomalous concentrations of uranium. The Dells Granite contains up to 40 ppm uranium (Proctor and others, 1987) and is exposed over an area of approximately 5 square miles (Krieger, 1965).

In one survey (Kearfott, 1989), 51 homes built on the Dells Granite were tested for radon under minimum air-ventilation conditions (no open windows or running evaporative coolers). Almost 60 percent of the tested homes had indoor-radon levels above 4 pCi/l. Similar results were obtained from a survey of the Groom Creek area south of Prescott. Water from a well in the Dells Granite also contained anomalous radon concentrations, and measurements from one house indicated that turning on the shower temporarily increased indoor- radon levels (Kearfott, 1989).

One house built on the Dells Granite that was above a 240-foot-deep water well had extremely high radon levels. The well casing (a 6-inch-diameter pipe) extended upward through the floor of the house, turned 90°, and exited through a wall to the outside. A box was placed over the well casing where it extended upward through the floor. A I-inch gap between the casing and the floor allowed radon from outside the well casing to enter the box inside the home. A charcoal canister placed inside the box yielded a radon level of 11,000 pCi/1 (a world record for indoor- radon levels!). Sealing the gap between the well casing and floor and venting the subfloor space to the outside with a 1.25- inch pipe reduced indoor-radon levels to less than 5 pCi/1 (Kearfott, 1989).

It sounds like it might be Radon.

[Sam Lim]

Get Lugol's iodine or any iodine to detox or get rid of the radiation or heavy metal.

[Cal]

When I was working at the Hanford site there was a ton of radialogical controls in place. Radiation meters will pick up radon. Part of the calibration for the instruments was to establish a normal amount of "background" radiation; which was radon. Perhaps you could find a meter somewhere to help with nailing that one down.

[Jhanananda]

Thanks, friends for the recommendations.  I have changed my hypothesis regarding the cause of my diabetes based upon finding that Prescott has 4 times the Radon in its atmosphere than the normal background.  But, it gets worse.  The water in Prescott is 35 times higher than the normal background.

So, I will continue with my ultra-low carb diet, and add in not drinking, nor cooking with, municipal water at all anywhere ever again. I will either purchase bottled water, or filter my water through cellulose filters, then activated charcoal.  I think you all should as well, because all well water has elevated radon in it.

It just so happens that I drank only such pure water for decades until arriving in Prescott.

Radon: What you don't know can hurt you
6/9/2012 9:59:00 PM
When it comes to radon, what you don't know can hurt you. Radon is a colorless, odorless radioactive gas that is created when uranium decays. However, you don't need to live near a uranium mine to have radon in your home.

The Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency (ARRA) reports that about one of every 15 Arizona homes may contain radon concentrations in excess of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommended action level. Radon levels can even vary within neighborhoods.

What health hazards are linked to radon exposure? According to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), cigarette smoking is the leading cause of lung cancer in the United States. Radon represents a far smaller risk for this disease, but it still ranks as the second leading cause of lung cancer. The NCI reports that 15,000 to 22,000 lung cancer deaths a year in the U.S. are radon-related. The majority of these deaths occur among smokers. Ten percent of radon-related cancer deaths occur among non-smokers.

Column: How much radon is too much?
10/16/2015 6:00:00 AM

The Radon Act 51, passed by Congress, set the natural outdoor level of radon gas (0.4pCi/L) as the target radon level for indoor radon levels. Unfortunately, two-thirds of all homes nationally exceeded this level. The US EPA set an action level of 4 pCi/L. At or above this level of radon, the EPA recommends that you take corrective measures to reduce your exposure to radon gas.

Well Owners’ Guide to Ground Water Resources in Yavapai County

pg. 4

The US Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that radon in drinking water causes about 168 cancer deaths per year across the United States, 89 percent from lung cancer caused by breathing radon released from water, and 11 percent from stomach cancer caused by drinking radon-containing water (USEPA, 2008). Radon levels that exceed drinking water standards have been detected in granitic formations around Prescott, and may require domestic well owners situated in hard rock areas to start receiving treated water from large providers. 

Radon and Drinking Water from Private Wells

Where and how does radon get into drinking water?

While most radon-related deaths are due to radon gas accumulated in houses from seepage through cracks in the foundation, 30 to 1,800 deaths per year are attributed to radon from household water. High levels of dissolved radon are found in the groundwater in some areas flowing through granite or granitic sand and gravel formations. If you live in an area with high radon in groundwater it can get into your private well. Showering, washing dishes, and laundering can disturb the water and release radon gas into the air you breathe.

Radon in Water, Air, and Soil

Radon levels in outdoor air, indoor air, soil air, and ground water can be very different. Outdoor air ranges from less than 0.1 pCi/L to about 30 pCi/L, but it probably averages about 0.2 pCi/L. Radon in indoor air ranges from less that 1 pCi/l to about 3,000 pCi/L, but it probably averages between 1 and 2 pCi/L. Radon in soil air (the air that occupies the pores in soil) ranges from 20 or 30 pCi/L to more than 100,000 pCi/L; most soils in the United States contain between 200 and 2,000 pCi of radon per liter of soil air. The amount of radon dissolved in ground water ranges from about 100 to nearly 3 million pCi/L.

[follinge@gmail.com]

If you don't mind posting, I'd be interested in what the blood sugar is at now.

Wishing you well and many healthy years.

[Jhanananda]

Thank-you, follinge, for asking. My move to Prescott, AZ 5 years ago was to find a place with pure, unpolluted air and water by industrial processes, which Prescott, AZ has.  However, I did not realize that Prescott, AZ has polluted air and water from radon, which is a naturally occurring component of the soils, underlying rock and water here.

