By Jim Muckerheide

Bias was introduced into radiation health effects science policy by funding that is directed solely to support radiation protection policies rather than to establish the role of ionizing radiation in health.

No evidence supports the hypothesis that low-dose radiation is harmful. Substantial evidence contradicts this hypothesis, and even that natural levels of low level radiation are beneficial, even essential.

Doses below background levels have been shown to be detrimental. Low-doses have been shown to stimulate immune functions, and have been applied accordingly to successfully treat and prevent cancer.

However, radiation science policy has acted to ignore evidence of beneficial effects and to prevent confirmatory research.

Such actions have constrained the use of nuclear technologies to provide global energy, food and water, medical and environmental needs for a world population growing by the US population every 3 years that can reduce potential global conflict over resources and environmental degradation; are costing the US public $100s Billions, and the world >$2 Trillion, for no public benefit; and are preventing studies on health benefit applications that could expand on successful treatments and prevention of cancer.

Introduction

The Early Animal Studies

Large Variations in Background Doses - Data Ignored and Suppressed

Radon - Misrepresenting the Data

Radium: Suppressing Data and Studies

Occupational Studies: No Low Dose Adverse Effects - Misrepresented

Japanese A-bomb Survivors: Living Longer

Beneficial Effects: Extensive Evidence Ignored and Suppressed

Conclusions

References

Jim Muckerheide
Radiation, Science, and Health, Inc.
Box 843,
Needham, MA 02494
jmuckerheide@ www.radscihealth.org

rad_sci_health@comcast.net