The Chemical and Nuclear age have nothing to do with our 40% lifetime chance
of getting cancer. (Paraphrased)

This is how David Brenner, PhD, of the The Center for Radiological Research at Columbia, answered my question on at a talk on "The Many Ways Radiation Affects our Lives". The talk was held at Hofstra College on Dec. 1st, 2011.

I formulated my question after Dr. Brenner quizzed the audience on if we knew what our lifetime chances of getting cancer was. After a few guesses that were on the low side, he informed us we all had a 40% chance of getting cancer during our lifetime. I asked "In the 1950s, chemicals in our environment, food, and personal products became widespread, at the same time US nuclear testing released the equivalent in radiation of 18,000- 29,000 Hiroshimas. Within 10 years cancer rates began escalating towards the epidemic rates they are at today.
Do you disagree?"

The Radiation and Public Health Project (RPHP) is a nonprofit educational and scientific organization, started by scientists and physicians. It is dedicated to understanding the relationships between low-level, nuclear radiation and public health. From their website:

"During the first half century of the Nuclear Age a growing body of medical and scientific evidence has emerged to demonstrate a probable causal link between low-level internal radiation from the ingestion of man-made fission products and world-wide increases in immune deficiency diseases, especially cancer and those affecting the newborn. RPHP has assembled much of the epidemiological evidence documenting these links."

"Five books published by RPHP research associates summarize hundreds of articles in peer-reviewed journals dealing with these impacts of ingested, low-level fission products--products which did not exist in nature prior to the Nuclear Age. In addition to the effects upon the immune response of all age groups, the very young have been especially affected. RPHP has repeatedly pointed out the radiation-induced damage apparent in official vital statistics, tracing changes in infant mortality rates and underweight live births in the postwar period, especially during the above ground nuclear test years of the 1950s and the 1960s."

"RPHP has also been able to track the radiation-induced damage done to the hormonal and immune systems of the 80 million baby boomers born between 1945 and 1965 in each of the post war decades, revealing the various epidemiological anomalies: In the 1950s, children born after the enormous initial exposure to nuclear fission products began to experience epidemic increases in childhood cancer in the ages 5 to 9."

Even the National Cancer Institute (NCI) states that although cancer incidence has declined somewhat since the year 2000 (smoking declined during the last decade as well) childhood cancer has been on the rise for the last decade. I would have liked to ask Dr. Brenner what could possibly have caused that if not contact with toxic substances the environment either before or after birth.

I assume he was ignorant of the fact that even the National Cancer Institute has declared that diet and lifestyle changes can reduce one's risk by 75%. He might have pointed this out rather than scare us all with the 40% statistic.

He completely ignored the subject of internal exposure through contaminated water or food. When questioned, he did admit they have no data on this, so he did not address it.

It is well known that children are very sensitive to radiation, with results ranging from birth defects, leukemia and lower IQ. What has been covered up is the high risk women face. The difference between external radiation, upon which the IAEA model is based, and radioactive particles that are ingested, through breathing or eating, is not even looked at.

Here some highlights from the NIRS briefing paper:

"The fact that this information has not been widely reported has deprived women of our right to know about this threat and protect ourselves from this harm. In addition to the 'right to know,' women have the right to protection. The U.S. Constitution guarantees “equal protection under the law.” International “allowable” radiation levels do not reflect disproportionate harm to women – or the extent to which they say they do, they are not protective."

"In the U.S. it may be necessary to depart from the international radiation regime in order to deliver constitutional rights to the more than 150 million females in the United States."

"Further, this situation violates the Right to Free Prior and Informed Consent as recognized throughout the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and other international human rights instruments, norms and standards;5 particularly Article 19:States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.
To our knowledge, no women, indigenous or otherwise, have given 'informed consent' to a striking lack of protection from ionizing radiation."

"The world’s radiation standards were originally developed to allow exposure rather than to prevent it. This makes sense given the historical context: the need for such regulation arose in the early 20th Century when exposure to human-concentrated or human-generated radioactivity was rare. The Manhattan Project, the all-out national effort to develop the first atomic bombs, was one of the original “drivers” pushing the development of “permissible” radiation exposure levels. It is also the origin of assuming the individual receiving a radiation dose is a male--a Manhattan Project worker. With the advent of nuclear energy and the facilities that produce nuclear fuel and handle waste, these standards have become evermore generalized to a larger and larger public."

"The current limits for most industrial radiation in the U.S. allow fatal cancer among members of the general public at a rate that is between 300--3000 times higher than the legal rate of harm from most other industrial hazards."

"A hazardous industry has traditionally been defined as one that causes cancer in one individual in a million. The Environmental Protection Agency’s goals for clean-up of contamination on industrial Super Fund sites is a risk of one in a million exposed getting cancer, with exceptions down to 1 cancer in 10,000 people exposed. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission now “allows” radiation levels to the general public that it projects would result in 1 fatal cancer in every 286 people (well, actually, adult men) exposed over a lifetime. However, this is “apples” compared to “oranges.” EPA regulations reference cancer incidence. NRC references deaths; if non-fatal cancers were included by NRC, the comparison would be even “worse.” We are less protected by NRC radiation standards than the regulation of other toxic hazards by EPA."

"The NRC limit of 100 millirems a year is comparable to the NAS 100 millirad study level. NRC’s risk assessment of 1 fatal cancer in every 286 exposed does not reflect the NAS findings that radiation at this level to women results in 1 fatal cancer in every 201 women. The NRC equation underestimates the risk to women by nearly 40%. Since NRC does not differentiate between men and women in its regulations, it does not regulate to specifically protect women. Thus women are not equally protected where such standards are in place."

Read the entire paper at: NIRS