Nuclear Energy For Canada (Jerry Cuttler)

Darlington New Nuclear Power Plant Project Joint Review Panel ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Projet de nouvelle centrale nucléaire de Darlington Commission d’examen conjoint

PMD 11-P1.58A File / dossier : 8.01.07 Date: 2011-02-07 Edocs:3675003

Written submission from Cuttler & Associates Inc.

Mémoire de Cuttler & Associates Inc.

In the Matter of

À l’égard de

Ontario Power Generation Inc.

Ontario Power Generation Inc.

Environmental Assessment pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act of a proposal by Ontario Power Generation for a Project that includes site preparation, construction, operation, decommissioning and abandonment of up to four new nuclear power reactors at its existing Darlington Nuclear Site located near Oshawa, Ontario, in the Municipality of Clarington and a Licence to Prepare a Site application for the Project under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act.

L’évaluation environnementale, en vertu de la Loi canadienne sur l’évaluation environnementale, du projet d’Ontario Power Generation qui inclut la préparation de l’emplacement, la construction, l’exploitation, le déclassement et l’abandon de jusqu’à quatre nouveaux réacteurs nucléaires sur le site de la centrale nucléaire Darlington près d’Oshawa (Ontario), dans la municipalité de Clarington, et une demande de permis de préparation de l’emplacement, aux termes de la Loi sur la sûreté et la réglementation nucléaires.

Public Hearing

Audience publique

March 21, 2011

Le 21 mars 2011

Cuttler & Associates Inc Darlington New Nuclear Power Plant Project Environmental Impact Assessment – Public Hearing beginning on March 21, 2011 Written Submission to the Joint Review Panel

Is the Supply of More Nuclear Energy to the People of Ontario Environmentally and Socially Acceptable?

By Dr. Jerry M. Cuttler, D.Sc., P.Eng.

Introduction Since the Pickering A Nuclear Generation Station began supplying affordable electricity to the people of Ontario forty years ago, in 1971, our use of nuclear energy has grown substantially. In the 1990s, we had twenty working reactors that supplied two-thirds of our needs. Today, two of the Pickering A units have been shut down and two of the Bruce A units are being refurbished.

The remaining 16 units now provide about 50 percent of our needs. Our nuclear plants have been ageing and their equipment is becoming increasingly obsolete. With the present concerns about environmental pollution from coal and gas-fired power plants and about the long-term availability of gas (methane) at an affordable price, it is very important that we refurbish our existing nuclear plants and build new ones. Many wind generators have been constructed in Ontario over the past five years, at great cost, to exploit this “renewable” form of energy; however, it is as unreliable as the wind itself. Windmills cannot supply a significant fraction of our vital needs without full backup from gas-fired generators. The August 14, 2003 blackout reminded us that “nothing works without electricity.” The Canadian Nuclear Society provides an Internet website that shows where Ontario’s electricity comes from at this hour (CNS 2011).

Nuclear Energy and the Environment Nuclear energy has been very good for our environment. The air, water and land around nuclear plants are clean and healthy. Their design, construction, operation and decommissioning are performed carefully, based on many plant-years of shared knowledge and experience. Releases of radioactivity are typically a hundred times below the regulatory limits, which are far below any hazardous levels. The mining and processing of uranium into fuel are carried out under strict regulations. The used fuel is stored safely in deep water pools for five to ten years and then transferred into robust containers made from steel and reinforced concrete, which will remain leak tight for thousands of years. No containers have leaked, and no living organism is exposed to any harm from the used fuel.

Some people are concerned about the long-term management of our used fuel because some of the radionuclides in this material, including most of the original uranium, will remain radioactive after tens of thousands of years. They should be informed that less than one percent of the energy in this material has been released in our CANDU plants. When our low cost uranium resources become scare, future generations of Canadians will build nuclear energy plants of a 1781 Medallion Court, Mississauga, Ontario, L5J 2L6, 416 837 8865, jerrycuttler@rogers.com

Cuttler & Associates Inc. type that we already know about, to augment our CANDUs. Being technologically more advanced than we are, our grandchildren will recycle our used fuel in these new plants. They will transform nearly all of the remaining uranium into fuel and release its energy for their own benefit. 1 Most of the long-lived radioactivity in our used fuel will be transformed into shortlived radionuclides. The final amount of waste, per unit of energy (kilowatt-hour), will be a very small sealed volume (or weight) compared with the very large amount of chemical waste that we produce and release by burning conventional fuels. The ultimate nuclear waste will be stored very easily, above or below ground level.

