A Review and Critical Analysis of the “Effective Dose of Radiation” Concept

Radioactive pollution and its effects are some of the least visible but most dangerous man-made changes of the biosphere. Though above-ground nuclear weapons testing has been banned since the 1960s, mankind has continued to find new ways to exploit radionuclides. To protect people from anthropogenic radiation contamination, it is necessary to determine an acceptable level and range of exposure. Today, the system of radiation safety endorsed by the U.N. and other multi-national groups is based on the concept of an effective dose—the measure of cancer risk to an entire organism from radiation exposure to its various parts. This review posits there are serious problems with both the concept of an effective dose and the methodology behind its calculation, and that a new framework is needed. In order to study the issues and drawbacks of the official concept of radiation safety, and to assist readers in understanding the basis of his argument, the author sums up and critiques the current system’s main basic postulates and conclusions. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 14 Methodological Background of the Dose Concept ................................................................. 14 A Critical Look ............................................................................................................................. 15 Postulate 1: The impact of each radionuclide on a person is constant in time and space ..... 15 Postulate 2: The level of external irradiation can be determined by calculating the amount of time a person is present in an ionized environment ..................................... 15 Postulate 3: The level of internal irradiation can be determined by calculating the amount of radionuclides that enters the human body .................................................... 16 Postulate 4: The biological effectiveness of X-ray and all gamma and beta emitters are equal ........................................................................................................... 16 Postulate 5: In terms of relative radiosensitivity, human organs and tissues can be ranked in a weighted order ................................................................................................ 16 Postulate 6: To calculate an individual effective dose it is necessary to sum up internal and external irradiation doses from all sources of radiation .............................................. 17 Postulate 7: A healthy 20 year-old white male is an appropriate model for the impact of radiation on the average human being ................................................................ 19 Postulate 8: The higher the radiation dose, the greater the biological effect ........................ 19 Summary of “A Critical Look” .................................................................................................... 20 Some Facts About Low-dosage Exposure ................................................................................ 20 Effects of high levels of naturally-occurring radiation ............................................................ 20 1. Cosmic radiation ................................................................................................................ 21 2. Elevated radiation levels from the Earth’s crust .................................................................... 21 Effects of low-level radiation exposure from anthropogenic sources .................................... 22 1. The tale of two “secret” cities .................................................................................................. 22 2. Chernobyl ............................................................................................................................. 23 3. Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant ....................................................................................... 24 4. Atomic bomb test fallout ....................................................................................................... 24 Effects of low-level radiation on genetic systems ..................................................................... 24 Data is not always reliable, or the Healthy Survivor effect ........................................................ 25 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 25 A Review and Critical Analysis of the “Effective Dose of Radiation” Concept Alexey Yablokov, DSc Koltzov Institute of Developmental Biology, Russian Academy of Science ul. Vavilova 26 Moscow 119334 Russia Ph +7-495-952-80-19; +7-985-769-82-49 Email: yablokov@voxnet.ru Yablokov This is part of the first half of the monograph: “A Critical Analysis of the Concept of an ‘Effective Dose’ of Radiation”. The monograph in its entirety features two review papers from prominent Russian scientist Alexey Yablokov looking critically at the current standards of human radiation safety, accompanied by two editorials presenting a point/ counterpoint perspective on Professor Yablokov’s work. The second paper and editorial will be published in the next issue, due later this year. Further information about Professor Yablokov can be found in the letter from the publisher, also in this issue of the Journal of Health & Pollution. Competing Interests. The author declares no competing financial interests.