Yesterday I started the day in Wickenburg, AZ with a low blood sugar of 114, which is the lowest reading that I have had in over 9 months.  My blood O2 level was 96, which is excellent, and it is consistently at that level there.

I left Wickenburg, AZ at 8AM and drove back to Prescott, AZ to shop for food and materials, and go to the food banks there and take showers.  I arrived in Prescott, AZ by 10:30AM, and checked my blood sugar at noon, after eating a very low carb meal there.  My blood sugar then was 205.  I checked my blood sugar again around 5PM, and it was 185.

Conclusions:
1] Diet alone is not a complete solution for the control of my diabetes.
2] There is something about Prescott, AZ that raises my blood sugar, while lowering my blood O2.
3] There is something about Wickenburg, AZ that lowers my blood sugar, while raising my blood O2.

Hypotheses:
1] The evidence continues to support the premise that an altitude over 4500 ft (1370m) of elevation raises my blood sugar, while lowering my blood O2.
2] Research suggests that there might be a partial, or complete, causal relationship of raising my blood sugar, while lowering my blood O2, due to the presence of elevated levels of radon in Prescott, AZ.


Continued research:
1] Further data will have to be collected to isolate these possible causes to narrow down which, if not both, causes are at work.
2] Further research will be conducted in pursuit of these possible causes.
3] For now I will only drink, and cook with, bottled water as a means of isolating those causes. 
4]  I will also return to Wickenburg, AZ as a means of isolating those causes when I am done acquiring necessary resources in Prescott, AZ.

Please note:

It looks like radon is at least partially at work in effecting my health, so I have split this topic off at the introduction of radon, and started a new thread reflecting that split.

[Cal]

So if you're finding a correlation between blood O2 levels and blood glucose levels, that sounds like a pretty concrete theory considering we know it to be true that there is less oxygen at higher elevations.

As far as Radon, if I recall correctly, it is easily shielded. It would be reflected by clothing and buildings. We found this to be true as there were lower levels of background radiation inside of buildings without any concrete barriers, like in the reactors. A simple mobile unit with a tin flashing outer and the interior sheet rocked, served to lower radon levels quite a bit.

As far as levels of radiation a person could be exposed to; they tended to be quite high. While out in the field we were required to were a dosimeter. This was a "sponge" basically, and was checked every 6 months for radiation exposure. I can recall on at least 2 occasions being exposed to higher levels of radiation than they liked us to be, yet the folks down at dosimetry swore up and down that I had not exceeded the "legal limit". This legal limit is what was considered to be "unhealthy amounts" once exceeded. Which meant more acute, measurable results could be found. They also set lifetime stipulations for more chronic effects, however, I dont think they took any of it seriously; as it was hard to prove because they do not know enough about the chronic effects of prolonged consistent exposure. But, perhaps getting a dosimeter would help you narrow down the actual amount of radiation you are being exposed to, as opposed to the environment within proximity of you. Its a square box that youd hang on a lanyard around your neck, about 1/4 the size of an Iphone. As far as getting the read on the dosimeter in intervals, I can look around to find out specifically where they used to send mine to, as well as pricing for this etc, if you'd like. I have the info "somewhere" hehe

Also, the EPA (I believe) was the regulating body for this, and they would provide public informations on exposure limits etc. If not, it would be outlined in 10 CFR yada yada (I do not have an index in front of me).

[Jhanananda]

So if you're finding a correlation between blood O2 levels and blood glucose levels, that sounds like a pretty concrete theory considering we know it to be true that there is less oxygen at higher elevations.

It is not consistent enough yet, to bank on the relationship, or not consider other possible causes, such as radon.

As far as Radon, if I recall correctly, it is easily shielded. It would be reflected by clothing and buildings. We found this to be true as there were lower levels of background radiation inside of buildings without any concrete barriers, like in the reactors. A simple mobile unit with a tin flashing outer and the interior sheet rocked, served to lower radon levels quite a bit.

I believe the issue will turn out to be drinking water with significant levels of Radon, and other radioactive elements may turn out to be a primary cause of a wide range of diseases, not just cancer.

As far as levels of radiation a person could be exposed to; they tended to be quite high. While out in the field we were required to were a dosimeter. This was a "sponge" basically, and was checked every 6 months for radiation exposure. I can recall on at least 2 occasions being exposed to higher levels of radiation than they liked us to be, yet the folks down at dosimetry swore up and down that I had not exceeded the "legal limit". This legal limit is what was considered to be "unhealthy amounts" once exceeded. Which meant more acute, measurable results could be found. They also set lifetime stipulations for more chronic effects, however, I dont think they took any of it seriously; as it was hard to prove because they do not know enough about the chronic effects of prolonged consistent exposure. But, perhaps getting a dosimeter would help you narrow down the actual amount of radiation you are being exposed to, as opposed to the environment within proximity of you. Its a square box that youd hang on a lanyard around your neck, about 1/4 the size of an Iphone. As far as getting the read on the dosimeter in intervals, I can look around to find out specifically where they used to send mine to, as well as pricing for this etc, if you'd like. I have the info "somewhere" hehe

Also, the EPA (I believe) was the regulating body for this, and they would provide public informations on exposure limits etc. If not, it would be outlined in 10 CFR yada yada (I do not have an index in front of me).

Yes, the issue seems to be chronic effects of prolonged consistent exposure to radiation, and it seems no one has much data on it.  Also, drinking water that is contaminated with low level rads might be a major issue.

I like your idea of acquiring a dosimeter.  Apparently they can be bought with a readout, but they are about $200, so I will have to save up for one.

[Jhanananda]

I met another person today who found out after moving to Prescott, AZ that he was type-2 diabetic.  So, today I searched for health statistics for Prescott, Arizona.

