Cover-up of the effects of internal exposure by residual radiation from the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

The criteria certifying atomic bomb disease adopted by the Japanese government are very different from the actual state of the survivors. The criteria are based on epidemiological research by the Radiation Effects Research Foundation, the successor to the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission (ABCC). The ABCC studied only the effects of primary radiation from the atomic bombing on the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and ignored the damage from residual radiation. Analysis of the incidence of acute radiation disease, the rate of chromosomal aberrations, and the relative risks of chronic disease among the survivors, shows that the effects of residual radiation from fallout exceeds that of primary radiation in the area more than 1.5-1.7 km distant from the hypocentre of the Hiroshima bombing. The effects of internal exposure due to intake of tiny radioactive particles are more severe than those of external exposure, explaining the difference between the official criteria and the actual state of the survivors.

Performance of functions; claims for compensation under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000, as amended. Final rule

On June 8, 2005, the Department of Labor (DOL) published interim final regulations that govern its responsibilities under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000, as amended (EEOICPA or Act). Part B of the Act provides lump-sum payments of $150,000 and medical benefits to covered employees and, where applicable, to survivors of such employees, of the Department of Energy (DOE), its predecessor agencies and certain of its vendors, contractors and subcontractors. Part B also provides lump-sum payments of $50,000 and medical benefits to individuals found eligible by the Department of Justice (DOJ) for $100,000 under section 5 of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) and, where applicable, to their survivors. Part E of the Act provides variable lump-sum payments (based on a worker's permanent impairment and/or calendar years of qualifying wage-loss) and medical benefits for covered DOE contractor employees and, where applicable, provides variable lump-sum payments to survivors of such employees (based on a worker's death due to a covered illness and any calendar years of qualifying wage-loss). Part E also provides these same payments and benefits to uranium miners, millers and ore transporters covered by section 5 of RECA and, where applicable, to survivors of such employees. At the same time the Department published the interim final regulations, it also invited written comments and advice from interested parties regarding possible changes to those regulations. This document amends the interim final regulations based on comments that the Department received.

Some novel approaches for radioprotection and the beneficial effect of natural products

Due to the increased use of ionizing radiation in various aspects of human life especially in areas pertaining to radiotherapy of cancer, food preservation, agriculture, industry and power generation, there is a need to develop an effective and non-toxic radioprotector. The currently available ones have many drawbacks including high cost, side effects and toxicity. Several novel approaches are on to locate a potent radioprotector. These include mimics of antioxidant enzymes, nitroxides, melatonin, growth factors, gene therapy, hyperthermia apart from natural products. The latter has several advantages since they are non-toxic with proven therapeutic benefits. These can be classified as natural compounds and plant extracts; polyherbal formulations; besides natural and semi-natural compounds of plant origin. A review of the above agents, their efficacy in radioprotection and possible mechanisms responsible has been carried out. As India and many Eastern countries have an enormous heritage of vast natural dietary and time tested medicinal resources it is worth exploring the possibility of developing efficient, economically viable and clinically acceptable radioprotectors for human application from these resources.

Performance of functions; claims for compensation under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act. Interim final rule; request for comments

This document contains the interim final regulations governing the administration of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000, as amended (EEOICPA or Act) by the Department of Labor (Department or DOL). Part B of the Act provides uniform lump-sum payments and medical benefits to covered employees and, where applicable, to survivors of such employees, of the Department of Energy (DOE), its predecessor agencies and certain of its vendors, contractors and subcontractors. Part B of the Act also provides smaller uniform lump-sum payments and medical benefits to individuals found eligible by the Department of Justice (DOJ) for benefits under section 5 of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) and, where applicable, to their survivors. Part E of the Act provides variable lump-sum payments (based on a worker's permanent impairment and/or years of established wage-loss) and medical benefits for covered DOE contractor employees and, where applicable, provides variable lump-sum payments to survivors of such employees (based on a worker's death due to a covered illness and any years of established wage-loss). Part E of the Act also provides these same payments and benefits to uranium miners, millers and ore transporters covered by section 5 of the RECA and, where applicable, to survivors of such employees. The Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) administers the adjudication of claims and the payment of benefits under EEOICPA, with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) estimating the amounts of radiation received by employees alleged to have sustained cancer as a result of such exposure and establishing guidelines to be followed by OWCP in determining whether such cancers are at least as likely as not related to employment. Both DOE and DOJ are responsible for notifying potential claimants and for submitting evidence necessary for OWCP's adjudication of claims under EEOICPA.

