| SUMMARY
REPORT
The full document compiles a partial summary of the large
body of valid scientific research data on low level radiation health effects that
contradict current international radiation protection policy. It represents contributions
of many independent, knowledgeable, radiation scientists and public policy analysts,
committed to the public interest. Further, it will be supplemented to incorporate
additional significant data from existing and developing scientific evidence.
This data compilation reflects the
large body of research data and analysis that is not adequately considered by the
international radiation protection policy bodies and responsible government agencies.
These institutions presume that low level radiation causes adverse health effects linearly
to zero dose, and cumulatively, with little dose-rate effect, for radiation protection
establishment objectives. This is contrary to the scientific evidence, and to current
knowledge of biology and carcinogenesis that make this presumption scientifically
implausible.
As summarized below, these policies
have been characterized within the knowledgeable biology and radiation science community
as "without scientific foundation", "immoral", "the greatest
scientific scandal of the century", and as "a ‘good old boy’s
network’ of insiders".
These policies cause direct public
costs estimated to exceed US$ 2 Trillion (million-millions) world-wide, of which no more
than a few percent contribute any public health benefits. Such wasted expenditures are
especially significant and immoral in economically constrained societies with significant
real health needs. Indirect costs are much greater.
Many significant research programs
and proposals to investigate and confirm evidence contrary to the linear no-threshold
hypothesis have not been supported by radiation protection policy institutions. Some of
the most significant have been terminated, and reporting of some research results
substantially misrepresent the data.
The evidence contradicts and refutes the linear no-threshold hypothesis (LNTH).
In the early 1950s, radiation health
effects, particularly long-term effects, were largely unknown. Primarily for use in
limiting exposures to nuclear workers, prudent, very conservative assumptions were made to
produce an initial set of criteria, or policy, for this purpose. Normally in technical
developmental situations, as additional research and development is completed, and
knowledge of the subject grows, the original assumptions are reduced in number and the
criteria therefore become less conservative. Radiation protection (RP) policy is a major
exception to this general rule, and has been and is proceeding far in the opposite
direction.
The LNTH is based on
presumptions, from early conservative assumptions used for administrative purposes, that:
1. Health effects documented at
high-doses and high-dose-rates can be projected to zero with no threshold, even though
contradicted by voluminous data and scientific evidence, by scientific principles, and
biology; and
2. Each radiation "hit"
that damages DNA contributes directly to the probability that the cell will develop
cancer, even though low level radiation DNA damage is insignificant compared to normal
oxidative DNA damage (0.3 cGy causes approximately 6 DNA damage events per cell, roughly
the normal background radiation per year, compared to 240,000 per cell per day, or about
90 million per year, from normal oxidative DNA damage).
These presumptions lead to the
concept of collective dose. This adds units that are concentrations, which is
scientifically invalid. Insignificant doses to individuals are multiplied by large
populations to predict health effects. This is equivalent to predicting that: If 5 persons
die in each group of 10 persons given 100 aspirins each, giving one aspirin each to 1000
persons will result in 5 deaths.
The radiation protection policy that
ignores dose rate effects data is equivalent to predicting that: If taking 100 aspirin has
a 50% probability to cause death, 1 aspirin per day for 100 days also has a 50%
probability of causing death. The current presumption of applying a "dose-rate
factor" predicts that: for a dose-rate factor of 2, there is a 25% probability of
causing death. This is equally fallacious.
These presumptions further led to
the policy of "as low as reasonably achievable" (ALARA), which today essentially
requires not only that all regulations be met, but must then be exceeded as dictated by
that ambiguous term, "reasonable".
The biological plausibility of these presumptions are refuted by:
1. The large body of world-wide
radiation health effects data accumulated for over 50 years. This includes stimulatory
biological effects and the beneficial health effects in plants, animals and humans from
low- to moderate-dose radiation exposures, and data on positive immune responses that have
prevented and even cured cancer and other diseases.
2. Current knowledge of cellular and
molecular biology. This includes DNA repair mechanisms to accommodate 240,000 DNA damage
events per cell per day, and cellular damage repair and removal mechanisms. Also,
radiation stimulates essential DNA and cellular repair mechanisms, e.g., p53-gene
production and apoptosis.
3. Current knowledge of cancer
development. The multi-stage, iterative, biological processes preclude the possibility of
a linear cancer response to a linear damage effect, as shown in current biological models.
The data sources are from low and moderately high exposures to:
1. Human populations from
epidemiological and clinical studies: Early radiation workers, including medical
practitioners, medical patients; the Japanese atomic bomb survivors, radium dial painters
and other radium workers; and high natural background radiation exposures, including
workers and residents in radon spa areas, and others. These studies consistently refute
the hypothesis that low- to moderate-dose exposures cause harm, and do demonstrate that
such exposures can provide health benefits.
2. Animal and plant populations
exposed to high doses in research, including mammal populations to more than 80
generations at moderate doses. These studies show no significant adverse health effects,
but do provide voluminous evidence of beneficial health effects, even though radiation
protection policy constrains such research and reporting of the data.
3. Biological research - in
radiobiology, genetic and cancer research, and molecular biology: Such research finds that
DNA and cellular damage from radiation is insignificant in the normal rate of metabolic
cellular and DNA damage, and stimulates both damage repair mechanisms and immune
functions, producing biopositive effects. This makes the LNTH biologically impossible.
Radiation protection policies are
established for the benefit of the radiation protection establishment and its purposes and
objectives.
These policies and programs
constrain radiation health effects research on the dose ranges and populations that apply
to radiation protection. They constrain scientific knowledge of the role of radiation in
human health, and the potential application of radiation in biology, agriculture, and
human and non-human health and nutrition.
Around the world, radiation medicine
and other radiation-related applications and benefits are often made uneconomic.
Alternatives cause much greater adverse public health and safety consequences.
These policies have caused millions
of preventable adverse health effects, while causing enormous public costs for
"radiation protection" at low doses that provide negligible, if any, associated
health benefits.
|
These policies and programs both ignore
and suppress contrary scientific data in setting radiation protection policy. They
constrain funding for research on the role of radiation in biology; and on the extensive
data from application of low-dose radiation for health benefits, e.g., in radon and radium
therapies, and practices that have successfully treated cancer and non-cancer illnesses. |
Data exists at the doses and populations to establish that no adverse effects
exist.