As can be seen in the reactions below, the amount of energy that we obtain from splitting one atom of uranium is enormous—about forty million times the amount of energy that we obtain from burning one atom of carbon.

C + O2 → CO2 + 4.1 eV U + n → 2FPs + 2.5n + 160,000,000 eV There are large amounts of uranium near the surface of the Earth that are being mined. When the concentrated deposits on land are depleted, the significant concentration of dissolved uranium in the oceans will be tapped. This source is being augmented by the uranium that is carried in the rivers. It is clear that fission of uranium is a “sustainable” and “renewable” source of energy.

Darlington Site This location for a new power plant, to generate up to 4800 megawatts of electricity, is already licensed as a nuclear site. The existing 3600 MW Darlington Nuclear Generating Station 2 has been operating economically for more than twenty years without any significant adverse impact on the environment (Strickert 1996). This place is near large load centres, and there is adequate land and cooling water to accommodate the new plant on the same site. The new electricityproducing units will benefit from a sharing of facilities, such as: roads, electricity transmission lines, the tritium removal facility and the known environmental information about this site.

Type of Reactor The CANDU 6 reactor design (700 MW), like that constructed recently for the Qinshan Project, is available and licensable. This reactor was originally designed to load follow (its normal mode of operation), i.e., to vary its output power from about 60 to 100 percent full power, in response to actual changes in customer power requirements. This is a very important feature in Ontario because nuclear energy already supplies most of the base load needs.

1

Several countries have been recycling their used light water reactor (LWR) fuel for many years. Recently, China has investigated the feasibility of blending recycled uranium from their LWRs with depleted uranium to make fuel bundles for their CANDU reactors. This fuel has characteristics that are very similar to normal CANDU fuel.

2 The construction cost of this plant was much higher than expected because of stop-start political decisions during a time of high inflation. The capital cost of the 3600 MW Bruce B NGS was about $6 billion or $1700/kW.

2

Cuttler & Associates Inc. A better design choice might be the CANDU 9 reactor design that was prepared by AECL and reviewed by the CNSC in the mid-1990s, for the Wolsong site in Korea. This is a Darlingtontype reactor (900 MW) that is housed in a CANDU-6 type reactor building. Four CANDU 6 units would provide only 2800 MW of power, while four CANDU 9 units would provide 3600 MW, plus the benefit of equipment commonality with the existing Darlington units.

Light water reactors and Advanced CANDU Reactors (ACRs) have been under consideration for this project, but these designs employ enriched uranium fuel. 3 Their use would add significant cost and complexity to the operation of the new units. The actual performance of the ACR is uncertain. The reliability of its new fuel bundle design will need to be demonstrated by testing many thousands of fuel elements for their full life.

Ontario has a considerable knowledge and experience in the design, licensing, construction, operation and life extension of conventional CANDU reactors. We know that they are just as safe, if not safer, than any other reactor design (Muzamdar and Meneley 2007), and we can build and operate these reactors at low risk using a very high content of Canadian labour and materials.

Social Acceptance Recent polls suggest that most Ontarians support the current supply of electricity using Canadian nuclear technology. They would not oppose additional plants on the current nuclear sites. This support is constrained by the prevalent fear of nuclear radiation that has been exploited for many decades by a well-organized lobby of anti-nuclear political activist groups. They raise radiation safety concerns and loudly oppose construction of nuclear plants, management of used fuel and transport of nuclear materials.

This problem stems from the widespread radiation scare that was created after the first use of nuclear weapons in World War II (Cuttler and Pollycove 2009). During the first half of the past century, medical scientists and radiation workers knew that low doses of ionizing radiation were harmless or beneficial and that high doses were harmful. The hazardous aspects of radiation work were controlled by defining a safe limit for occupational exposures. In 1934, the limit for radiologists was set at 0.2 rad per day (2 mSv/day for x-rays). In 1951, it was lowered to 0.3 rad per week (or 156 mSv/year).