Introduction
Radioactive pollution and its effects are some of the least visible but most dangerous anthropogenic changes of the biosphere.This type of pollution began on a large scale in the 1950's as the result of the creation and testing of nuclear weapons.In 1963, governments of the Northern Hemisphere came together to prohibit tests of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere due to the negative health consequences that were becoming evident.
However, mankind has continued to find new ways to harness radiation, from the development of nuclear power to the use of ionizing radiation for medical purposes.In order to protect people from anthropogenic radiation contamination, it is necessary to determine an acceptable level and range of exposure.Today, the existing system of radiation safety endorsed by the U.N. and other multi-national groups is based on the concept of an effective dose, or the measure of cancer risk to an entire organism from radiation exposure to its various parts.
This review posits that there are serious problems with both the concept of an effective dose and the methodology behind its calculation, and that, in fact, a new framework is needed.In order to study the issues and drawbacks of the official concept of radiation safety and to assist readers in understanding the basis of his argument, the author sums up the current system's main basic postulates and conclusions.
This examination adheres to the following limitations: • All discussion focuses on the radiation safety of a general population and does not include professional exposure (i.e. the accidental irradiation from anthropogenic sources, in addition to the natural background level of radiation, versus individuals experiencing the effects of controlled irradiation by few radionuclides); • The term "irradiation" relates to artificial sources of radiation in low doses, defined here as levels under 0.1 Gy (100 mSv).

Methodological Background of the Dose Concept
The total radiation exposure dose for a human being is defined as the sum of external and internal ionizing irradiation.Internal irradiation depends on the length of time radionuclides are present in the human body and their location.External irradiation is determined by the amount of ionizing radiation energy absorbed by the body.Current international standards of radiation safety are mainly based on the recommendations of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) and the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 1 Official calculations of doses are mainly based on eight postulates: 1.The impact of each radionuclide on a person is constant in time and space.
2. The level of external irradiation can be determined by calculating the time a person is present in an ionized environment (e.g., surface layer of atmospheric air).
3. The level of internal irradiation can be determined by calculating the amount of radionuclides that enters the human body with water, air, and food.
4. The biological effectiveness of X-ray and all gamma and beta emitters is equal, the biological effectiveness of slow neutrons 3 times higher, and for alpha-emitters and superfast neutrons, 20 times higher.
6.A healthy 20-year-old white male, weighing 70 kg, is an appropriate model for the impact of radiation on the average human being. 2 7.It is necessary to sum up internal and external irradiation doses from all sources of radiation.
8. The higher the radiation dose, the greater the biological effect.

Narrative Review
back up to the surface via transpiration, again increasing atmospheric ionization.Moles, boars, worms, and other burrowing animals may also release radionuclides trapped in deep soil layers, affecting radiation levels.
As the result of horizontal migration, e.g., due to strong wind or movement of animals, radionuclides can spread for hundreds of kilometers beyond the initial release site.In 1992, dust particles carried by wind from the Chernobyl nuclear disaster site in the Ukraine raised the concentration of cesium-137 in Vilnius, Lithuania, by hundreds of times within several hours.In 2010, the concentration of cesium-137 in the vicinity of Moscow increased 24 times due to the release of radionuclides from forest fires in Russia's Bryansk region, the trees of which had been contaminated by Chernobyl. 4teractions with soil also influence the migration of radionuclides.However, the physical characteristics of soil do not remain the same over time, even in the same locale.There are regular daily and seasonal shifts in moisture and density of the top layer, as well as irregular changes related to precipitation and winds.Due to all these factors, radiation levels at a fixed point may greatly vary over the course of hours, days, weeks, and months.Data for Chernobyl shows that the level of ionizing radiation in contaminated areas may change more than 10,000 times during a year. 5 shown in Fig. 1, the concentrations of radionuclides change by order of magnitude within a few dozen meters. 6n some nearby biotopes, such as hills, swamps or meadows, the concentration of radionuclides could differ hundreds of times.Detailed research shows a spotted distribution pattern of radionuclides over all studied sites.This pattern signifies changes in the intensity of radiation even within dozens of meters, meaning a person or a group of people in the area would be exposed to radiation unevenly depending on their exact location.Any attempt to get average figures would be misleading when compared to actual exposure rates.