Contrary radiation protection policy
statements that requisite data and knowledge do not exist in the low-dose region of
interest, hundreds of scientifically valid studies exist in the peer-reviewed literature
at low- to moderate-doses that fail to support, and directly contradict, the LNTH. This
evidence is frequently unstated, and even misrepresented, in the published papers.
"Peer review" often causes reporting of results, conclusions, and abstracts that
fail to accurately reflect the data that exist within individual scientific papers.
The scientific data on the response
of exposed populations, and of biological research, are consistent with stimulation of
biopositive biological and health responses to many stimuli, including pharmacological and
physical stressors, from toxic metals to heat and exercise. Effects on vegetation and
animal populations consistently find beneficial responses to low to moderate radiation
doses. Such responses are demonstrated in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki populations, as well
as in many other studies of radiation exposures.
Such beneficial responses are often
not seen in biological research in cells that are not supported by a complete immune
system, and do not have the cellular communication and functional capability that is
susceptible to positive stimulation and repair, nor in animals that are bred for
tumorigenesis (without a complete immune system; nor in those kept in germ-free
environments that provide no immune challenge. These are laboratory artifacts that do not
represent whole organism responses and health significance results. Other studies fail to
consider controls that die, and even include low-dose animals with the controls in
"improving the statistics" relative to reporting high dose adverse effects.
This document summarizes existing evidence organized by
"exposed populations" and biological research. Data on the following human
populations are summarized:
1. The Japanese atomic bomb survivors
The study of this population has limited
(negligible) scientific application to setting radiation protection policies.
This population was exposed to the
near-instantaneous radiation of atomic bomb detonation, and have enormous confounding
factors of individual conditions, and the effects and contaminations of other war-time
life, bomb effects, and follow-up conditions. The exposure of individuals is largely
unknown and the result of radiation dose estimates that today are largely unknown,
especially due to the uncertainty in the asymmetric neutron component in the Hiroshima
bombing, with doses that are accepted to be significantly in error. The
"control" population are persons who were in the area following the atomic
bombing and so exposed to the residual fallout. The dose to these persons is estimated to
be less than 0.5 cGy. The pathology of disease and cause of death determinations is also
uncertain. These circumstances make the health effects of the Japanese survivor population
of minimal value to the knowledge of radiation dose-response for radiation protection
purposes.
Unlike most government-funded
population studies, the raw data produced by the Radiation Effects Research Foundation
(RERF) is not available to reviewers, including reviewers and analysts for the
taxpayer-funded BEIR reports. Recent US DOE attempts to establish control over the RERF
provides further uncertainty in the results, following DOE defunding and closing of the
Center for Human Radiobiology while more than 1000 of the study population was still
alive; and its failure to publish the results of the 10-year (1978-87), $10 million,
Nuclear Shipyard Worker Study that contradicts the LNTH, and to which $ millions more were
committed in 1994.
However, notwithstanding the
limitations of the Japanese survivor data, Dr. Sohei Kondo (1993) and others report on
analyses from the processed RERF data from Shimizu and others that the adverse health
effects of this highly-exposed population are limited to persons exposed to high radiation
doses. In the population of about 75,000 persons followed for 40 years, with about 21,000
total deaths through 1985, there are approximately 500 cancers more than expected compared
to the "control population". However, there are approximately 600 excess cancers
in the population near-instantly exposed to more than about 200 cGy, and approximately 100
fewer cancers for persons exposed to less than about 20 cGy.
Kondo reports that those who were
exposed to 1-9 cGy appear to have lower death rates from leukemia; and Dr. Sadao Hattori
(1994) reports that about 8 cGy is the optimum dose for the suppression of leukemia in
these survivors.
The BEIR V reports that the Life
Span Study indicates no significant increases for leukemia below 0.4 cGy (BEIR V 1990),
yet in typical fashion applies a linear result to presume effects down to zero dose. Dr.
T.D. Luckey (1991) finds several discrepancies in the low-dose use of the LNTH as it
applies to leukemia mortality, and shows that the data better fit the hormesis model. Dr.
Myron Pollycove (1994) shows similar results for leukemia and non-cancer relative risk.
Mathematical analyses by Drs. Joseph Alvarez and Fritz Seiler (1996) also demonstrate
discrepancies in the LNTH, and that non-linear models much better fit the data and show
clear beneficial effects.
The data find no increases, and
statistically significant decreases (Kondo 1993), in non-cancer health effects below the
estimated 200 cGy dose.
Adverse effects on the unborn
children have a documented threshold of the estimated 50 cGy dose (BEIR V 1990). Below the
threshold, Dr. Jaworowski reports that positive effects are indicated (1995).
There are no genetic effects in
approximately 90,000 children and grandchildren of the highly exposed survivors who have
parental exposures in the range of 30-60 cGy (Kondo 1993). Kondo states: "I like the
simple (and at the same time somewhat sophisticated) statement of Neel et al. (1990):
‘The children of the most highly irradiated population in the world’s history
provide no statistically significant evidence that mutations were produced in their
parents...’ "
Kondo (1993) and others (Okumura and
Mine 1997, BEIR V 1990, Pollycove 1994) report on studies that show that the lifetime data
for the Nagasaki population (that has better dose data, but a smaller population than
Hiroshima), the exposed population has longer life than the controls for all groups
greater than 55 years of age.
All actual doses are much higher. Known
errors in the dose estimates have failed to be applied.
2. Nuclear reactor facility exposed populations
This section includes nuclear
reactor facility workers, primarily in military, weapons materials, and research reactors,
and those with significantly lower doses in power reactor operations. More recent nuclear
workers have generally been exposed to doses that are not significantly different than
natural background and medical exposures.
No credible scientific studies
indicate adverse radiation effects to nuclear workers.