The whole approach changed after the start of the nuclear arms race with the development, testing and production of larger and larger bombs. Strong political opposition arose against this military build-up. Related to this were thoughts about the consequences of radiation-induced damage in cells and organisms. By 1955, the safe threshold concept was arbitrarily rejected by the International Commission on Radiological Protection and the concept of linear no-threshold (LNT) cancer and genetic risks was accepted instead. According to this assumption, even a nearzero dose of radiation can be harmful. The science of radiation biology had become politicized, and with this came a very heavy economic burden of regulatory scrutiny and licensing on all the users of radiation-emitting equipment and substances (Cuttler 2011).

3

Darlington’s operating, maintenance, administration and fuel cost for 1995 was 1.05 cents/kWh. If the corporate overheads are subtracted, the Production Unit Energy Cost was 0.89 cents/kWh. The cost of (NU) fuel in 1995 was 0.26 cents/kWh, which included a provision for permanent fuel disposal of 0.09 cents/kWh (Strickert 1996).

3

Cuttler & Associates Inc. Over the past forty year, many researchers have been studying important and in some cases novel bio-positive effects occurring in the range from 1 to 100 mSv, when exposure is brief, and over a much wider dose range when exposure is protracted (Luckey 1991, Wolf 1992, UNSCEAR 1994, Liu 2003, Sakai et al. 2003, Tubiana et al. 2005, Bauer 2007, Day et al. 2007, Feinendegen et al. 2007, Liu 2007, Ogura et al. 2009). These scientists found that low level radiation actually reduces the natural cell mutation rate in living organisms by stimulating their protective mechanisms, which prevent cell damage, repair damaged cells and tissues and destroy/remove damaged cells including cancer cells.

Based upon human data, a single whole-body dose of 150 mSv (15 rem) is safe. A high natural radiation level of 700 mSv per year (70 rem/year), corresponding to a 70-year lifetime dose of 49 Sv in Ramsar, Iran, is also safe. Both these single and continuous doses are also beneficial (Cuttler and Pollycove 2009). This is valid for humans of all ages and to sensitive, cancer-prone individuals.

The ionizing radiation dose chart in Figure 1 (Metting 2010), although not intended to be highly accurate, is an excellent reflection of some of the scientific knowledge that has been developed over the past century.

Figure 1. Ionizing Radiation Dose Ranges (Metting 2010)

4

Cuttler & Associates Inc. From early childhood, people have been carefully taught that ionizing radiation is dangerous and this delusion of risk has become ingrained as a “meme” over the past 50 years. It is the basis for the ongoing phobia and ostensibly authoritative statements, such as, “no amount of radiation is small enough to be harmless.”

Radiobiologists have been studying radiation effects for more than a century, but their scientific evidence of no harm or improved health is being ignored or rejected because of the adverse indoctrination that has been carried out. For example, a modern textbook, Radiobiology for the Radiologist (Hall and Giaccia 2006), provides a wealth of information about harmful effects of high dose or high dose rate radiation on cells and people, but it applies the LNT assumption to suggest harmful effects to organisms also in the low dose range. This book describes remarkable recoveries to good health following high radiation exposures. However, the textbook commits the very serious error of omission. It does not mention any of the extensive scientific data on the beneficial health effects of low doses and low dose rates that are in the literature. This is very important because nearly every exposure that is related to a nuclear energy event, including a serious accident, is either a low radiation dose or a low radiation level.

Most government regulators, international radiation protection organizations and safety analysts employ the invalid LNT assumption for radiation protection and risk assessment. The ongoing use of this assumption severely constrains nuclear energy projects and the application of vital CT scans in medicine (Cuttler 2010). The average human exposure to ionizing radiation (“collective dose”) in the U.S.A. has grown from ~ 3 mSv per year the early 1980s (Figure 2) to 6.2 mSv in 2006 due to the large increase in medical scanning (NCRP 2006). The average radiation dose from nuclear energy remains at only ~ 0.1 percent of the total (NCRP 2006, Figure 1.1). Yet extensive environmental assessments are required for nuclear energy projects.

