=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL’S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #62
—February 1, 1988—
News and resources for environmental justice.
——
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@igc.apc.org
==========
The Back issues and Index are available
here.
The official RACHEL archive is here.
It’s updated constantly.
To subscribe, send E-mail to rachel-weekly-
request@world.std.com
with the single word SUBSCRIBE in the message. It’s free.
===Previous issue==========================================Next issue===
DANGERS OF RADIATION ARE NOW INCREASING IN MUNICIPAL WASTE.
Two recent trends are both causing more and more radioactive
material to flow into municipal landfills. In late 1987 the
federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) re-classified large
amounts of “low level” radioactive waste as “below regulatory
concern” (in other words, too low to worry about). These wastes,
from hospitals, laboratories, and nuclear power plants, used to
be put into special (expensive) landfills, but now they can
legally be sent to the town dump. At the same time, radioactive
wastes are increasingly being incorporated into industrial and
consumer products, which ultimately get thrown into the town
dump–or are incinerated, then dumped. The safety implications
of these trends must be questioned, particularly in light of new
scientific evidence about the dangers of radioactivity to humans.
X-rays were first discovered in 1895 and came into widespread use
for medical purposes soon thereafter. Many early radiation
researchers died from cancer caused by the radiation used in
their experiments. Likewise, early medical uses of radiation
killed many patients. As recently as the 1950s, for example,
many pregnant women were routinely given pelvic examinations by
x-ray. Then in 1956, Dr. Alice Stewart published her landmark
paper showing that pelvic irradiation increased the incidence of
childhood cancer and leukemia by 50%. Today doctors take
considerable pains to avoid fetal exposure to radiation, but the
lesson was costly to learn.
Radiation regulations in the United States are constantly
tightening. What used to seem sensible and safe is now recognized
as foolhardy and dangerous. Unfortunately, these regulations can
only work in situations where exposure of individuals can be
measured and controlled, such as medical exposures and exposures
of workers in nuclear power plants. Radioactive wastes in
municipal landfills are, by their nature, uncontrollable.
Despite the trend toward tightened regulations, there is a
counter-trend putting more and more radioactive material into
commercial products. Exposures from these sources are thus
increasingly difficult to control. “Industrial and consumer
devices incorporating radionuclides are proliferating as fast as
inventors and entrepreneurs can dream them up,” says Dr. John
Gofman, Professor Emeritus at University of California at
Berkeley.
Many people have heard of the unfortunate women who in the 1920s
got cancer because they painted dials of wrist watches with
radioactive radium-226. What is not so well-known is that
selfilluminating radioactive watches are still being sold;
radioactive tritium and radioactive promethium-147 have been
substituted for radium. Exposures to the general public from this
source are low, but the trend is clear: more and more radioactive
material is being used in commercial products. In 1977–the most
recent list we could find–the United Nations published a
four-page list of consumer products containing radioactive
materials. The list includes many radioluminescent products with
the radionuclide embedded in paint or plastic: aircraft
instruments, compasses, instrument dials and markers, thermostat
dials and pointers, automobile lock illuminators, automobile
shift quadrants, bell pushes, fishing lights and spirit levels.
The radioactive elements involved are tritium, promethium-147 and
radium-226.
Radioactive elements in sealed tubes are marketed in timepieces,
ordinary compasses, marine compasses, marine navigation
instruments, markers, signs, indicators, exit signs, step
markers, mooring lights and buoys, public telephone dials, light
switch markers, bell pushes and miniature light sources. The
radionuclides involved are tritium and krypton-85.
Electronic and electrical devices employing radionuclides include
electronic tubes, glow discharge tubes, voltage discharge tubes,
cold cathode tubes, fluorescent lamp starters, highpressure
mercury-vapor lamps, vacuum tubes, glow lamps, spark-gap tubes,
high-voltage protective devices and low-voltage fuses. The
radionuclides involved are tritium, cesium-137, radium-226,
thorium, nickel-63, cobalt-60, krypton-85 and promethium-147.
Gas and aerosol (smoke) detectors, now numbering in the millions,
can contain Americium-241, radium-226, and plutonium238. (There
are non-radioactive smoke detectors sold as well.)
Eyeglass lenses are on the market containing up to 30% by weight
of radioactive uranium and thorium. Dental porcelains are
marketed containing a combination of radioactive uranium and
cerium, aimed at simulating the fluorescence of natural teeth in
daylight and artificial light. Some ceramics (dinner plates)
have been reported to contain as much as 10% uranium or thorium.
The mantels of Coleman lanterns are made of radioactive thorium.
The United Nations, in reporting this partial list of radioactive
consumer products, concluded with these remarks: “It must be
pointed out, however, that accurate information on the
[radio]activities contained in the consumer products and on the
number of products manufactured is sometimes difficult to
obtain.” Manufacturers are reluctant to discuss radioactivity in
their products.
We must stress that the levels of radioactivity in these products
are low. Still, as new evidence becomes available, radioactivity
seems to be more dangerous to humans that previously realized.
In December, 1987, SCIENCE magazine (voice of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science) described new studies
showing that radiation of humans is two to seven times more
cancer-causing then previously thought. Science pointed out that
“most of what we know about the biological effects of radiation”
comes from studies of people who lived in Hiroshima and Nagasaki
at the time we A-bombed them, 45 years ago. Since that time,
studies have been underway to estimate the radiation doses
received by various individuals and the resulting medical
effects. In 1965, calculations of the radiation dose were used
throughout the world to set permissible radiation exposure
levels. “It turns out, however, that those calculations were
wrong,” reports SCIENCE. The doses that A-bomb victims received
were much lower than previously thought; thus the dangers of low
exposures are far greater than previously realized. (An actual
model of the Hisoshima bomb was constructed at the government’s
laboratory at Los Alamos, New Mexico, and was not exploded but
was run as a controlled reactor while measurements were taken.)
Dr. Arthur Upton of New York University says new cancer mortality
data from Japan “are causing total risk to appear much larger
than it did a few years ago.” The risk is greater among adults
but greater still among children. Among children, radiation seems
to be ten to 12 times more dangerous than formerly thought.
As the cancer risks from radiation rise, and as more and more
radioactive material gets flows into municipal landfills, we must
recognize that the town dump has become more dangerous than we
used to think.
Data from: Leslie Roberts, “Atomic Bomb Doses Reassessed,”
SCIENCE, Vol. 238 (Dec. 18, 1987), pgs. 1649-1651; United Nations
Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), SOURCES
AND EFFECTS OF SCIENTIFIC RADIATION (New York: United Nations,
1977); John W. Gofman, RADIATION AND HUMAN HEALTH (San Francisco:
Sierra Club, 1981).
–Peter Montague, Ph.D.
Descriptor terms: radiation; msw; landfilling; nrc; llw;
regulation; nuclear power; laboratories; hospitals; radioactive
wastes; incineration; health; health statistics; cancer; death;
death statistics; studies; findings; irradiation; leukemia; alice
stewart; regulations; john gofman; consumer protection; radium;
united nations; tritium; promethium-147; radium-226;
radionuclides; american association for the advancement of
science; nuclear weapons; arthur upton; risk assessment; leslie
roberts; sierra club;