Early nuclear facility workers were
significantly exposed to radiation. However, many early workers exposed to these doses
were also exposed to other chemicals and adverse stress and physical conditions, and
exposures to contaminants prior to US AEC work during and after WWII. These workers
generally had weak to poor radiation dosimetry. Presumably, since exposure to chemicals in
the industrial workplace is claimed to be a significant contributor to human cancer, this
group would be expected to have higher cancer rates than the general population. Such is
not the case.
Only the shipyard workers on US Navy
nuclear ships have moderately significant radiation doses in a moderately large population
with high quality dosimetry and limited confounding effects from chemical exposures and
other work conditions.
The 10-year, US$ 10 million study of
the shipyard workers was undertaken in 1978, and completed in 1987. The nuclear workers
were compared to a well-matched case-control shipyard non-nuclear worker group (Matanoski
1991). These workers show significantly reduced total mortality. They show an expected
increase in mesothelioma from working with asbestos. This helps confirm the validity of
the study. The US DOE funded this study by Dr. Genevieve Matanoski, then Chairman of the
Dept of Epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University. The study was not published in the
scientific literature. It was only released by DOE under pressure as a contractor report,
with a 2-page press release, in 1991. These results have still not been formally reported
in the literature, although substantial funding and data analysis continues. Although Dr.
Arthur Upton was Chairman of the Technical Advisory Panel for this study, and he chaired
the BEIR V Committee, this study was not included in BEIR V (though other then-recent,
unpublished work was included in the data and report).
Professor Emeritus Dr. John Cameron
(1994) reported on this study and states: "The most significant and surprising
finding of the NSWS research was that the nuclear workers with the greatest radiation
exposure, a cumulative lifetime occupational dose-equivalent of 5 mSv or more, had a
standardized mortality rate (SMR) of deaths from all causes of only 0.76 that for their
age and sex in the general population, while the non-nuclear workers had an SMR of
1.0." Professor Emeritus Myron Pollycove states (1994): " The nuclear worker
groups had a lower death rate from all causes, leukemia, and LHC than the non-nuclear
workers."
Professor Emeritus Dr. T.D. Luckey
(1997) reports on information from nine studies with nuclear workers and bomb test
observers totaling 13 million person-years. The results show the exposed worker cancer
mortality rate to be 65.6% of that of carefully selected control populations.
Studies of the "high-dose"
groups in the US and in the UK, including the cleanup workers following the 1957 Windscale
fire, demonstrate that no excess cancers exist in these most significant populations
(Berry 1994, Fry 1995, Luckey 1994).
Scientific data and analysis
demonstrate that the few studies that are used to indicate adverse worker health effects
are unfounded (Patterson 1996), with either deficiencies in the analysis of the data, or
by misrepresenting the data (Pollycove 1995). To the contrary, nuclear worker studies,
although generally from marginal data, consistently show lower age-adjusted cancer rates
to nuclear workers than non-nuclear workers in the same plants, and to the general
population.
Another recent, significant,
DOE-funded study used to claim the existence of adverse worker health effects is the
International Association for Research on Cancer (IARC) report. The IARC combined the
nuclear worker studies from the UK, US, and Canada. The study found no association between
low-dose radiation and adverse health effects. However, the study of approximately 95,000
workers did not include the most significant and most scientifically definitive study of
the US nuclear shipyard workers, completed in 1987 and funded also by DOE, of
approximately 700,000 workers, with analysis of data on 35,000 nuclear workers, plus
matched controls.
In this study, the IARC analysis
reported instead only on a "test for linear trend". From a single data point for
only one cancer, leukemia, with 6 deaths vs 2.3 expected (in 238 deaths in workers exposed
to more than 40 cGy with no excess in any other cancer), there was no increase with dose
in the 113 leukemia deaths in the workers exposed to doses less than 40 cGy. The IARC
study misrepresents this data to claim that a linear trend is demonstrated. This result
was widely announced in a media campaign in scientific, trade, and public press long
before the study data were made available for peer review, reporting that a "linear
dose response" from low-level radiation was found in nuclear workers.
Pollycove (1995) and Schillaci
(1995) report on the significant discrepancies and misrepresentation of the data in the
IARC report.
3. Medically-exposed populations
Practitioners and patients in
radiology and nuclear medicine have received significant doses compared to natural
background or nuclear workers. Radiologists in practice before 1925 had very high doses,
including many with World War I experience with wounded military personnel in which case
loads, x-ray equipment, and "hands-on" x-ray practices led to very high doses.
Marie Curie practiced at the front lines in France with her "radiologic cars",
and trained hundreds of radiologists, receiving very high doses in the process.
Early radiologists, many with WWI
experience, were claimed to have excess cancers and leukemia in 1950s studies. Even these
reports at these high doses are substantially uncertain (Henry 1961). However, Nobel
Laureate Dr. Rosalyn Yalow reports (1994) on a study by Dr. Peter Smith and Sir Richard
Doll (1981) that radiologists starting practice since 1921, with rudimentary radiation
protection practices, with mean doses estimated at about 500 cSv, have no excess cancer or
leukemia compared to other medical practitioners.
Dr. Yalow reports also (1994) on US
Army personnel: "In WWII, 6500 radiologic technicians had an estimated 50 rem in
training, with 24 months median service. A 29-year follow-up found no increased
malignancies compared to army medical, laboratory, and pharmacy technicians. (Jablon
1978)"
In a study by the US National Cancer
Institute of the more than 100,000 U.S. female radiologic technicians certified since
1926, more than 500 eligible breast cancer cases were case-compared to 5 controls each.
These women had a mean of follow-up of 29 years since certification; however, no
association was found for breast cancer to experience in radiotherapy, radioisotopes, or
fluoroscopy, nor to personal fluoroscopy or multifilm procedures (Boice et al 1995).
Medical patients receive significant
radiation doses, with poor to good dosimetry. Early patients have demonstrated adverse
long-term health effects from high doses. However, there are millions of procedures with
moderate exposures every year subject to prospective studies. Some historical records
enable credible follow-up. Radiation protection interests fail to undertake credible
research on these most significant populations.
Moderate medical treatment doses are
not found to cause adverse health effects in dozens of studies, carefully considering
significant potential confounding factors from health conditions (Luckey 1991).