Postulate 2. The level of external irradiation can be determined by calculating the amount of time a person is present in an ionized environment.
The level of radiation that a person is exposed to is in a constant state of flux.Because a person bends over, goes up or down stairs, is shielded from the source of radiation by sitting in a car or standing behind a wall, the exposure to emissions of beta radionuclides in the surrounding area also changes.It is difficult to quantify the changes in exposure dose related to the movements of a human body relative to a beta radionuclide-contaminated substrate.
The inevitable heterogeneity of a radiation field in time and space determines the significant heterogeneity of an individual's radiation exposure.
Based on these postulates, UNSCEAR and ICRP have come to two main conclusions: that low levels of ionizing radiation result in cancers and major genetic disorders that can only be revealed statistically because they occur in just a few out of millions of people exposed to radiation; and that the acceptable "safe" level of irradiation (resulting in less than 1 additional death per million per year) is the annual effective equivalent dose of 1 mSv per person. 3 Undoubtedly, there are other ways to describe the basis of the dose concept.The eight postulates and two conclusions given above were chosen for the purposes of analyzing the methodological correctness and practical feasibility of this concept.

A Critical Look
Let us take a closer look at these postulates and the conclusions they lead to: Postulate 1.The impact of each radionuclide on a person is constant in time and space.
This is an incorrect assumption.Radiation to which a person is exposed is not homogenous in space.In the real world, we observe both vertical and horizontal migration of radionuclides as a result of the interaction between water, wind, plants and animals.The rate of exposure is different for different types of radionuclides and depends on the physical and chemical characteristics of each element and the way it interacts with different types of soil and climate.
As the result of vertical migration, the level of radiation in the surface layers of the atmosphere decreases soon after the release of radionuclides into an ecosystem.However, when radionuclides reach the root zone (15-30 cm in depth), plants bring the particles

Narrative Review
In any given location, an individual's exposure dose over the course of a year could increase and decrease multiple times.Under these conditions, a single exposure measurement or even a series of measurements is unlikely to provide the true picture of an actual person's radiation exposure.
Postulate 3. The level of internal irradiation can be determined by calculating the amount of radionuclides that enters the human body with water, air, and food.
Calculating the precise amount of internal irradiation a person has experienced based on food intake is not possible due to the great variation in the concentration of radionuclides in different kinds of food.Factors affecting this include: • the level of radioactive contamination at the site where food items were sourced, as the concentration of radionuclides in food stuff produced in areas with different contamination levels could significantly differ; • the technology used to prepare and store food, as there could be changes in the concentrations of radionuclides depending on different treatment of the same raw material; It is an oversimplification to say that the biological effectiveness of X-rays and all gamma and beta emitters are the same, as it also is to say that the biological effectiveness of slow neutrons is 3 times and alpha emitters and superfast neutrons is 20 times higher.These conditions were adopted early on in the study of the impact of ionizing radiation.Today, it is known that the biological effectiveness within groups of alpha, beta and gamma emitters is specific to each radionuclide.It is determined not only by the number of emerging electrons in beta-decay, gamma quanta in gamma decay and X-ray, or alpha particles in alpha-decay, but also by the micro-distribution of energy transferred by these particles/ quanta of energy to cell structures and internal cellular liquids.Also, some radionuclides have both alpha-and beta-decay: for instance, bismuth-212 produces thallium-208 as the result of alpha-decay and polonium-212 as the result of simultaneous beta-decay.
For comparison, the influence of alpha, beta and gamma emitters as recommended by ICRP uses weighted coefficients: 1 for X-rays, beta and gamma emitters, and 20 for alpha emitters.It remains unclear how the use of weighted coefficients makes it possible to account for the effect of transmutation of some radionuclides.
It appears to be an oversimplification to state that organs and tissues can be ranked in such a hierarchy.Such a statement is based on certain assumptions: • that the biological effects of internal and external radiation for particular organs are the same across-the-board; • that the biological impact of different radionuclides on each organ is similar and constant; • that the radiosensitivity of each organ and tissue is the same for all human beings; • that the radiosensitivity of organs and tissues of animals in lab conditions adequately represents the radiosensitivity of human organs and tissues; • that human organs and tissues are independent structures; • that the radiosensitivity of organs not included on the list (e.g.eyes, nose, tongue, upper airways) is negligible.