Figure 2. Contributors to the Total Collective Effective Dose in the United States (NEA 1994)

5

Cuttler & Associates Inc. Recommendations 1. Ontario should proceed with its plan to build additional nuclear energy plants at the Darlington site because they are needed and they are very good for the environment.

2. Canadian government organizations that regulate the use of ionizing radiations and nuclear technologies should study the recent scientific information about the health effects of low radiation doses and low level radiation, especially their beneficial effects. They should urge radiobiologists, medical scientists and all radiation protection organizations to do likewise.

For years, US NRC Commissioner Lyons has been urging the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement to address the low dose data (Lyons 2011, pp 9-10).

3. Our governments should then prepare and implement a plan to communicate this factual information about radiation to the media and to all Canadians of all ages.

Acting on these recommendations will 1) provide Ontarians with an abundant new supply of affordable and sustainable electricity that is environmentally benign and 2) debunk the radiation scare, allowing Canada’s nuclear energy industry to move forward again.

References Bauer G. 2007. Low Dose Radiation and Intercellular Induction of Apoptosis: Potential Implications for Control of Oncogenesis. Int J Radiat Biol 83: 873-888 CNS (Canadian Nuclear Society). 2011. Where is My Electricity Coming From at This Hour?

Available at: http://media.cns-snc.ca/ontarioelectricity/ontarioelectricity.html Cuttler JM and Pollycove M. 2009. Nuclear Energy and Health: And the Benefits of Low-Dose Radiation Hormesis. Dose-Response 7(1): 52-89. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2664640/ Cuttler JM. 2010. Commentary on Using LNT for Radiation Protection and Risk Assessment.

Dose-Response 8(3): 378–383. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2939692/ Cuttler JM. 2011. Editorial: Is Airport Body-Scan Radiation a Health Risk? Dose-Response 9(1): 1-5. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMCtobeadded/ Day T, Zeng G, Hooker A, Bhat M, Scott BR, Turner DR and Sykes PJ. 2007. Adaptive Response for Chromosomal Inversions in pKZ1 Mouse Prostate Induced by Low Doses of X Radiation Delivered after a High Dose. Radiat Res 167: 682-692 Feinendegen L, Pollycove M and Neumann RD. 2007. Whole-Body Responses to Low-Level Radiation Exposure: New Concepts in Mammalian Radiobiology. Experim Hematol 35: 37-46 Hall EJ and Giaccia AJ. 2006. Radiobiology for the Radiologist. Sixth Edition. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Liu S-Z. 2003. Nonlinear Dose-Response Relationship in the Immune System Following Exposure to Ionizing Radiation: Mechanisms and Implications. Nonlinearity in Biology, Toxicology and Medicine 1(1): 71-92. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2651616/

6

Cuttler & Associates Inc. Liu S-Z. 2007. Cancer Control Related to Stimulation of Immunity by Low-Dose Radiation.

Dose-Response 5: 39-47. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477702/ Luckey TD. 1991. Radiation Hormesis. CRC Press Lyons PB. 2011. Sixth Warren K. Sinclair Keynote Address: The Role of a Strong Regulator in Safe and Secure Nuclear Energy. Health Phys 100(1): 5-11 Metting N. 2010. Ionizing Radiation Dose Ranges (Sievert). U.S. Department of Energy. Office of Science. Office of Biological and Environmental Research. Available at: http://www.remm.nlm.gov/DOE_PosterShowingRadiationDoses_Part2.pdf Muzumdar A and Meneley DL. 2007. Large LOCA Margins & Void Reactivity In CANDU Reactors. CANDU Owners Group. COG-07-9012 NCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement). 2006. Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States. NCRP Report No. 160. Figure 1.1 is available at: http://www.ncrponline.org/images/160_pie_charts/Fig1-1.pdf NEA (Nuclear Energy Agency). 1994. Radiation Protection Overview: International Aspects and Perspective. NEA Issue Brief: An analysis of principal nuclear issues. No. 10. December.