Dr. Yalow reports on a
representative study (1994), in which hyperthyroid patients treated with I-131 received an
estimated 10 cSv whole-body/bone dose. Of 22,000 patients treated by I-131 vs 12,000
treated by other means, primarily surgery, there is no leukemia increase, contrary to LNTH
predictions (BEIR V 1990) that leukemia would more than double.
In other studies, no excess thyroid
cancer is found from diagnostic I-131 use (mean thyroid doses estimated to be 50 cGy) for
patients that were not suspected of having thyroid cancer (Yalow 1994). In fact, these
patients have a significant reduction in thyroid cancer.
Studies of significant x-ray
exposures and leukemia incidence are also negative (Boice et al 1991). Yalow (1994)
reports on one such study based on competent records of exposures up to 300 cSv from
normal x-ray practices over many years. Pollycove (1995) presents similar conclusions
based on a Swedish study.
Yalow reported also (1994) on the
extent of the evidence that doses at the level of moderate medical exposures, which are
very much higher than radiation protection limits, are not implicated in adverse health
effects.
In the case of high doses from
multiple fluoroscopies to female tuberculosis patients, data at doses below 30 cSv
indicate highly significant reductions in breast cancer, although the report projects a
straight line from higher dose data, simply dividing all excess cancers by total dose to
claim an excess of breast cancer, ignoring and contradicting its own data (Miller 1989,
Pollycove 1994, UNSCEAR 1994). A more recent report obfuscates this relationship (Howe
1995, Pollycove 1995).
Drs. Sadao Hattori (1994, 1997) and
Kiyohiko Sakamoto (1996) report that radiation hormesis, using 10-15 fractions of 10-15
cGy each over about 3 weeks, is successfully treating and suppressing the reappearance of
cancer and non-Hodgkins lymphoma in the hospital of Tohoku University.
Human fertility has been found to be
improved by x-ray exposure, confirming research studies in animal populations. In
addition, female sterility was successfully treated by x-rays to the ovaries.
There were lower genetic effects in
the children and grandchildren of these women than in the general population. Lower
genetic malformations and cancer are found following 1 cGy doses (Luckey 1991).
4. Radium-burden population
In decades of study of the radium
dial painters and others with internal radium, there is no case of bone cancer or nasal
sarcoma in the population with less than about 1000 cGy doses. Recent analysis confirms
these conclusions reached at MIT by Dr. Robley Evans in the 1960s (Evans 1974), followed
in more comprehensive reviews in studies reported in an international conference in 1981,
published in 1983. (In the US, these studies were then terminated by DOE starting in 1983,
although more than 1000 subjects remained alive.) Recent follow-up data and analyses by
Dr. Constantine Maletskos (1994), working with Evans, reports an estimated threshold of
1100 cGy, by Dr. Otto Raabe (1994) who reports a threshold of about 1000 cGy, and by Dr.
Robert Thomas (1994), who reports that a log-normal projection of just the homogeneous
group of female dial painter cases, ignoring the fact of thousands of cases with no
cancers, projects to a minimum threshold of about 400 cGy. Recent work indicates that the
doses to these populations are underestimated, but work to scientifically study this data
is not supported.
Dr. Robert Thomas (1995) states:
"...The lognormal analysis does not reflect specific biological processes, but it
does verify the existence of a previously reported threshold dose response for 226,228Ra
in humans. The term ‘threshold’ in this paper refers to that dose below which no
skeletal tumors have been reported." And Dr. F.W. Spiers states (1983) "On the
basis of the alpha-particle doses to bone marrow and the risk factor suggested by the ICRP
(International Commission on Radiological Protection 1977) it can be calculated that some
2.63 cases would be expected in the exposed population additional to the natural
incidence. If the same analysis is applied to the total number of 1,285 located female
radium dial workers followed up for 60 yr, some 13 cases of radiation-induced leukemia
would be expected additional to 5.4 cases expected naturally, that is a total of about 18
as against 4 cases observed."
The radon from decay of radium in
bone, a noble gas, escapes the bone, and about 30% is exhaled. The decay products captured
in the sinuses lead to nasal carcinomas in a few high-dose cases, with the radon decay
products otherwise distributed in the body. However, other adverse health effects,
including leukemia which was anticipated due to doses to the bone marrow, are non-existent
in this population, even in high-dose groups, except for a slight increase in breast
cancer in both the US and UK populations (Kondo 1993).
Direct exposures to external gamma
radiation from daily work with luminous compounds on studio bench tops, while sitting for
many hours per day, is a highly significant but unquantifiable contributor to radiation
exposure to the upper torso and head in considering the potential risks from low level
radiation (Spiers 1983).
Dr. Kondo (1993) reviewed the data
and reported on the beneficial effects demonstrated in all-cause mortality in the early
decades following exposure, and in non-cancer effects, in US and UK populations. The
absence of leukemia or other potential radiogenic cancers and health effects to this
population, highly exposed to both external and internal radiation, contradicts the LNTH.
Implications of the increased longevity of these early workers has been noted, but
competent work has not been documented.
5. Nuclear weapons and facilities releases
Participants in atomic weapons tests
have demonstrated no adverse health effects. Extensive US National Academy of Sciences
studies of more than 46,000 participants in 5 major atomic bomb tests, completed in 1985,
found no adverse effects (Yalow 1994). In one study of leukemia in one test with
relatively few observers, of the 10 leukemias reported, only one was to an observer who
was estimated to have received more than 3 cSv; and in another test with few observers,
there were fewer than expected leukemias. Dr. Yalow notes that this is typical in
small-numbers statistics, and no excess leukemias exist in the total exposed population
(Luckey 1996).
A more recent 1996 National Academy
of Sciences study reported on 40,000 military participants in the July, 1946 Operation
Crossroads tests of two atomic bombs at Bikini Atoll, including one detonated below the
water that greatly increased radioactive contamination (McCarthy 1996). Although total
mortality is slightly higher than controls in this population, cancer death is not
increased, nor is any other cause of death potentially associated with this radiation. The
average dose was estimated to be 6 rem (cSv). There is also no increase found associated
with groups with higher doses.