According to City Data.com, Prescott, Arizona has the following health statistics:

Adult diabetes rate:
Yavapai county:   7.5%
Arizona:   8.0%

Adult obesity rate:
Yavapai County:   17.7%
Arizona:   22.8%

Low-income preschool obesity rate:
Yavapai county:   10.4%
State:   14.2%

#35 on the list of "Top 101 cities with the largest percentage of people in hospitals or wards for drug/alcohol abuse"

#61 on the list of "Top 101 cities with the largest percentage of people in schools, hospitals, or wards for the mentally retarded"

#84 on the list of "Top 100 highest located cities (pop. 5,000+)"

These data suggest that it is a mere coincidence that my health, and that of my case histories, have all declined upon moving to Prescott, AZ.

[Jhanananda]

Two nights ago, I spent the night at 6300 ft (1920m) of elevation to test the altitude hypothesis.  This was 1,000 ft 300m) higher elevation. The next morning my blood sugar was 94, which is perfect.  So, the Altitude effect on diabetes hypothesis is negated.  So, I am even more convinced of the Radon effect on general health hypothesis.

I found Map of U.S. Natural Radioactivity very useful.

Natural radioactivity arises from several different geological materials. In addition, higher altitude means a higher level of natural radiation from cosmic rays. The following explanatory text about the numbers on this map is from the US Geological Survey.

1. Great Salt Lake: Water absorbs gamma rays so it shows as no data area on the map.

2. Nebraska Sand Hills: Wind has separated the lighter quartz from the clay and heavier minerals that usually contain uranium.

3. The Black Hills: A core of granites and metamorphic rocks high in radioactivity is surrounded by less radioactive sedimentary rocks and gives a distinctive pattern.

4. Pleistocene glacial deposits: The area has low surface radioactivity, but uranium occurs just below the surface. Thus it has a high radon potential.

5. Deposits of glacial Lake Agassiz: Clay and silt from a prehistoric glacial lake have higher radioactivity than glacial drift surrounding it.

6. Ohio Shale: Uranium-bearing black shale with a narrow outcrop zone was scooped up and spread over a large area in west-central Ohio by glaciers.

7. Reading Prong: Uranium-rich metamorphic rocks and numerous fault zones produce high radon in indoor air and in ground water.

8. Appalachian Mountains: Granites contain elevated uranium, particularly in fault zones. Black shales and soils above limestone also contain moderate to high levels of uranium.

9. Chatanooga and New Albany Shales: Uranium-bearing black shales in Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana have a distinctive outcrop pattern clearly defined by radioactivity.

10. Outer Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain: This area of unconsolidated sands, silts, and clays has one of the lowest radon potentials in the United States.

11. Phosphatic rocks, Florida: These rocks are high in phosphate and associated uranium.

12. Inner Gulf Coastal Plain: This area of the Inner Coastal Plain has sands containing glauconite, a mineral high in uranium.

13. Rocky Mountains: Granites and metamorphic rocks in these ranges contain more uranium than sedimentary rocks to the east, resulting in high radon in indoor air and in ground water.

14. Basin and Range: Granitic and volcanic rocks in the ranges, alternating with basins filled with alluvium shed from the ranges, give this area a generally high radioactivity.

15. Sierra Nevada: Granites containing high uranium, particularly in east-central California, show as red areas.

16. Northwest Pacific Coastal Mountains and Columbia Plateau: This area of volcanic basalts is low in uranium.

Mineralab's selection of Geiger Counters for the detection of radioactivity

Radiation Network

EPA's RadNet Near-Real-Time and Laboratory Data by State

[Jhanananda]

My low blood sugar readings when not exposed to radiation levels above an effective level needs to be documented, so that it can either be eliminated as a variable, or  shown that it is. Understanding what that effective level of radiation will require the ability to measure it.  So, purchasing a radiation detector is going to be necessary.

In the above links I see an effort to develop a map of background radiation levels using a radiation detector coupled with a GPS.  So, I plan to put that equipment into place, and start recording, documenting and reporting my findings, because I am getting more certain as I explore this hypothesis that it is what is behind the continual rise of chronic inflammatory diseases in the USA.

I do see that mapping background radiation levels, and its effect on human health, is in its infancy in the world, and is thus an opportunity for some original research to be done on it.


Downwind syndrome might be the start of documenting the effect of long term low level radiation upon health.

Downwinders
refers to the individuals and communities in the intermountain area between the Cascade and Rocky Mountain ranges primarily in Arizona, Nevada and Utah but also in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho who are exposed to radioactive contamination or nuclear fallout from atmospheric or underground nuclear weapons testing, and nuclear accidents.[1][2]

More generally, the term can also include those communities and individuals who are exposed to ionizing radiation and other emissions due to the regular production and maintenance of coal ash, radionuclides associated with hydraulic fracturing, nuclear weapons, nuclear power, nuclear waste and geothermal energy.[3] In regions near U.S. nuclear sites, downwinders may be exposed to releases of radioactive materials into the environment that contaminate their groundwater systems, food chains, and the air they breathe. Some downwinders may have suffered acute exposure due to their involvement in uranium mining and nuclear experimentation.[4]

Several severe adverse health effects, such as an increased incidence of cancers, thyroid diseases, CNS neoplasms, and possibly female reproductive cancers that could lead to congenital malformations have been observed in "downwind" communities exposed to nuclear fallout and radioactive contamination.[5] The impact of nuclear contamination on an individual is generally estimated as the result of the dose of radiation received and the duration of exposure, using the linear no-threshold model (LNT). Sex, age, race, culture, occupation, class, location, and simultaneous exposure to additional environmental toxins are also significant, but often overlooked, factors that contribute to the health effects on a particular "downwind" community.[6]