Narrative Review
All these assumptions are questionable, making the argument for weighted coefficients for different organs difficult to sustain.
Postulate 6.To calculate an individual effective dose it is necessary to sum up internal and external irradiation doses from all sources of radiation.
For the correct calculation of the total effective equivalent dose it is necessary to track the distribution of not just cesium-137, which currently serves as the basis for developing official maps of radioactive contamination and calculations of average human radiation exposure, but dozens of other radionuclides as well.It is not practicable to make such maps, however, as the short air travel distance of alpha and beta emitters (measured in centimeters for alpha emitters and meters for beta emitters) renders it difficult, if not impossible, for these particles to be detected.This makes it extremely difficult to determine the input of alpha and beta emitters in the total absorbed dose-defined as the sum of internal and external irradiation.But the biological effect of alpha and beta emitters is so great that, without accounting for them in the human body,  It is possible that in any mammalian population, including the human species, 14-20% of members are hyporadiosensitive, and 10-20% hyperradiosensitive. 18 The radiosensitivity of these groups could differ by several times. 19l national regulations of radiation safety based on the recommendations of UNSCEAR and ICRP have been developed without accounting for, with the exception of pregnant women, the above-mentioned individual and group variability.
Recently, ICRP began recommending calculating doses separately for males (using a phantom "Golem") and females (a phantom "Laura"). 20This may change the situation in the near future, but so far the official norms of radiation safety (1 mSv per year) are still the same for men and women.That is why the current standards of radiation safety, developed for a "conditional person" from an "average" population, cannot be effective for the majority of people.
Postulate 8.The higher the radiation dose, the greater the biological effect.
On the face of it, this argument appears to be simple common sense.As counterintuitive as it may be, however, sometimes low-Postulate 7. A healthy 20-year-old white male, weighing 70 kg, is an appropriate model for the impact of radiation on the average human being.
A virtual being with the body parameters of an average white 20-yearold male weighing 70 kg, also known as a "conditional person", is not adequate for calculating total effective equivalent dosages in real people because it does not match the characteristics of the majority of humans exposed to radiation due to significant intra-species variability in radiosensitivity.
It has been shown that, in some aspects, males are more susceptible to radiation than females and, in other aspects, less (see Table 5). 15fferences in radiosensitivity depending on age (including the period of prenatal development) is well documented.Sensitivity to radiation of fetuses is up to 300 times higher than adult sensitivity. 16thin any group of people that is homogenous by race, nationality, gender, age and physiology, there are still individual differences in radiosensitivity.For instance, people with the haptoglobin genotype Нр 2-2 are more than 3 times more sensitive to radiation than individuals with the genotype Нр 1-1 and Нр 2-1. 17The rate of accumulation of cesium-137 in the bodies of Rh positive people is higher than those with Rh negative blood factor. 16blokov

Female Male
Embryo and fetus less sensitive

Cesium Biologic
Half-life

Feature
Narrative Review level irradiation can have a greater biological impact than a high dose.
The linear effect of low doses to lesser impact, higher doses to higher impact holds true only for levels of irradiation above 100 mSv.It has been shown that in response to lowlevel radiation exposure, different cell culture test systems have a biphasic ("supra-linear") response (see fig. 2). 21e radiation response increases from the zero dose point to a certain maximum level and then falls back as the dose is further increased.Raises in dosage past this point causes a second rise in effect.This curious effect at low doses (below 1mSv) may reflect damage to the cell membrane insofar as it is able to support accurate replication of DNA; at a higher dose, this mechanism is swamped, perhaps by direct DNA damage, damage to some other organelle, or because some groups of cells mutate at low doses while dying off at higher levels.