Fallout from the 1954 Bravo test
affected the Marshall Islanders and fishermen on the "Lucky Dragon", with ash
that stuck to the skin and caused significant burns. In the high-dose group in the
Marshall Islanders an excess of thyroid nodules was observed (Kondo 1993). The 23
fishermen on the "Lucky Dragon" were exposed to roughly 200 rad (cGy) to 670 rad
(cGy) doses. The person exposed to an estimated 670 rad (cGy) died 206 days after the
event. All others, monitored for 24 years, showed no associated adverse health effects. At
21 years, one died of ascites caused by cirrhosis. No cancers were observed (Kondo 1993,
Kumatori 1980).
No excess cancers are found in the
public in Utah exposed to above-ground atomic bomb test fallout (BEIR V 1990). In a study
of British bomb tests, although the participants had significantly more leukemias and
multiple myelomas, there was no association with the type or degree of radiation exposure
(Luckey 1996).
In Russia, 10,000 people were
evacuated from a 1957 thermal explosion of nuclear materials in the Urals. In the 7852
people studied for 30 years, tumors in the 496 mSv group were found to be 28% lower, in
the 120 mSv group 39% lower, and in the 40 mSv group 27% lower in the exposed population
than in the nonirradiated control population from the same region (Jaworowski 1995b).
Dr. Alan Brodsky (1996) reports:
"The Chernobyl accident has been estimated in an appendix of the 1988 UNSCEAR report
to produce a collective dose equivalent of 0.6 million personSv (60 million person-rem),
mostly in the former Soviet States and Europe. Thirty percent of this collective dose has
been delivered in the first year following this 1986 accident, and the remainder will be
delivered in the tens of years after the accident. This collective dose (in the first
year) is about 2 percent of the annual natural background collective dose to the world
population."
Professor Jaworowski states (1995b):
"Unexpected results were obtained in one of the best studies in human genetics
carried out in Hungary before and after the Chernobyl accident. Several serious congenital
anomalies occurred after the Chernobyl accident with lower frequency than before the
accident."
Professor Jaworowski also states
(1997): "Eleven years that passed since the Chernobyl catastrophe are more than
enough for realistic assessment of its early and late health effects.
"The fatalities of the
Chernobyl accident caused by ionizing radiation, are 28 victims who succumbed to acute
radiation sickness. Three more persons died during the first few weeks due to
non-radiation factors of the catastrophe. Thus, the total of the early victims amounts to
31 persons. Over the next ten years 3 children died due to thyroid cancers, but it is not
certain whether these three fatal cancers ... were caused by Chernobyl radiation.
"The whole body doses outside
the former Soviet Union are so small that no increase in cancer or of the incidence of
hereditary diseases should be expected.
Dr. Shantyr et al state (1997) on
the Chernobyl accident: "In the five-year age groups cancer morbidity of the
emergency workers makes no statistically significant differences with that of the male
populations of Russia and St. Petersburg. No evidence of an association between radiation
dose and cancer morbidity was observed."
Professor R.C. von Borstel states
(1995) that: "The misjudgment based on linear extrapolation has had its consequences
even when there was no radioactive fallout, such as ... at Three Mile Island: The
townspeople ... were led to believe that they had been the survivors of a nuclear
holocaust."
Dr. Roger Berry states (1994):
"Comparable data for the Windscale fire cohort show a similar deficit of cancer
deaths against expectation."
Dr. Alan Brodsky (1996), in a study
comparing natural versus manmade exposure, shows nuclear power production exposure to the
public as an average annual exposure per person to be 0.0002 mSv per year, compared to a
total of manmade plus natural dose of 3.6 mSv.
6. Natural background radioactivity
Natural background radioactivity is
by far the largest source of exposure to ionizing radiation around the world. Further,
background radiation varies by a factor of about 100. Significant populations are exposed
to differences of factors up to about 10 locally (Yalow 1994).
Studies of larger populations with
significant radiation dose differences consistently find either statistically significant
lower cancer rates in the more highly exposed groups, or no effects in populations that
are poorly differentiated, in direct conflict with the LNTH. Luckey (1995) has extensively
reviewed and reported on work by Wei and others in the conduct of extensive health-based
studies of 2 large, stable, comparable populations in China, conducted by qualified health
agencies rather than radiation protection agencies. These groups have typically lived in
the areas for 6 generations, with a factor of 3 difference in radiation dose (Yalow
1994b). The studies find lower cancer rates in the high-dose population.
In a preliminary analysis funded by
the AEC, Dr. Norman Frigerio at Argonne National Labs studied external radiation dose and
national cancer data by US state, with rigorous statistical analysis testing various
linear models. Dr. Frigerio et al (1973) found that the "high background
states", with a factor of 3 higher doses than the low background states, and twice
the national average, have consistently and significantly lower cancer rates, with
analysis of all readily identifiable potential confounding factors. This study at
state-average data levels was preliminary to plans for more comprehensive studies of
cancer and radiation at county or other population group levels. However this US AEC
contract work to support environmental assessment was then terminated, and the work
unpublished, by AEC and later by DOE. Subsequent summary analyses with later U.S. average
dose and cancer data has confirmed these results (Luckey 1991).
Professor R.C. von Borstel, Dept. of
Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, in a review of "Health Effects of
Low-level Radiation", by Dr. Sohei Kondo, states (1995) that: "In another
analysis that Kondo made on data of [many] populations exposed to radon, his findings are
in direct contrast to the estimates of the US EPA. ... the individuals exposed to radon
have beneficial effects with respect to cancer mortality."
Studies of lung cancer and other
cancer rates as a function of high radon exposures find a lower cancer rate in high radon
areas, or no effect in studies of poorly differentiated populations. The most
comprehensive and scientifically rigorous study of radon effects and the LNTH has been
produced by Professor Emeritus Bernard Cohen at U. Pittsburg (1995), incorporating more
than 300,000 home radon data measurements and cancer data from 1792 counties. This study
demonstrates conclusively that the LNTH can not be valid. Dr. Cohen states: "A
compilation has recently been completed of average indoor radon levels in 1729 U.S.
counties, over half of all counties and representing nearly 90% of the total U.S.
population (Cohen 1992, 1994). Data from it were used to derive (curves in which) we see a
clear tendency for (lung cancer mortality) to decrease with increasing (mean radon
concentration), in sharp contrast to the increase expected from the fact that radon is
believed to cause lung cancer." Pollycove (1994) discusses confirmation of
Cohen’s analysis and the limits of potential confounding factors in Cohen’s
research.