Available at http://www.nea.fr/html/brief/brief-10.html Ogura K, Magae J, Kawakami Y and Koana T. 2009. Reduction in Mutation Frequency by Very Low-Dose Gamma Irradiation of Drosophilia Melanogaster Germ Cells. Radiat Res 171: 1-8 Sakai K, Hoshi Y, Nomura T, Oda T, Iwasaki T, Fujita K, Yamada T and Tanooka H. 2003.

Suppression of Carcinogenic Process in Mice by Chronic Low Dose Rate GammaIrradiation. Int J Low Radiat 1(1): 142-146 Strickert RJ. 1996. Performance of 4 x 935 MWe Darlington Nuclear Generating Station.

Proceedings of Joint KAIF-CNA CANDU Seminar. Seoul. May 1996 Tubiana M, Aurengo A, Averbeck D, Bonnin A, Le Gruen B, Masse R, Monier R, Valleron A-J and de Vathaire R. eds. 2005. Dose-Effect Relationships and the Estimation of the Carcinogenic Effects of Low Doses of Ionizing Radiation. Academy of Medicine (Paris) and Academy of Science (Paris). Joint Report No. 2 UNSCEAR. 1994. Annex B. Adaptive Response to Radiation in Cells and Organisms. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiations. Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation. Report to the General Assembly with Scientific Annexes. New York. Annex B: 185-272 Wolf S. 1992. Failla Memorial Lecture. Is Radiation All Bad? The Search for Adaptation. Radiat Res 131: 117-123

7

Dose-Response, X:xxx–xxx, 2011 Formerly Nonlinearity in Biology, Toxicology, and Medicine Copyright © 2011 University of Massachusetts ISSN: 1559-3258 DOI: 10.2203/dose-response.10-047.Cuttler

EDITORIAL: IS AIRPORT BODY-SCAN RADIATION A HEALTH RISK?

Jerry M. Cuttler

䊐

Cuttler & Associates Inc., Mississauga, ON, Canada

History will remember the inhabitants of this (20th) century as the people who went from Kitty Hawk to the moon in 66 years, only to languish for the next 30 years in low Earth orbit. At the core of the risk-free society is a self-indulgent failure of nerve.

—Buzz Aldrin, Apollo 11 astronaut

The USA is under attack by an ideologically-driven enemy who cleverly exploits vulnerabilities in America’s free society to inflict national suffering and fear. One such area is the enormous volume of airline travel.

It is still an easy target, in spite of the elaborate procedures and the advanced technologies that have been employed over the years to detect highjackers and suicide bombers at the many congested airports.

Luggage has been x-rayed for decades, and now passengers.

Passengers who complained about long delays and objected to careful body searches are now challenged by their fear of receiving a very mild dose of x-rays. Even medical practitioners and scientists who should know better are expressing concerns about risks of cancers and congenital malformations and about harm to a fetus.

X-rays were discovered 115 years ago by Wilhelm Roentgen and have been applied ever since on humans and a very wide variety of other biological organisms in countless research studies, diagnostic procedures and medical treatments. The doses and dose rates have ranged from the lowest possible to highly lethal levels. All organisms, since the beginning of life on Earth, have been exposed to the ubiquitous sea of natural radioactivity and cosmic radiation. As a result of our extensive studies and experience, we know more about the effects of ionizing radiation on health than any other perturbing agent or substance. Many radiobiologists understand how a low dose or a low chronic dose rate can stimulate protective processes in cells, tissues, and organs leading to improved health and that a high dose delivered at a high dose rate can inhibit natural defenses leading to morbidity and loss of life (UNSCEAR 1994; Edwards and Lloyd 1996; Tubiana et al. 2005).

Address correspondence to Jerry M. Cuttler, Cuttler & Associates Inc., Mississauga, ON, Canada. Email: jerrycuttler@rogers.com 1

J. M. Cuttler

The ionizing radiation dose chart in Figure 1 (Metting 2010) although not intended to be highly accurate is an excellent reflection of some of the scientific knowledge developed over the past century. The dose range spans more than six orders of magnitude. The low doses relate to medical diagnostics and to the radiation regulations and guidelines. The moderate doses pertain to space travel, the atomic bomb survivors and cancer epidemiology; the high doses to the acute radiation syndromes and to cancer radiotherapy.