Downwinders and nuclear testing

Between 1945 and 1980, the United States, the U.S.S.R, the United Kingdom, France and China exploded 504 nuclear devices in atmospheric tests at thirteen primary sites yielding the explosive equivalent of 440 megatons of TNT. Of these atmospheric tests, 330 were conducted by the United States. Accounting for all types of nuclear tests, official counts show that the United States has conducted 1,054 nuclear weapons tests to date, involving at least 1,151 nuclear devices, most of which occurred at Nevada Test Site and the Pacific Proving Grounds in the Marshall Islands, with ten other tests taking place at various locations in the United States, including Alaska, Colorado, Mississippi, and New Mexico. There have been an estimated 2,000 nuclear tests conducted worldwide; the number of nuclear tests conducted by the United States alone is currently more than the sum of nuclear testing done by all other known nuclear states (the USSR, Great Britain, France, China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea) combined.[7][8]

These nuclear tests infused vast quantities of radioactive material into the world’s atmosphere, which was widely dispersed and then deposited as global fallout.[9]
How downwinders are exposed to fallout

Aboveground nuclear explosions produce a characteristic mushroom cloud, which moves downwind as it reaches its stabilization height. Dispersion of the radioactive elements causes vertical and lateral cloud movement, spreading radioactive materials over adjacent regions. While the large particles settle nearby the site of the detonation, smaller particles and gases may be dispersed around the world. Additionally, some explosions injected radioactive material into the stratosphere, more than 10 kilometers above ground level, meaning it may float there for years before being subsequently deposited uniformly around the earth. Global fallout is the result, which exposes everything to an elevated level of man-made background radiation. While "downwinders" refers to those who live and work closest to the explosion site and are thus most acutely affected, there is a global effect of increased health risks due to ionizing radiation in the atmosphere.[9]
Health effects of nuclear testing

The earliest concerns raised about the health effects of exposure to nuclear fallout had to do with fears of genetic alterations that may occur among the offspring of those most exposed. However, the observed inheritable effects of radiation exposure by groups with histories of acute risk are considered minimal compared with the significant increase in thyroid cancer, leukemia and certain solid tumors that have developed within a decade or more after exposure. As studies of biological samples (including bone, thyroid glands and other tissues) have been undertaken, it has become increasingly clear that specific radionuclides in fallout are implicated in fallout-related cancers and other late effects.[9]

In 1980, People magazine reported that of some 220 cast and crew who filmed a 1956 film, The Conqueror, on location near St. George, Utah, ninety-one had come down with cancer, and 50 had died of cancer.[10] Of these, forty-six had died of cancer by 1980. Among the cancer deaths were John Wayne and Susan Hayward, the stars of the film.[10] However, the lifetime odds of developing cancer for men in the U.S. population are 43 percent and the odds of dying of cancer are 23 percent (38 percent and 19 percent, respectively, for women).[11] This places the cancer mortality rate for the 220 primary cast and crew quite near the expected average.
Current status of U.S. nuclear testing

After adopting the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1996, the U.S. and several other nuclear states pledged to stop nuclear testing. However, as of early 2014, the United States has failed to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
Specific test sites

Nevada
From 1951 – mid-1962, the Nevada Test Site (NTS) was a primary site used for both surface and above-ground nuclear testing, with 86 tests at or above ground level, and 14 other tests underground, all of which involved releases of significant amounts of radioactive material into the atmosphere.

In the 1950s, people who lived in the vicinity of the NTS were encouraged to sit outside and watch the mushroom clouds that were created by nuclear bomb explosions. Many were given radiation badges to wear on their clothes, which were later collected by the Atomic Energy Commission to gather data about radiation levels.

In a report by the National Cancer Institute, released in 1997, it was determined that the nearly ninety atmospheric tests at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) left high levels of radioactive iodine-131 (5.5 exabecquerels) across a large area of the continental United States, especially in the years 1952, 1953, 1955, and 1957. The National Cancer Institute report estimates that doses received in these years are estimated to be large enough to produce 10,000 to 75,000 additional cases of thyroid cancer in the U.S.[12] Another report, published by the Scientific Research Society, estimates that about 22,000 additional radiation-related cancers and 2,000 additional deaths from radiation-related leukemia are expected to occur in the United States because of external and internal radiation from both NTS and global fallout.[9]

The threat of downwind exposure to radioactivity remaining at the Nevada Test Site from nuclear weapons tests was still an issue as late as 2007. The Pentagon planned to test a 700-ton ammonium nitrate-and-fuel oil "bunker buster" weapon. The planned "Divine Strake" test would have raised a large mushroom cloud of contaminated dust that could have blown toward population centers such as Las Vegas, Boise, Salt Lake City, and St. George, Utah. This project was cancelled in February 2007, in large part due to political pressure inspired by the threat of downwind exposure to radioactivity.
Hanford

While many downwinders were exposed to weapons testing, millions more have been affected by radioactive fallout due to U.S. sites engaged in the production of nuclear weapons and/or nuclear power. For example, Hanford is a former nuclear weapons production site located in south central Washington state, where the Washington state Department of Health collaborated with the citizen-led Hanford Health Information Network (HHIN) to publicize significant data about the health effects of Hanford’s operations. Established in 1943, Hanford released radioactive materials into the air, water and soil, releases which largely resulted from the site’s routine operation, though some were also due to accidents and intentional releases.