Populations in radon spa areas, for
example, in the area of Misasa Japan, find lower cancer rates in the higher radon source
area (Kondo 1993). Smaller populations with greater dose differences include Kerala India
at about 4 times average background, Guarapari Brazil at about 6 times background (Luckey
1996), and Ramsar Iran at about 10 times average background. These populations all find no
adverse effects from background radiation. On the contrary, "The people of Kerala
have a higher fertility rate with the fewest neonatal deaths than any other state of
India" (Luckey, 1991).
Dr. Kondo (1993) states: "The
negative correlations of home radon levels with lung cancer rates ... are based on
ecological studies on groups of people; they can be taken as strong evidence against the
validity of nonthreshold hypothesis that is adopted for the assessment of radiation risk
by the EPA and corresponding agencies in many other countries of the world."
Many case-control studies have been
applied to residential radon health effects. Most are too small and poor in establishing
radon exposure to demonstrate any effect. One exception is in Shenyang China. Radon was
measured in each house for 1 year, with detectors in the living room and the bedroom. An
odds ratio of 0.7 was found, contradicting the BEIR-IV LNTH projection of 1.8 for high vs
low exposures (Kondo 1993). A recent case-control study in Finland of 1,973 lung cancer
cases found essentially no effect for indoor radon concentrations over approximately an
order of magnitude, again contradicting the LNTH (Auvinen et al 1996).
Luckey (1995) states: "The most
well-studied populations are two groups of Chinese peasants, about 70,000 each, in the
Yangjiang Province (Wei 1994). Leukemia and total cancer mortality rates appear to be
lower for peasants living in the high background area."
7. Animal and plant biology
Hundreds of scientifically valid
studies of animal and plant populations have demonstrated that low level radiation
produces beneficial health effects, or no health effects (Luckey 1981). No substantial or
reproducible studies that could demonstrate adverse health effects have been produced. The
LNTH can not be supported, and is demonstrated to be invalid, by such consistent radiation
health effects data as has been supported and allowed to be published. Dr. Don Luckey,
Professor and Chairman Emeritus of the Department of Biochemistry in the U. Missouri
School of Medicine, has summarized more than 2000 studies that demonstrate beneficial
effects from "whole-body" doses, not including beneficial effects from organ
doses.
Luckey (1994) reports on work by
Egon Lorenz of the National Cancer Institute, and many others at the national laboratories
and universities supported by the AEC Biology and Medicine programs, that report on
beneficial effects that include lower cancers, increased mean life span, increased growth
rates, increased size and weight, and increased fertility and reproduction, and reduced
mutations, along with many enhanced physiological and biological functions (Luckey 1994,
Patterson 1982, Boxenbaum 1992, Ishii et al 1996). Studies that fail to demonstrate
beneficial effects are largely the result of using hybrid animals with deficient immune
systems, keeping animals germ-free, and even studies that discard controls with early
mortality. The physiological responses in animals and plants are shown to be equivalent to
the effect of many natural elements and compounds that are essential nutrients at low
levels and toxic at high levels. Studies directed by radiation protection interests
selectively ignored work and led to defunding of research to document beneficial effects.
Dr. Luckey states (1995): "The
beneficial effect of low dose irradiation was discovered 100 years ago at the University
of Missouri. Professor W. Shrader (1896) inoculated Guinea pigs with diphtheria bacillus.
Unexposed controls died within 24 hours. When animals were exposed to X rays before
inoculation, they survived."
And that: "Chick growth was
accelerated by exposure to 5 to 10 Gy of gamma rays, (Kashiwabara, 1967) a result
confirmed by Shebaita et al. who administered 6.4 Gy of gamma radiation. (1975, 1979) When
eggs were exposed to 6.4 Gy of gamma rays, chicks grew faster than chicks from unexposed
eggs. (Shebaita, 1975)
"The statistically significant
results of Lorenz have been confirmed in several studies. The well-designed and executed
experiments of Donaldson (1964), Bonham (1990), and Hershberger (1978) leave little doubt
that chronic exposure of young animals to low doses of ionizing radiation increases the
growth rate. Exposure to acute doses is less pertinent; however, such data add evidence to
the concept of radiation hormesis. A chronologic perspective of radiation hormesis in
growth suggests this is a general phenomenon."
Dr. Harold Boxenbaum reports (1992)
that: "Further support that radiation produces longevity hormesis is supplied... (I)n
this case, the data deal with chipmunks living in the wild. The animals were live-trapped,
irradiated with either a single-dose of 200 or 400 Roentgens gamma-radiation, except for
controls, and then returned to the wild. It is readily apparent that gamma-radiation
exposure, within the dose-range utilized, enhanced longevity."
In mammals, some population studies
replicate the beneficial effects of low level radiation doses, while none show detrimental
effects consistent with the LNTH.
However, many studies did not
include the dose range of interest due to the radiation protection establishment
requirements to assess higher doses for purposes of radiation protection standards. Since
knowledge of beneficial effects at lower doses was pervasive, it was easy to avoid both
dose ranges of interest, and to perform studies with animals that would not have full
immune competence to beneficially respond.
Studies have demonstrated beneficial
effects of low level radiation in response to infection, as early as 1896, and to wound
healing, and other adverse health conditions (Luckey 1991). However, no research was
supported, and when performed it was ignored by the radiation science establishment, on
such beneficial effects in order to establish the role of radiation in physiology, health
and medicine. Beneficial effects in dissolving selected cancers and in non-Hodgkins
lymphoma have been documented, but research on such potentially beneficial applications
has again not been supported in the interest of radiation protection programs and costs.
Dr. H. Planel (1987) at the
Laboratoire de Biologie Medicale in France and many others produced experiments in lower
order animals, on the effect of both low- to moderate-exposure doses, and on suppression
of natural background levels that consistently find that a continuum exists for
stimulation by radiation, including detrimental responses to reducing radiation levels
below normal background, up to a level at which the organisms demonstrate deleterious
effects from high doses. In health and medical research such results lead to establishing
the basis for vitamin and mineral and other supplements for nutrition and health. Support
for such radiation research has not been provided.