Ingestion (food)
Total difference in intensity of cosmic radiation in the two locales.Later, the data was confirmed and detailed by Astbury, who showed a connection between levels of cosmic radiation (as determined by altitude from ocean level) with mortality rates from ovarian carcinoma and fatal birth defects as taken from statistics from 25 U.S. states (fig.3). 26 Elevated radiation levels from the Earth's crust.The most detailed research on this subject was done in Bavaria based on data from more than 500,000 cases of cancer deaths from 1979 to 1997 in an ethnically homogeneous population with low mobility.Figure 4 shows positive correlation between mortality from all types of cancer and levels of natural γ-radiation from the Earth's crust (t-value 5.9, df = 94, p < 0.0001), regardless of age or gender.27 The differences in the levels of natural radiation in different areas in Bavaria are just fractions of mSv per year.The difference in indicators of cancer mortality for these territories is statistically significant, even when accounting for population density and unemployment rates.The statistically reliable correlation of natural background radiation levels with cancer mortality is also observed if deaths from lung cancer are separated out to rule out possible smokingrelated deaths.The risk (0.236 per Sv) is almost 5 times higher than 0.05 Sv/year, adopted as the official safety standard for anthropogenic radiation.28 The correlation of cancer -changes in the immune system; -premature aging; -genetic instability.22 It is not methodologically correct to consider such impacts reversible or insignificant and hence not count them.These disorders affect active and total life span and should be included in any accounting of health impact.

Some Facts About Low-Dosage Exposure
The UNSCEAR declares that an indicative dose range up to 10 mSv has no direct evidence of human health effects. 23The ICRP established that "the limit should be expressed as an effective dose of 1 mSv in per year". 24In order to correctly assess the effects of radiation exposure on a human individual or population, let us first examine these assumptions by reviewing known cases of low-level radiation exposure.

Effects of high levels of naturallyoccurring radiation
According to the UNSCEAR, the average worldwide dose from all natural sources is about 2.4 mSv per year (see Table 6).
It is logical to suppose that in places where levels of external radiation are higher than average, we can expect to see some effects in the local population.We will take a look at several examples: 1. Cosmic radiation.More than 50 years ago, Wesley found a high correlation between the number of fatal malformations in neonates and the amount of cosmic radiation on the surface of the Earth. 25A large volume of statistical data showed that in equatorial regions there were 1.8 such cases to a thousand newborns, while in regions located above 50° latitude, 5.5 cases to a thousand newborns were recorded.In the Brazilian town of Guarapari, Espíritu Santo, the level of outdoor γ-radiation in the 1970's was, on average, 6.4 mSv per year. In the Yangjian province of South China, a comparison between closely located territories that differed in radiation background levels (5.5 mSv versus 2.1 mSv per year) revealed that in the area with higher background levels there were more cases of Down's Syndrome. 34In the Austrian resort town of Bad Gastein near Salzburg, the local population and personnel at a near-by radon treatment facility showed increased levels of chromosomal abnormalities. 35l this data illustrates that chronic but naturally-occurring γ-radiation does have an effect on human health.

Figure 4 -Correlation between levels of naturally-occurring γ-radiation from the Earth's crust and number of deaths from cancer in administrative regions of Bavaria from 1979 to 1997. (Sources: Korblein and Hoffman, 2006)
Yabokov 2006 Cancer mortality rates in the Bavarian counties as a function of natural background radiation (Korblein, 2003) Narrative Review

