Revision 1
March 19, 1998
by Radiation, Science, and Health, Inc.,
Edited by J. Muckerheide

1.7
Nutrition & Health

"Conservative radiation protection practice assumes a ‘linear no threshold’ dose response to keep exposures to ionizing radiation ‘as low as reasonably achievable.’ Extensive compelling results from biology and epidemiology contradict the linear no threshold hypothesis (Luckey 1980, Luckey 1991, Sugahara et al 1992, Kondo 1993, Liu 1995, Brodsky 1996). High and low doses of ionizing radiation elicit opposite effects. Low doses stimulate physiologic functions in humans and experimental animals. The epidemiologic evidence reviewed here shows reduced total cancer mortality rates in exposed nuclear workers and other populations. The cumulative knowledge indicates exposures to the general population should be raised to a minimum yearly recommended allowance (MYRA) of about 1 cGy/y (Luckey 1991). A public health evaluation should be undertaken to establish the bases and methods of providing radiation supplementaation as a public health service."

"Available data are summarized in Table 1."

Table 1. Information on Nuclear Workers  

a- Reference.
b. Years of observation.
c. Estimated lifetime dose per exposed person (1 mSv=0.1 Rem).
d. In thousands.
e. Number dead per 1,000 workers.
f. Exposed/control X 100.

"The above results are supported by information from a variety of exposed populations. Although exposed to 2-6 Gy from a rain of fallout for four hours from a hydrogen bomb explosion in 1954 at Bikini Island, none of the 23 Japanese fishermen died from cancer within 25 years. (Kumatori et al 1980) Of the 10,000 Ural Mountain villagers evacuated following the 1957 nuclear waste explosion, those exposed to about 12 cSv had only 61% the cancer rate of controls in the nearby area (Kostyuchenko and Krestinina 1994). None of the workers at the Chernobyl explosion who received less than 2 Gy died with cancer within 10 years (NEA Committee 1996) Increased leukemia has not been found in the exposed population within these 10 years. Finally, eight ‘terminally ill’ patients lived 5-44 years after injection of plutonium; none died from cancer (Moss 1995)."

"Low dose irradiation is a negative risk! Overwhelming evidence shows that low doses of ionizing radiation reduce premature cancer mortality 34%. The principle mechanism appears to be increased immune competence. (Luckey 1991, Sugahara et al 1992, Kondo 1993, Liu 1995, Brodsky 1996) Statistically significant data negate the linear no threshold hypothesis. No deaths are attributed to whole body exposure to low dose irradiation. Exposure limits for both workers and the general population should be raised. Safe radiation supplementation should be a public health service."

"Two examples demonstrate the urgent need for safe radiation supplementation. The results from 13 million person-years (Table 1) indicate that safe supplementation of the 61 million white male workers in the USA would prevent 75,000 premature cancer deaths each year. When extrapolated to the 500,000 cancer deaths in the USA annually, low dose irradiation would prevent 150,000 premature cancer deaths each year. Obviously, present regulations and constraints on public health applications are politically irresponsible and morally abhorrent."

"A minimum yearly recommended allowance (MYRA) should be considered for the general population. This is about four times the average background in the United States. Much of the radiation received by workers (Table 1 ) would be dissipated within one year. Populations throughout the world live with >1 cGy/y: Kerala (India), Espirito, Guarapari, Araxi, Gerais, (Brazi1) and Ramsar (Iran) (Luckey 1991). The threshold for ionizing radiation was estimated to be about 1000 cGy/y (Luckey 1991) This provides a substantial safety factor."

"The evidence is strong enough to over-ride the moral indiscretions of governments which offer no opportunity to decrease cancer mortality rates with low dose irradiation."