In plants, Drs. Sheppard and
Regitnig in Canada (1987), Dr. Alexander Kuzin in Russia (1979) and many others, and even
high school science projects, have demonstrated the stimulation of growth and reproduction
by irradiation of seeds and seedlings over many decades. Dr. Kuzin and others have called
for planning to implement irradiation programs to enhance food supplies.
8. Cellular and molecular biology, genetics, and cancer
research
Radiobiologist Dr. Gunnar Walinder
(1987) of Sweden and others in biology state that research on cancer at the level of the
cell and tumor in whole organisms has established that carcinogenesis is a complex,
iterative, progression that precludes the biological plausibility of the LNTH as a
plausible postulated stochastic "hit" to DNA that can progress to a cancer. This
research rejects the proposition that a single hit on DNA that causes either a single- or
double-strand break, with a presumed constant repair error rate, can lead to cancer.
Biological evidence has established
that ‘whole’ cell colonies and organisms have adaptive responses to radiation,
for cells in which complex intracellular communications and responses are enabled, and for
organisms in which immune responses are functional (Kuzin 1993, Liu et al 1987,
Smith-Sonneborn & Barbee 1996, Wolff 1994, Ishii & Watanabe 1996, Chernikova et al
1993, Hattori 1997, Ishii et al 1997, Kojima et al 1997, Pollycove and Paperiello 1997).
Some research that "supports" the linear model comes from organisms and cell
colonies that fail to demonstrate biopositive responses in the absence of the biological
response capability.
Professor Kondo (1988) and others
establish the biological evidence that ‘altruistic cell suicide’, apoptosis,
which is absorbed without the necrosis and potential damage of cell killing, stimulates
proliferation of healthy cells to replace a damaged cell, which eliminates injury.
Apoptosis is shown to be stimulated by radiation, and that the role of radiation at low
doses that do not exceed the body’s capability to function within the cell
life-cycle, may be beneficial, if not essential in the process of cell repair.
Dr. James Trosko, former Director of
Research at RERF (1996), and others show that radiation damage effects can only initiate
at levels that exceed normal levels of oxidative damage; and that responses are triggered
by intracellular signal transduction mechanisms that are epigenetic, not genotoxic in
nature. As such, radiation doses sufficiently high to contribute to cancer are not the
result of a toxic insult, but triggered by a non-stochastic epigenetic process. As long as
damage frequencies are within the background rate of metabolic processes, which are
factors of thousands to millions of times the natural radiation background rate,
proliferation and adaptive functions in multicellular organisms regulate damaged cells
through sharing reductants for repair and by triggering apoptosis. Biologically, cancer
can not be caused by radiation at low doses.
Drs. Myron Pollycove (1996), Ludwig
Feinendegen (1993), and others report on work by Drs. Dan Billen, John Ward and others
that cellular and DNA repair mechanisms are complex functions of the effect of radiation
on the stimulation of multiple repair mechanisms. Research has demonstrated that radiation
enhances known specific repair processes that influence the repair effectiveness of both
DNA and cellular damage events. The work on the cell by Dr. Bruce Alberts, President of
the National Academy of Sciences, and others, find that the normal metabolic and oxidative
DNA damage events rate is extremely high. The DNA damage rate of radiation due to natural
background radiation is an insignificant fraction of the normal DNA damage rate. At many
multiples of natural background radiation, these events remain insignificant contributors
to DNA damage and mutation rates. However, at such levels, recent research led by Dr.
Sadao Hattori in Japan, and Dr. Shu-Zheng Liu in China, and Drs. Sheldon Wolff and Takashi
Makinodan and many others, have confirmed that both DNA and cellular repair mechanisms are
enhanced.
Dr. Takeo Ohnishi (1997) states:
"Therefore the induction of p53 by low dose radiation may contribute to the
prevention of cancer event, because there are threshold in several kinds of
radiation-induced cancer." Drs. Yoshio Hosoi and Kiyohiko Sakamoto state (1997):
"TBI [total body irradiation] on mice with 15-20 cGy suppressed spontaneous lung
metastasis significantly, and 15 cGy was the most effective dose."
Drs. Pollycove and Paperiello (1997)
state: "The biological effect of radiation is not determined by the number of DNA
mutations it creates, but by its effect on the body’s protective processes. [emphasis
theirs] At high levels, radiation suppresses them; at low levels, it stimulates the DNA
damage-control biosystem."
Dr. T.D. Luckey states (1991):
"Immune functions which show radiation hormesis include radioresistance; wound
healing; resistance to infection; antibody formation; and lymphocyte proliferation,
differentiation, and function. The net result is decreased debilitating infections and
cancer from birth through midlife, and into senescence. This provides both increased
quality of life and longer lifespan. Our focus is on whole-body exposures to low doses of
ionizing radiation. Many of the changes described are temporary; this is not unusual for
immune reactions. Some remain in Japanese survivors of atomic bomb exposure for at least
four decades following acute exposure.
"Although specific mechanisms
can be suggested for individual facets of immune competence, total body involvement must
play an important role. (Selye 1956)"
While this does not necessarily
provide proof of beneficial effects, such data establish that the LNTH is not biologically
feasible, and that beneficial effects are biologically plausible. Combined with the
extensive evidence of stimulation of biological processes and physiological functions, and
the extensive evidence of biopositive effects on organisms, and the epidemiological
evidence in significant populations, the need for changes in radiation science policy to
recognize the scientific evidence, and to support and allow research to confirm this
evidence in animal studies and in health applications and clinical studies, is
established. The potential for human and environmental benefits is enormous.
9. Biological models
Current data from cellular and
molecular biology is being reflected in models of biological processes and responses, and
tumorigenesis. Simplified 2-stage models (representing the 3- to 6-stage cancer process)
by Drs. Kenneth Bogen (1996a) at LLNL and Tom Downs (1992) at U. Texas reflect linear
damage from radiation dose, with terms to reflect repair processes, including cell death
by apoptosis and necrosis, along with tumorigenesis and wound repair. These models reflect
the significant work being developed that scientifically establish the biological validity
of the evidence for biopositive dose responses.
