What's New?
•	National Radiation Protection Professionals Week, 2-8 November 2008
	HPS Issues Position on Ensuring a Domestic Supply of Medical Radioisotopes
	HPS Comments on Radioactive CsCl Source Security and Replacement
•	October Newsletter
•	October Journal

Upcoming Events
•	IRPA 12 19-24 October 2008
•	HPS Midyear Meeting Recent Advances in Planning and Response to Radiation Emergencies 31 January - 3 February 2009 San Antonio, Texas
•	54th Annual Meeting of the Health Physics Society 12-16 July 2009 Minneapolis, Minnesota

11 October 2008

Answer to Question #1757 Submitted to "Ask the Experts"

Category: Environmental and Background Radiation — Soil and Fallout

The following question was answered by an expert in the appropriate field:

Like thousands of other people, I was appalled at the contents of the recent government report on the impact of radiation fallout. I developed osteosarcoma in 1955 and survived. The government report has me wondering about the connection between radiation and bone cancer in children. My family lived in Nevada in the early 1950s and my father worked at one of the nuclear sites. Most of the children with osteosarcoma died in those days—95% if I'm correct. So I am curious how these children have been included in the demographic studies. I am also curious if studies can be made measuring the presence of mutations or radiation in survivors? If a connection can be made, I would like to include myself in the data bank. I would appreciate it very much if you could point me in some useful directions.

Unfortunately, no one can say with absolute certainty whether your osteosarcoma was or was not related to fallout radiation. There are several reasons for the uncertainty:

Your radiation dose, if any, is unknown—or at least not stated.
The interval between radiation exposure and appearance of any radiation-induced cancer is known to be years to decades. Most of the cancers in Japanese atomic bomb survivors appeared after 1970, some 25 years after exposure. Your diagnosis of osteosarcoma in 1955 puts it in the uncertain-to-unlikely time range after exposure.
There are no data that show unequivocally that low-dose radiation (such as from most fallout) causes cancer or any other harmful effect. Conversely, there are no data that prove that these exposures are completely without effect. There is a growing body of evidence that shows that, at the molecular or cellular level, these small doses are not harmful—but these results cannot be safely extrapolated to effects such as human cancer.

A number of studies have been done on cancer incidence, mutations, etc., in populations exposed to radiation. Fatalities are included. In fact, some studies have used only fatalities because of greater certainty in the data. These studies have shown an association between radiation at higher doses and cancer—but not at doses below about 100 mSv delivered at high dose rates. At low dose rates, such as from fallout, environmental, or medical, the radiation effect per unit dose is substantially less. No studies have shown any statistically significant increase in mutations in any human population exposed to radiation. Hope this is helpful.

S. Julian Gibbs, DDS, PhD

Answer posted on 14 March 2002. The information and material posted on this Web site is intended as general reference information only. Specific facts and circumstances may alter the concepts and applications of materials and information described herein. The information provided is not a substitute for professional advice and should not be relied upon in the absence of such professional advice specific to whatever facts and circumstances are presented in any given situation. Answers are correct at the time they are posted on the Web site. Be advised that over time, some requirements could change, new data could be made available, or Internet links could change. For answers that have been posted for several months or longer, please check the current status of the posted information prior to using the responses for specific applications.