By February 1986, mounting citizen pressure forced the U.S. Department of Energy to release to the public 19,000 pages of previously unavailable historical documents about Hanford’s operations. These reports revealed there had been radioactive materials released into the air and Columbia River. The reactors used large amounts of water from the river for cooling, which caused materials in the river water to become radioactive as they passed through the reactor. The water and the radioactive materials it contained were released into the river after passing through the reactors, thus contaminating the both groundwater systems and aquatic animals downstream as far West as the Washington and Oregon coasts.[13]

The Hanford Thyroid Disease Study, an epidemiologic study of the relationship between estimated exposure doses to radioiodine and incidence of thyroid disease amongst Hanford's downwinders, led by the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, was inconclusive. A consolidated lawsuit brought by two thousand Hanford downwinders for personal injury against the contractors that ran Hanford has been in the court system for many years. The defense in the litigation is fully funded by taxpayer dollars due to Price Anderson indeminification agreements. The first six bellwether plaintiffs went to trial in 2005, to test the legal issues applying to the remaining plaintiffs in the suit.[14]

Plutonium was also separated and purified for use in nuclear weapons, which resulted in the release of radioactive material into the air. Radioactive fallout from the Hanford site traveled throughout Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and even into Canada. Radioiodine entered into the food chain via contaminated fields where cows and goats grazed; hazardous fallout was ingested by communities who consumed the radioactive food and drank the milk. Another source of contaminated food came from Columbia River fish; their impact was disproportionately felt by Native American communities who depended on the river for their customary diets. The estimate of those exposed to radioactive contamination due to living downwind of Hanford or ingesting food or water that flowed downstream is unknown.
Marshall Islands

While the term "downwinders" generally connotes nuclear fallout victims based in the continental U.S. near sites such as Hanford and NTS, the population of the Marshall Islands bore a large brunt of nuclear testing under the United States' "Pacific Proving Ground" program. Now known officially as the Republic of the Marshall Islands, it was an occupied territory of the United States from 1944–1979, years during which the United States tested 66 nuclear weapons in the Marshall Islands.[15]

One of these many tests, the March 1, 1954, explosion of Castle Bravo, a U.S. thermonuclear device, was responsible for most of the vast radiation exposure endured by the local population. The fallout-related doses of this single test are believed[who?] to be the highest recorded in the history of worldwide nuclear testing. Many of the Marshall Islands which were part of the Pacific Proving Grounds remain contaminated by nuclear fallout, and many of those downwinders who were living on the islands at the time of testing have suffered from a highly increased incidence of several types of cancers and birth defects.[citation needed]
Effects of radiation on female downwinders

The primary long-term health hazard associated with exposure to ionizing radiation as a result of nuclear fallout is an increased risk for cancers of the thyroid, other solid tumor cancers, and leukemia. The relationship between radiation exposure and subsequent cancer risk is considered "the best understood, and certainly the most highly quantified, dose-response relationship for any common environmental human carcinogen", according to report by the National Cancer Institute.[9] Overall, men in the United States develop cancer at a rate 22% higher than that of women. However, women develop cancer from radiation at a rate from 37.5% to 52% higher than that of men. In recent years, studies conducted by both the National Research Council and the EPA have confirmed that compared to men, women are at a significantly higher risk of radiation-induced cancers, such and that women’s sensitivity to radiation-induced cancers is much higher than was previously estimated. The increased radiosensitivity of certain organs in women, such as the breast, ovaries, and thyroid is likely the cause of this difference.[16]

In the EPA’s 1999 Federal Guidance Report #13(FGR 13), Cancer Risk Coefficients for Environmental Exposure to Radionuclides, the authors conclude that women have a 48 percent higher radionuclide-related cancer mortality risk than men. Further evidence of sex-based disparities in radiation-induced cancers was published in the 2006 report by the National Research Council’s Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation (known as the BEIR VII report), which found that women’s risk due to radiation exposure exceeded men’s by 37.5 percent.[6] When one considers rates of cancer incidence separately from rates of cancer fatality, the sex disparities are even greater. The BEIR VII Committee concluded that, given the same level of radiation exposure, women are 52 percent more likely than men to develop cancer, while the EPA report puts the estimate of difference as high as 58 percent.[16]

The differences in risk are even greater when considering organ-specific cancers, especially given that both reports identify breast, ovarian, lung, colon, and thyroid tissues as the most radiosensitive among women. For example, the FGR 13 has estimated that the ratio of thyroid cancer incidence for women as compared to men is 2.14, while the findings of BEIR VII suggest that women are even more vulnerable to radiation-induced thyroid cancer at a ratio of 4.76.[16]

As increasing concerns are raised regarding the environmental risks related to breast, it is interesting to note that the BEIR VII report cited evidence that suggests that "radiation may interact synergistically with other risk factors for breast cancer", raising the possibility that endocrine disrupting chemicals like PCBs and dioxins might combine to increase the risks associated with radiation beyond that which would be caused by either separately.[16] A related concern is that radionuclides that may be passed through the breast milk, causing some women who are downwinders to be understandably reluctant to breastfeed their children. While reducing the radioactive intake of their infants is an important preventative measure, it denies women the opportunity to engage a preventative measure for their own health; i.e. breastfeeding has been widely documented as a practice that can reduce women's risk of developing breast cancer. By refraining from breastfeeding, women downwinders' risks of breast cancer incidence becomes even more elevated.[17]
Pregnancy and birth outcomes

Mounting research indicates that above certain levels of radiation, a miscarriage will result. However, it is clear from studies[citation needed] of nuclear bomb and test site survivors that fetal malformations are a special risk if a woman is exposed to high doses of nuclear-related radiation in early pregnancy, when organs are being formed. Specifically, the pregnant woman must receive a radiation dose between the 10th and 40th day of pregnancy high enough to cause mutations, but not high enough to abort or kill the mother. The impact of a miscarriage, threatened pregnancy, or congenital disorder on a mother is considerable, affecting not only her physical, sexual, and reproductive health, but her social and emotional wellness, as well.[18] The effects of radiation on fetal formation are also uniquely a women's health issue to the extent that female fetuses' ova are formed while they are still in utero; adverse effects on a mother carrying a female fetus pose multigenerational effects and may increase the daughter's risks for ovarian cancer, infertility, and other reproductive developmental problems.[16]