Radiation risk in the context of liability for injury

It is perceived by the man in the street that low-level radiation from a nuclear facility is more dangerous than that from other practices. The radiation protection system, in particular the ALARA principle, leads to concerns that even the smallest exposure to radiation is abnormal and dangerous. Public perception of the radiation risk leads to fear in the minds of the public. A consequence of this fear itself may be damage to health in the form of psychological damage or nervous shock. The paper draws attention to the liability for damages by radiation, in particular under the common law of the UK and US, and how liability, determined by the court, is not necessarily influenced by scientific rationality. A natural conclusion may be that a claimant suffering injury of the type caused by radiation and who had been exposed to radiation, no matter how small a dose, that could be shown to come from a nuclear installation would be awarded damages against the licensee of the site of the installation unless it could be shown that the injury was predominantly caused by another source (radioactive or otherwise).

[Comparative analysis of the effectiveness of countermeasures in rural settlements in the long-term period after the accident at the Chernobyl AES]

A comparative analysis of the strategy of countermeasures aimed at reducing exposure doses to the rural population is presented. The effectiveness of the proposed system of countermeasures assessed by criteria such as reduction factor of exposure doses and cost of averted doses. Costs of countermeasures in the rural settlements located in the affected zone are calculated for a long term after the Chernobyl NPP accident.

Financial compensation for radiotherapy-related adverse events in a judicial system where proof of medical negligence is not required

PURPOSE

To examine the frequency of adverse events related to radiation therapy that lead to financial compensation in a judicial system that is not based on litigation in court but on statutory insurance where proof of medical negligence is not required for obtaining compensation.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

In Finland, an injured patient does not sue through the courts, but submits an insurance claim to the Patient Insurance Association. Proof of medical negligence is not required for obtaining compensation. We reviewed all filed claims associated with radiotherapy presented to the Patient Insurance Association from May 1987 to January 1999. During this time period, 1,732,000 patient visits to radiation therapy units were made, and the estimated number of radiotherapy treatments was 86,600. The data collected included descriptions of the adverse events, examination of the radiation therapy procedures followed, assessment of the causal relation of the event to radiotherapy by the therapists involved and by independent reviewers, and the sums used for compensation.

RESULTS

Only 102 patients (about 0.1%) had filed a claim for financial compensation, and in 18 (0.02%) cases the claim led to compensation. The mean national annual expenditure used for compensation was $35,200, and the sums paid in single cases ranged from $310 to $287,430 (median, $1,970). The expenditure used for compensating adverse radiation events was about $4 per treated patient, which is about 0.3% of all radiation therapy costs.

CONCLUSIONS

The frequency of radiation therapy injuries that are financially compensated can remain low in an insurance-based judicial system where no litigation or attorneys are involved.

[Could the evaluation of the cost of complications be a worthwhile means to improve radiotherapy?]

At the present time, the current improvement of technical and dosimetric aspects of radiation oncology has to be evaluated in terms of potential benefit for the patient and the society. For this last point of view, specially designed economic analyses must be performed in order to justify the number of resources involved by these technical improvements. If the question is how the current technical procedures could reduce the risk of undesirable side-effects, the response cannot be immediately drawn from the literature. This paper emphasizes the possibility to evaluate the role of side-effects as endpoints of economic analyses when using special models in medical decision making such as Markov's. Only few oncologic situations are reliable to properly analyze the relationship between sophisticated radiation techniques and the incidence of post-radiation complications. These situations should be selected when prospective economic analyses are planned in the field of radiation therapy.

Disease subject to presumptive service connection (radiation risk activity)--VA. Final rule

This document amends Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) adjudication regulations concerning diseases presumed to be the result of exposure to ionizing radiation. This amendment is necessary to implement Public Law 103-446, the Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act, which provides that the term "radiation risk activity" includes the onsite participation in a test involving the atmospheric detonation of a nuclear device by the United States and by other governments. The intended effect of this amendment is to extend the presumption of service connection for radiogenic disabilities to those veterans exposed to radiation during active military service due to onsite participation in atmospheric nuclear tests conducted by nations other than the United States.

The Charles F. Prentice Medal Award Lecture 1992: optometry and the preservation of visual health

The discovery that sunlight is the primary causal factor in a family of serious eye diseases is doubly significant because it offers a simple, safe, and inexpensive means of preventing all of them simultaneously. The need for prevention is underscored by the terrible expense of sunlight-related eye diseases--$50 billion for cataract surgery in the U.S. during the past decade, plus the added cost to society of visual impairment and blindness. There is widespread scientific agreement that the use of eyewear with lenses that preferentially absorb the high-energy components of the solar spectrum, including 100% of UV radiation, will substantially reduce the risk of all sunlight-related eye diseases without interfering with visual function. A program to preserve visual health by such means can be based primarily on public education. Because the method of preventing these diseases is the use of appropriate eyewear, this unprecedented opportunity falls within the field of expertise of optometry.