Dr. Weber (1996) reflects current
work that applies unconstrained modeling to the data to allow it to reflect the
dose-response relationship, rather than force data to a preordained model as is currently
applied in radiation protection policy to support the linear model.
Dr. T.D. Luckey, reports (1991)
that: "The BEIR Committee accepted a threshold model for all physiologic effects
except mutation and cancer; no decision was made for doses under 10 CGy (BEIR III, 1980).
This committee ignored the fact that every major study on radiation-induced cancer, which
utilized low doses whole-body exposure, produced some data showing that low and high
exposures gave opposite results. The data consistently support hormesis in
radiation-induced mutation."
Dr. Tom Downs, finds (1992) that:
"Almost without exception the dose-response models studied to date have focused on
harmful effects. Current models thus have limited flexibility. Some contain mathematical
restrictions prohibiting a decrease in response whenever there is an increase in dose. In
such cases the existence of a threshold or of beneficial effects are excluded
automatically from consideration."
10. Nutrition and health
Drs. Luckey (1996), Planel (1987),
and others have produced research data that prove that a background radiation deficiency
adversely effects microbes, plants and invertebrates. This manifests as a deficiency in
essential nutrients, comparable to responses of such organisms to deficiencies in
essential vitamins and minerals. Such data is consistent with dose-response for such
nutrients that affects all orders of biota, including humans.
Confirmatory research on the role of
radiation in health and nutrition, and on mammals, has not been supported by the radiation
science establishment, even though: 1. substantial results would be produced at the doses
of interest for radiation protection; 2. such preliminary research would require less than
1% of funding for current radiation health effects studies (which provide limited, if any,
significant results); and 3. the potential benefits to human health are great, along with
the potential for eliminating large and unwarranted public costs for radiation protection,
and reducing unfounded public fear of radiation.
Dr. T.D. Luckey states (1996):
"Ionizing Radiation as an Essential Agent:
"If ionizing radiation is an
essential agent, most populations live in a partial radiation deficiency. Radiation
hormesis would then be the alleviation of a partial radiation deficiency. This would make
the dose-response curve for ionizing radiation comparable with that of several essential
nutrients. Examples include vitamin A, thiamin, vitamin B6, calcium, iron and selenium.
Individuals and populations who receive insufficient amounts of these essential nutrients
are routinely supplemented with those nutrients. Supplementation with an essential agent
present in insufficient amounts would explain the dramatic results following small
increments in whole body exposures to chronic, low dose irradiation."
James Muckerheide and Dr. Theodore
Rockwell state (1997): "For some situations, there are available fatality figures.
For example, about 10,000 people die each year, in the United States alone, from food
poisoning, and the problem is growing in magnitude and complexity. The New England Journal
of Medicine reported concern over this problem on May 29, 1997, and stated flatly in an
editorial:
" ‘We already have the
means of virtually eliminating the problem - namely, irradiation. The use of ionizing
radiation for food pasteurization has been extensively evaluated...’
"The 10,000 Americans who die
each year from food poisoning are real persons, with names and families. They should not
be sacrificed to save hypothetical persons, who are threatened only by baseless fears and
a government policy that nourishes those fears."
11. Costs
Radiation protection policy is
directed to support radiation protection objectives committed to control radiation to
negligible levels. This policy results in high public costs for negligible public health
and safety benefits. Estimates have been made for radioactivity "cleanup" and
decommissioning that could exceed US$2 trillion (million-millions) worldwide to meet
standards that are far below levels of naturally-occurring radioactivity and radioactivity
releases to expose human populations and the environment.
In addition to the costs for
identified "cleanup", public costs for regulatory control to negligible dose
levels, and for future "decommissioning" of facilities, are similarly enormous.
Professor Emeritus Radiobiologist
Dr. Marvin Goldman, UC-Davis, then President of the Health Physics Society, stated (1995):
"Are we really serious about investing about a trillion dollars to cleaning up our
atomic backyard when in all likelihood very little credible health risk may be
involved...?"
Dr. Klaus Becker (1997) asks:
"How much of our rapidly decreasing funds can we afford to devote to the further
reduction of potential risks which, if they exist at all, are so small that they could not
be detected in decades of painstaking and expensive research efforts? Tens of billions of
dollars are spent every year worldwide in decommissioning, redemption, or nuclear waste
programs, which could obviously be used much more beneficially in other areas of public
and individual health, in rich and even more so in poor countries."
J. Muckerheide (1995) states:
"Recently, however, these radiation protection excesses have resulted in large
incremental public costs, with even more proposed, with no accompanying public health
benefit. Currently, these policies especially effect radioactive waste management and site
decommissioning costs, to the benefit only of government bureaucracies and contractors.
The immense costs incurred are reducing the viability and public benefits of many
radiation and nuclear technology applications, and humanity is losing major advances and
contributions to human health and well- being, without benefit to public health."
Professor Jaworowski states (1995b):
"Each life hypothetically saved by implementing the U.S. Nuclear Regulation
Commission’s regulations costs about $2.5 billion (Cohen 1992). Such spending is
morally questionable. Studies of radiation hormesis suggest that such expenditures may be
futile and actually have an adverse effect on the health of the population."
Radiation protection policies cause
further unwarranted public costs by constraining nuclear technologies through artificially
high costs, and by promoting a public fear of radiation that provide incentives for
government and private interests to apply alternatives that are more costly, provide lower
public health and safety, are less effective, and have greater environmental costs. In
medicine, energy, and industry, these policies have caused high public health and safety
costs in addition to economic costs; with rapidly growing prospects for international
conflicts over resources and environmental damage in the growing economies and populations
of the 21st century.
| Conclusion
Research policies must be committed to assess the biological role of ionizing
radiation, of beneficial effects in health and medicine, and to confirm animal research
and successful cancer treatment by the bio-positive stimulation of the immune response.
This research must be undertaken by interests committed to biology and medical science,
that are not committed to, or constrained by, radiation protection interests and funding. |
|