[Jhanananda]

Scholarly Articles on downwind syndrome:

A novel syndrome of radiation-associated acute myeloid leukemia involving AML1 gene translocations

Radiation-induced leukemia

[Jhanananda]

Ionizing radiation, health effects and protective measures

Key facts:

    Ionizing radiation is a type of energy released by atoms in the form of electromagnetic waves or particles.
    People are exposed to natural sources of ionizing radiation, such as in soil, water, vegetation, and in human-made sources, such as x-rays and medical devices.
    Ionizing radiation has many beneficial applications, including uses in medicine, industry, agriculture and research.
    As the use of ionizing radiation increases, so does the potential for health hazards if not properly used or contained.
    Acute health effects such as skin burns or acute radiation syndrome can occur when doses of radiation exceed certain levels.
    Low doses of ionizing radiation can increase the risk of longer term effects such as cancer.

Health effects of ionizing radiation

Radiation damage to tissue and/or organs depends on the dose of radiation received, or the absorbed dose which is expressed in a unit called the gray (Gy). The potential damage from an absorbed dose depends on the type of radiation and the sensitivity of different tissues and organs.

The sievert (Sv) is a unit of radiation weighted dose also called the effective dose. It is a way to measure ionizing radiation in terms of the potential for causing harm. The Sv takes into account the type of radiation and sensitivity of tissues and organs. The Sv is a very large unit so it is more practical to use smaller units such as millisieverts (mSv) or microsieverts (μSv). There are one thousand μSv in one mSv, and one thousand mSv in one Sv. In addition to the amount of radiation (dose), it is often useful to express the rate at which this dose is delivered (dose rate) e.g. μSv/hour or mSv/year.

Beyond certain thresholds, radiation can impair the functioning of tissues and/or organs and can produce acute effects such as skin redness, hair loss, radiation burns, or acute radiation syndrome. These effects are more severe at higher doses and higher dose rates. For instance, the dose threshold for acute radiation syndrome is about 1 Sv (1000 mSv).

If the dose is low or delivered over a long period of time (low dose rate), there is greater likelihood for damaged cells to successfully repair themselves. However, long-term effects may still occur if the cell damage is repaired but incorporates errors, transforming an irradiated cell that still retains its capacity for cell division. This transformation may lead to cancer after years or even decades have passed. Effects of this type will not always occur, but their likelihood is proportional to the radiation dose. This risk is higher for children and adolescents, as they are significantly more sensitive to radiation exposure than adults.

Epidemiological studies on populations exposed to radiation (for example atomic bomb survivors or radiotherapy patients) showed a significant increase of cancer risk at doses above 100 mSv.

Prenatal exposure to ionizing radiation may induce brain damage in foetuses following an acute dose exceeding 100 mSv between weeks 8-15 of pregnancy and 200 mSv between weeks 16-25 of pregnancy. Before week 8 or after week 25 of pregnancy human studies have not shown radiation risk to fetal brain development. Epidemiological studies indicate that cancer risk after fetal exposure to radiation is similar to the risk after exposure in early childhood.

SUMMARY OF HEALTH EFFECTS OF IONIZING RADIATION (CDC)

The scientific literature is filled with in-depth discussions and reviews on the effects of ionizing radiation in humans and animals, and it would be difficult, if not impractical, to summarize all of the known information about the effects of each radionuclide in every animal.  Although the database of biological, radiological, toxicological, and toxicokinetic information is substantial and much is known, much remains to be learned about the specific mechanisms by which ionizing radiation produces its effects, how these effects can be minimized in living tissues, and what the long-term effects of very low doses of ionizingradiation are over the normal human lifespan...

3.2    HEALTH EFFECTS FROM EXPOSURE TO IONIZING RADIATION
High doses of ionizing radiation can lead to various effects, such as skin burns, hair loss, birth defects, illness, cancer, and death.  The basic principle of toxicology, “the dose determines poison,” applies to the toxicology of ionizing radiation as well as to all other branches of toxicology.  In the case of threshold effects (“deterministic effects” in the language of radiation toxicology), such as skin burns, hair loss, sterility, nausea, and cataracts, a certain minimum dose (the threshold dose), usually on the order of hundreds or thousands of rad, must be exceeded in order for the effect to be expressed.  An increase in the size of the dose above the threshold dose will increase the severity of the effect.

For cancer induction, increasing the radiation dose does not increase the severity of the cancer; instead it increases the chance of cancer induction.  In the case of carcinogens generally, whether chemical or radiological, safety standards are based on a postulated zero threshold (i.e., any increment of carcinogen, no matter how small, is assumed to carry with it a corresponding increase in the chance of causing cancer). Increasing the size of the dose increases the probability of inducing a cancer with that carcinogen.  Cancers that are, in fact, caused by radiation are completely indistinguishable from those that seem to occur spontaneously or are caused by other known or suspected carcinogens.  In a given
population, such as the Japanese survivors of the atomic bombings of 1945, investigators identified the carcinogenicity of ionizing radiation only by measuring the frequency of occurrence of cancer.  In the case of the survivors of the atomic bombings in Japan, there was  no observed statistically significant increase in cancer frequency among people whose radiation dose did not exceed 0.4 Gy (40 rad) and no increase in leukemia among those whose radiation dose did not exceed 0.1 Gy (10 rad).  Because investigators could not uniquely identify any cancer as having been caused by the radiation, and because there was no observed increase in cancer frequency following low-level irradiation, the calculated cancer risk coefficient (i.e., the probability of getting cancer per unit of radiation dose) is usually estimated by extrapolation of data from observations on populations that received high doses of radiation.