Effects of low-level radiation exposure from anthropogenic sources
As the result of the development of the nuclear industry since the 1950's, millions of people have been exposed to elevated levels of man-made radiation.If we read through existing literature, the following cases illustrate the potential effects of low-level exposure to humans: 1.The tale of two "secret" cities.An interesting profile on the effects of low levels of radiation on the health of children is shown in data from two Russian cities in Chelyabinsk Oblast, Ozersk and Snezhinsk, travel to and from which were restricted due to the classified nuclear research that was taking place there: Ozersk and Snezhinsk. 36Because of the controlled  Narrative Review nature of living conditions, data from these two locations is more precise than normally obtainable, including effective dose exposures.The samples are also comparable: both towns are of similar size and have similar social structures, are located in the same geographic zone (in fact, are less than 50 km apart), and are served by the same medical institutions by the same protocols.
Finally, the studies encompassed the entire population of both, which made any difference statistically more significant.The towns differed from each other only in that Snezhinsk was mostly a center for theoretical nuclear work while Ozersk was located near a plutonium-production plant.As a result, the inhabitants of Ozersk were, on average, exposed to nearly twice the anthropogenic γ-radiation than the citizens of Snezhinsk.The resulting data shows that radiation exposure of 0.6 mSv per year more in Ozersk corresponds to an additional 3.2 newborn deaths and 1.3 cases of cancer death per 1,000 children annually (see Table 7).
2. Chernobyl.In one of the many studies on the effects of radiation contamination from the fallout of the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident, two groups of children (6-15 years old at time of initial examination) in areas with different radioactive contamination were studied 9 to 12 years and 12 to 15 years after 1986.Every child was re-examined 2 to 3 years after the initial examination and the levels of incorporated gamma-radionuclides were recorded (see Table 8). 37ble 8 shows that the difference in annual irradiation of less than 1 mSv is related to significant differences in health in almost all the health indicators studied.

Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant.
Indian Point Energy Center is a nuclear power plant located 38 miles north of New York City.Between 1972-1985, the maximum additional radiation exposure from iodine-131 emissions in the area was less than 0.001 mSv per year.
During that period, Gould found there was a slight increase in the rate of low birth-weight African American babies, up to .03% annually.
Figure 5 shows the number of these newborns with body masses below 1,500 grams in New York State in that time period, compared to the total annual emissions of iodine-131 from the Indian Point power plant.A high correlation (r = 0.73; p < 0.001) between these graphs suggests that iodine-131 emissions may have an effect on the body mass of newborns.There are additional shortcomings to the LSS data: significant uncertainty was introduced when re-evaluating levels of radiation exposure in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.The values of received doses of radiation were calculated based on the distance from the epicenter of the nuclear explosion of each individual, and such evaluations were often unreliable.The self-reported location of some survivors, when polled in later years, became closer to the epicenter of the explosion, perhaps due to the fact that the amount of material aid received depended on the value of the estimated dose. 53Also, the dose reconstruction done by the U.S. Department of Energy was not well done and though later re-evaluated, all original working documents were destroyed. 54e difficulty in extrapolating from the LSS cohort data extrapolation is also a result of the specificity of the type of radiation exposure experienced by radiation contamination is the consequence of the testing of atomic bombs in the atmosphere through the 1950's and 1960's.Sakharov calculated that the amount of carbon-14, cesium-137 and strontium-90 produced by the explosion of a 1-megaton atomic bomb led to deaths of 10,000 people from various radiation-related diseases. 39The average global level of radiation exposure due to fallout from weaponized radionuclides was at the highest level in 1963 (0.16 mSv) but in some areas of the world's heavily populated temperate zone it was several times higher. 40This suggests the increase of anthropogenic radiation could be a major reason underlying the increase of stillbirths and infant mortality in the U.S. and parts of the U.K. during this period (Fig. 6). 41,42,43cording to Oftedal, the rate of thyroid cancer in a cohort of 30-to 34-year-old women in Norway doubled over the years 1955-1962, possibly due to an increase of some fraction of 5 mGy due to fallout of iodine-131 from atomic bomb testing. 44e effects of low-level radiation on genetic systems Even in the early period of research on ionizing radiation, it was clear that radiation was a strong mutagenic factor, causing damage to the genetic material of organisms that can be passed along to descendants.After discovering DNA coding in the1960s, the mechanism of how charged particles and energy quanta effected genetic structures became much more clear.
• Internally absorbed doses as low as 0.6-9.2mGy increase frequency of mutations in chromosomes and genes in human somatic cells; 45 Narrative Review people who survive nuclear attack.The impact of a single instance of acute external radiation exposure from a nuclear bomb explosion (which is mostly from neutrons) is difficult to compare to the chronic and mostly internal radiation from which people need protection today.
A frequent argument against admitting the significance of the human health effects from low-level anthropogenic radiation is the comparison of the levels of man-made and natural radiation.Low-level radiation does not seem dangerous because people sometime continue living in places where the level of natural background radiation may be dozens of times higher than the average world level.This argument is not convincing for two reasons.First, as shown above, some negative human health effects are indeed observed in places where the natural background level of radiation is elevated.Second, in locations of elevated natural radiation levels where a population has lived for many generations, it is expected that intensive natural selection has taken place, leading to decreased individual sensitivity to radiation.Experiments with rodents have shown that natural selection over several generations may increase the level of radiation resistance in a population. 15