Over the past forty years, many researchers have been studying important and in some cases novel bio-positive effects occurring in the range from 1 to 100 mSv when exposure is brief and over a much wider dose range when exposure is protracted (Luckey 1991; Wolf 1992; Sakai et al.

2003; Tubiana et al. 2005; Bauer 2007; Day et al. 2007; Feinendegen et al 2007; Liu 2007; Ogura et al. 2009).

Based upon human data, a single whole-body dose of 150 mSv (15 rem) is safe. The high natural radiation level of 700 mSv per year (70 rem/year), corresponding to a 70-year lifetime dose of 49 Sv in Ramsar, Iran, is also safe. Both these single and continuous doses are also beneficial (Cuttler and Pollycove 2009). This conclusion is applicable to humans of all ages and to sensitive, cancer-prone individuals.

FIGURE 1. Ionizing Radiation Dose Ranges (Metting 2010)

2

Airport Body-Scan Radiation

The whole-body airport scanner employed by the U.S. Transportation Security Administration is based on an advanced imaging technology, which measures x-rays that are Compton scattered back from the surface of the passenger’s body (JHU-APL 2010). Each scan takes a few seconds and irradiates a passenger with a low energy (28 kilovolt) dose of about 5 microrem (HPS 2010) or 0.05 microSv. It is three million times smaller than the safe dose of 150 mSv. How can there be any concern about possible adverse health effect? There certainly is an enormous margin to increase the dose for improved scan penetration or image quality, if required.

To understand the pervasive radiation phobia, we need to consider its origin. During the first half of the 20th century, the hazardous aspects of ionizing radiation were controlled by defining a safe limit for occupational exposures—mainly radiologists. The limit set in 1934 was 0.2 rads per day (2 mSv/day for x-rays); it was lowered in 1951 to 0.3 rads per week (or 156 mSv/year). The whole approach changed after the use of nuclear weapons to end World War II and the start of the nuclear arms race with the development, testing and production of larger and larger bombs.

Strong political opposition arose against this military build-up. Related to this were thoughts about the consequences of radiation-induced damage in the cells of living organisms. Studies had been carried out on the mutation of cells in fruit flies caused by x-rays. By 1955, the safe threshold concept was arbitrarily rejected by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) and the concept of linear no-threshold (LNT) cancer and genetic risks was accepted instead. According to this assumption, even a near-zero dose of radiation can be harmful. The science of radiation biology had thus become politicized, and with this came a very heavy economic burden of regulatory scrutiny and licensing on all the users of radiation-emitting equipment and substances.

In this new approach, a graph of excess cancer mortality versus radiation dose can be drawn for the Life Span Study cohort of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing survivors. (There have been a few hundred deaths from cancer, in excess of the expected number, in the ~ 87,000 cohort.)

Below a dose of about 500 mSv, the statistics are very poor. Nevertheless, a risk of excess cancer is assigned throughout the low dose range by extending a straight line from the data above 1000 mSv to zero dose. This is the LNT assumption of radiation carcinogenesis. In spite of countless and repeated studies designed to find risk, there is no statistically significant evidence of a cancer risk below a dose 100 mSv. The extensive evidence of beneficial effects in this range is disregarded or concealed (Cuttler 2010; Jaworowski 2010).

In 1959, in its first publication, the ICRP introduced for the first time a dose limit for the general population, based on LNT. Its value of 5 mSv per year was then decreased in 1990 to 1 mSv per year. This level is about 3

J. M. Cuttler

three orders of magnitude below natural radiation doses received by people living in several high natural radiation areas, where no adverse radiation effects were ever observed.

Dr. Roger Clarke, then chairman of the ICRP, stated in 2001 (Clarke 2001): “Since no radiation level higher than natural background can be regarded as absolutely ‘safe,’ the problem is to choose a practical level that, in the light of present knowledge, involves negligible risk.” However, the ICRP has not followed this principle.