For the purposes of this profile, we have divided the end points produced by ionizing radiation into effects that were (at least initially) non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic effects.  The non-carcinogenic effects were further subdivided by major organ systems affected plus teratogenic effects.  This was done primarily to help the reader understand the broad scope of adverse health effects that can be produced by ionizing radiation.  This approach was also necessary to facilitate evaluating study designs found in the literature.  Some studies exposed laboratory animals to radiation, determined the non-cancerous end points, and then sacrificed the animals to complete the study objectives.  These studies imply that cancer did not or would not develop after exposure to this radiation, which certainly may not be the case.  Other studies exposed animals to radiation, observed the non-carcinogenic end points (if any), and then allowed the animals to live out their normal lifespans to determine if cancer would develop.  These latter studies provided more complete information on the overall effects of exposure to ionizing radiation. 

No acute-, intermediate-, or chronic-duration inhalation, oral, or dermal Minimal Risk Levels (MRLs) were developed for internal exposure to alpha, beta, or gamma radiation.  Radiation effect(s) on a biological system during an acute, intermediate, or chronic duration of exposure depend on the radiation dose; the dose, in turn, depends on several variables.  For airborne radioactivity, these include physical form (gas versus particle), particle solubility, particle size, type of radiation (alpha, beta, gamma, or combinations), and energy of the radiation. For oral and dermal exposure, toxicity is influenced by solubility, metabolism within the body, and the type and energies of the radiation.  Since there is a biological equivalence of internal and external dose equivalent in units of sievert and rem, an MRL for external radiation should be appropriate for internal radiation.

Two MRLs have been derived for exposures to ionizing radiation:
•      An MRL of  0.004 Sv (0.4 rem) has been derived for acute-duration external ionizing radiation exposure (14 days or less)...

Schull et al. (1988) evaluated effects on individuals exposed in utero during the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, based on the original PE86 samples (n=1,759; data on available intelligence testing) and the clinical sample (n=1,598).  The original PE86 sample included virtually all prenatally exposed individuals who received tissue-absorbed doses of 0.50 Gy or more, and many more individuals in the dose range 0–0.49 Gy than in the clinical sample.  The clinical sample does not include children prenatally exposed at distances between 2,000–2,999 meters in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Children prenatally exposed at greater distances or not present in the city were selected as controls.  In 1955–1956, Tanaka-B (emphasis on word-sense, arithmetic abilities, and the like, which were associated with the more subtle processing of visual clues than
their simple recognition and depended more on connectedness) and the Koga (emphasis on perception of spatial relationships) intelligence tests were conducted in Nagasaki; the Koga test was conducted in Hiroshima.  No evidence of radiation-related effect on intelligence was observed among individuals exposed within 0–7 weeks after fertilization or after the 25th week. The highest risk of radiation damage to the embryonic and fetal brain occurred 8 to 15 weeks after fertilization under both T65DR and DS86 dosimetric systems (Otake and Schull 1984). The regression of intelligence score on estimated DS86 uterine absorbed dose is more linear than with T65DR fetal dose, and the diminution in intelligence score under the linear model is 21–29 points at 1 Gy.  The regression of intelligence score on estimated fetal absorbed dose was linear for the exposed 8–15 weeks after fertilization and possibly linear for the 16–25-week group.  The cumulative distribution of test scores suggested a progressive shift downwards in individual scores with increasing exposure in the 8–25-week exposure group.  The mean IQ scores decrease significantly and systematically with uterine or fetal tissue dose within the groups exposed at 8–15 and 16–25 weeks...

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission set a radiation exposure limit of 5 mSv (500 mrem) for pregnant working women over the full gestational period (USNRC 1991).  For the critical gestational period of 8 to 15 weeks ATSDR believes that the acute MRL of 4 mSv is consistent with the NRC limit and could be applied to either acute (0–14 day) or intermediate (15–365 day) exposure periods...

• An MRL of  1.0 mSv/yr (100 mrem/yr) above background has been derived for chronic-duration external ionizing radiation exposure (365 days or more).

No individual studies were identified that could be used to base a chronic-duration external exposure MRL that did not result in a cancer-producing end point. However, BEIR V (1990) reports that the average annual effective dose to the U.S. population is 3.6 mSv/yr.  A total annual effective dose equivalent of 3.6 mSv (360 mrem)/year to members of the U.S. population is obtained mainly by naturally occurring radiation from external sources, medical uses of radiation, and radiation from consumer products.  Since this annual dose of 3.6 mSv/yr has not been associated with adverse health effects or increases in the incidences of any type of cancers in humans or other animals, the 3.6 mSv/yr is considered a NOAEL for purposes of MRL derivation.  An uncertainty factor of 3 (for human variability) was applied to the NOAEL of 3.6 mSv/yr to derive the MRL of 1.0 mSv/yr.

3.2.1  Acute (Immediate and Non-Carcinogenic) Effects from Ionizing Radiation Exposure
A considerable body of information is available in the literature on the acute exposure, high-dose health effects of ionizing radiation.  Such health effects would not be possible from levels of residual radioactive material at NPL sites.  There are three circumstances in which a person may conceivably be exposed to acute high-level doses of ionizing radiation that would initially result in one or many immediate non-carcinogenic effects.  One instance would involve being in the immediate proximity of an atomic blast, as were the Japanese populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 or the Marshall Islands fallout victims injured from fallout from an atomic weapons blast on Bikini Atoll in March 1954.  The second instance would be a laboratory or industrial accident, where only those onsite and involved with high intensity radioactive sources or radiation generating equipment would be affected.  The third and most likely opportunity for exposure to high levels (or repeated doses) of ionizing radiation would involve medical sources in the treatment of disease (protracted exposures to x rays, fluoroscopy, radioiodine therapy, etc.) or exposure to displaced medical or industrial radiography sources.  People who volunteer to be exposed to ionizing radiation for the purpose of medical research also fall into the third category (see Table 3-2).  People who have a large enough area of their body exposed to high doses (>100 rad) of radiation in any of these situations may exhibit immediate signs known as acute radiation syndrome.  In addition to radiation sickness, overexposure to ionizing radiation can result in lens opacities (~0.2 Gy threshold and protracted exposure), and fetal and developmental anomalies.