Conclusion
The concept of an individual effective equivalent dose made use of by ICRP and UNSCEAR emerged before some of the main discoveries of the functioning of internal cell structures (e.g.DNA replication processes) were made, before studies were done of various complicated responses of cells, tissues, organs and the body to different radiation levels, before many discoveries of the biophysics and physics of ionizing radiation.So the concept today is the sum of numerous separate small constructions which, when scrutinized with modern eyes, no longer properly hold together.
In summary, the concept of an individual effective equivalent dose is based on a series of arguments that are out-dated and faulty, leading to unsupportable conclusions.Even the data used to arrive at these conclusions comes from sources that are sometimes unreliable due to political or historical exigencies.A new way to think about radiation safety, using the realities of modern data and science, must be constructed.

Acknowledgements
of 1 joule of energy absorbed by 1 kg of body mass

Figure 3 -
Figure 3 -Correlation between fatal birth defects in 1950-1956 (Top, r = -0.82,p < 0.0001) and ovarian carcinoma in 1950-1954 (Bottom, r = -0.83,p < 0.0001) among the Caucasian population in 25 U.S. states, depending on the dose from cosmic radiation; the thinner the atmospheric air layer, the more intense is the cosmic radiation and its negative effects.(Source: Astbury, 2007)

FirstTable 8 -Figure 5 -
Figure 5 -Emissions of iodine -131 (CI, logarithmic scale) from the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant and the percentage of live African-American newborns with body weights under 1,500 g in the state of New York, 1972-1985.(Source:Gould, 2006)

38
Figure5shows the number of these newborns with body masses below 1,500 grams in New York State in that time period, compared to the total annual emissions of iodine-131 from the Indian Point power plant.A high correlation (r = 0.73; p < 0.001) between these graphs suggests that iodine-131 emissions may have an effect on the body mass of newborns.38

Table 1 -Chernobyl's Gamma and Beta Radionuclides and Rates of Decay (Source: Pshenichnikov. 1996)
ruthenium-106, barium-140, etc.) and alpha emitters (plutonium and americium).After Fukushima, similar hot particles were observed on the West Coast of the United States.

4,21 Summary
As a result of adhering to the previous eight arguments, UNSCEAR and ICRP came to two main conclusions:For radiation-induced health effects from low doses, ICRP and UNSCEAR count only terminal cancer and major congenital disorders.But genetic changes, i.e. chromosomal mutations, occur in all people exposed to low-level radiation.In addition, all exposed individuals experience changes to the immune system and all irradiated men experience disorders of spermatogenesis.The consequences of low-level chronic radiation include, to name just a sampling:

Table 6 -Annual Average Individual Dose From Natural Radiation Sources
(Source: UNSCEAR, 2006) . I deeply appreciate the help of many people in the writing of this paper and for engaging in discussions of the low dose effects with me and correcting drafts, among whom are included (even if not all of them agree with my theories): Alfred Korblein, Michael