From early childhood, people have been carefully taught that ionizing radiation is dangerous and this delusion of risk has become ingrained as a “meme” over the past 50 years. It is the basis for the on-going phobia and ostensibly authoritative statements, such as, “no amount of radiation is small enough to be harmless.” Radiobiologists have been studying radiation effects for more than a century, but their scientific evidence of no harm or improved health is being ignored or rejected because of the adverse indoctrination. Perhaps the social pressure to continue improving air travel security without undue hassle will lead to social awareness and acceptance of the many benefits of ionizing radiation.

REFERENCES Bauer G. 2007. Low Dose Radiation and Intercellular Induction of Apoptosis: Potential Implications for Control of Oncogenesis. Int J Radiat Biol 83: 873-888 Clarke RH. 2001. Progress Towards New Recommendations from the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Nuclear Energy 40(1): 37-45 Cuttler JM and Pollycove M. 2009. Nuclear Energy and Health: And the Benefits of Low-Dose Radiation Hormesis. Dose-Response 7(1): 52-89. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ articles/PMC2664640/ Cuttler JM. 2010. Commentary on Using LNT for Radiation Protection and Risk Assessment. DoseResponse 8(3): 378–383. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC 2939692/ Day T, Zeng G, Hooker A, Bhat M, Scott BR, Turner DR and Sykes PJ. 2007. Adaptive Response for Chromosomal Inversions in pKZ1 Mouse Prostate Induced by Low Doses of X Radiation Delivered after a High Dose. Radiat Res 167: 682-692 Edwards AA and Lloyd DC. 1996. Risks from Deterministic Effects of Ionising Radiation. National Radiological Protection Board. Chilton. UK. Report 7(3): 1-31 Feinendegen L, Pollycove M and Neumann RD. 2007. Whole-Body Responses to Low-Level Radiation Exposure: New Concepts in Mammalian Radiobiology. Experim Hematol 35: 37-46 HPS 2010. X-Ray Security Screening of People. Health Physics Society. Publications. Available at: http://hps.org/documents/wholebodyscanners.pdf Jaworowski Z. 2010. Observations on the Chernobyl Disaster and LNT. Dose-Response 8(2): 148-171.

Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2889503/ JHU-APL 2010. Radiation Safety Engineering Assessment Report for the Rapiscan Secure 1000 in Single Pose Configuration. Version 2.0. NSTD-09-1085. August 2010. The Johns Hopkins University. Applied Physics Laboratory. Available at: http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/jh-aplv2.pdf Liu S-Z. 2007. Cancer Control Related to Stimulation of Immunity by Low-Dose Radiation. DoseResponse 5: 39-47 Luckey TD. 1991. Radiation Hormesis. CRC Press Metting N. 2010. Ionizing Radiation Dose Ranges (Sievert). U.S. Department of Energy. Office of Science. Office of Biological and Environmental Research. Available at: http://www.remm. nlm.gov/DOE_PosterShowingRadiationDoses_Part2.pdf

4

Airport Body-Scan Radiation Ogura K, Magae J, Kawakami Y and Koana T. 2009. Reduction in Mutation Frequency by Very LowDose Gamma Irradiation of Drosophilia Melanogaster Germ Cells. Radiat Res 171: 1-8 Sakai K, Hoshi Y, Nomura T, Oda T, Iwasaki T, Fujita K, Yamada T and Tanooka H. 2003. Suppression of Carcinogenic Process in Mice by Chronic Low Dose Rate Gamma-Irradiation. Int J Low Radiat 1(1): 142-146 Tubiana M, Aurengo A, Averbeck D, Bonnin A, Le Gruen B, Masse R, Monier R, Valleron A-J and de Vathaire R. eds. 2005. Dose-Effect Relationships and the Estimation of the Carcinogenic Effects of Low Doses of Ionizing Radiation. Academy of Medicine (Paris) and Academy of Science (Paris). Joint Report No. 2 UNSCEAR. 1994. Annex B. Adaptive Response to Radiation in Cells and Organisms. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiations. Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation. Report to the General Assembly with Scientific Annexes. New York. Annex B: 185272 Wolf S. 1992. Failla Memorial Lecture. Is Radiation All Bad? The Search for Adaptation. Radiat Res 131: 117-123

5