The acute and delayed effects of exposure to ionizing radiation in humans and laboratory animals have been studied quite extensively.  Laboratory animal data have provided a large volume of information related to the health effects of radiation; however, the most useful information related to human health effects comes from  human exposure data.  The data collected from the larger exposed populations, such as those from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, some medically-exposed populations, or the radium dial painters, have provided valuable information on both the acute and the delayed (long-term) health effects in humans exposed to radiation from certain radionuclides.  A number of studies performed on smaller
groups of people as early as the 1930s have been recently identified and made public (DOE 1995).  These experiments will not be discussed in depth in this toxicological profile (for reasons listed below), but will be briefly summarized.  Most of these exposures to sources of ionizing radiation were performed in small groups of human volunteers at a few institutions sponsored or supported by the Department of Energy (DOE), U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA), the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), the Manhattan Engineer District (MED), and the Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD).  Other studies took place at universities, private hospitals, and other institutions. The bulk of these human studies may be categorized as either tracer studies, metabolism studies, dose-response studies, or as experimental treatments for disease.  Many of the studies listed in the DOE report were done before the 1970s, so the 1995 report represents the culmination of significant efforts to assemble the appropriate documentation to reconstruct and describe the purpose of each experiment, the experimental designs, the dates and locations of the exposures, the doses and routes of administration, the population size and how the populations were chosen, the use of informed consent among these individuals, and whether any of these individuals were followed through the remainder of their life in order to determine possible delayed effects from exposures to these radionuclides.  In spite of the problems associated with interpreting these experiments, they yielded a useful database of informationthat describes the health effects of radiation exposure in humans.  Some of these studies are summarized in Table 3-2. 

All cells that comprise the body’s tissues and organ systems are not equally sensitive to the biological effects of ionizing radiation; the sensitivity of cells is affected by age at the time of exposure, sex, health status, and other factors.  Cells that are rapidly growing and dividing (such as those found in the gastrointestinal tract, bone marrow, reproductive and lymphoid tissues, and fetal nerve cells) are more sensitive to the cytotoxic effects of ionizing radiation.  Higher doses showed more effects in the gastrointestinal tract than in the bone marrow.  Tissues that undergo little cell growth and mitosis under normal conditions (such as those found in the central nervous system, the adrenal, adipose, and connective tissues, and the kidney) are more resist ant to these effects, requiring a much larger acute absorbed dose before outward toxicological effects may be observed.  Why are these growing and dividing cells the most sensitive to the effects of ionizing radiation?  The answer relates to the effect on
the genome of the cell.  Ionizing radiation may damage the cell’s DNA (which the cell relies on to manufacture proteins and enzymes, perform routine cell functions, and maintain cell integrity and homeostasis) to the point that normal cell functions are markedly decreased or stopped, resulting in cell damage and death.  Once damaged, the cell can either repair the damage or die. Repair or misrepair may or may not result in cell lethality.  When precursor cells in the hematopoietic system (which multiply quite frequently to replenish aging leukocytes) are damaged or die, leukopenia may occur in the peripheral blood, leaving the body susceptible to infections and disease.  At ~0.5 Gy (50 rad), there may be transient changes in formed elements of the blood in some individuals.  At 1 Gy (100 rad), most individuals express transient hematopoietic manifestations.  Similarly, the cells lining the gastrointestinal tract, which normally have high turnover rates, will fail to multiply and replace dying cells, making the body susceptible to malabsorption syndromes,  secondary bacterial infections, fluid loss and electrolyte imbalance.  Fetal nervous system cells go through a period of rapid development between weeks 8–15, during which time they are more sensitive to radiation damage.  Mechanisms by which ionizing radiation affects cells are described in greater detail in Chapter 5 of this profile.  The phases of acute toxicity of ionizing radiation
are discussed in the following section.

[Jhanananda]

Table 3-2.  Summary of Some Studies of Humans Exposed to Radiation and Radionuclides

Menstrual blood loss in women with excessive bleeding was 110–550 mL. Normal women lost 33–59mL during menstruation. Heavy menstruating
women had higher gastrointestinal tract (GIT) absorption of iron than normal women.

99% of injected uranium cleared the blood within 20hrs and the remainder either deposited in the skeleton and kidneys or excreted via the urine.

U excretion occurred mainly via the urine and 70–85% was eliminated with 24 hrs.  Acidosis decreased U excretion. Humans tolerated U at doses as high as 70 μg/kg

Average retention of 222 Rn and daughter products in normal atmospheric dust was 25%; retention in filtered air was 75%. Radiation exposure to the lungs was due to radon daughter products rather than by 222 Rn itself.

Doses of 7.5 rad yielded no adverse effect on testicular function.  27 rad inhibited generation of sperm, and 75 rad destroyed existing sperm cells.  Doses of 100–400 rad produced temporary sterility.  All persons eventually recovered to pre-exposure levels prior to vasectomy.

[Jhanananda]

My blood sugar continues to lower, and I am back to finding normal blood sugar readings daily, but they also swing up to about 150 mid-day.  My research and data is suggesting to me that elevated levels of radioactive particles in the environment might be the cause of my diabetes. 

So, I plan to purchase a geiger counter soon to either support or prove this hypothesis incorrect.  I will need to find some more funding to do so, as geiger counters tend to range in price from $100 to $500, which is out of my range right now with auto insurance due mid-next month.