"Low Level
Radiation Health Effects: Compiling the Data"
by Radiation, Science, and Health, Inc.,
Edited by J. Muckerheide
Executive Summary
This data 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.
The evidence contradicts and refutes the
linear no-threshold hypothesis (LNTH).
(LNTH) policies are characterized within the
knowledgeable biology and radiation science community as "without scientific
foundation", "immoral", and as "the greatest scientific scandal of the
century".
This document summarizes existing evidence
organized by "exposed populations" and biological research.
1. The Japanese atomic bomb survivors
2.Occupationally-exposed populations
3. Medically-exposed populations
4. Radium-burden population
5. Nuclear weapons and facilities releases
6. Natural background radioactivity
7. Animal and plant biology
8. Cellular and molecular biology, genetics,
and cancer research
9. Biological models
10. Nutrition and health
Also, preliminary
11. Costs
Radiation science 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.
and
12. Conclusions
BEIR V (1990) states (p 5) in the
"Executive Summary, Carcinogenic Effects":
"Studies of populations chronically
exposed to low-level radiation... have not shown consistent or conclusive evidence of an
associated increase in the risk of cancer." |
Executive Summary
This document compiles a preliminary summary of the large body of valid
scientific data on low level radiation health effects. This represents contributions of
many independent, knowledgeable, radiation scientists and public policy analysts,
committed to the public interest. This document will be supplemented to incorporate
additional significant data from existing and developing scientific evidence.
This data 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 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 are characterized within the
knowledgeable biology and radiation science community as "without scientific
foundation", "immoral", and as "the greatest scientific scandal of the
century".
These policies cause direct public costs estimated to exceed US $2
trillions world-wide of which no more than a few percent contribute any public health
and safety benefits. Such wasted costs are especially significant and immoral in
economically constrained societies with significant real health needs. Indirect costs
may be 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 science policy institutions. Some of the most significant have been terminated.
And reporting of some research results substantially misrepresent their own data.
The scientific evidence contradicts and refutes the linear no-threshold hypothesis
(LNTH).
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 average background radiation per year, compared to
240,000 damage events 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, contrary to scientific principles. Insignificant doses to
individuals are multiplied by large populations to predict health effects. This is likened
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 policy that ignores dose rate effect data is likened 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, which is equally fallacious.
The biological plausibility of these presumptions are refuted by:
1. The large body of radiation health effects data. 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, eg, 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 demonstrated by current biological models.
The data sources are from 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 possibility that low- to moderate-dose exposures can cause harm,
but 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 science policy constrains such research and
reporting of the data.
3.Biological research: in radiobiology, in genetic and cancer research, and in
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.
The scientifically valid data contradict the LNTH. These data
contradict results from massive expenditures over 50 years in research directed by
radiation protection policies to support the LNTH.
Radiation science policies are established for radiation protection objectives and
purposes.
These policies and programs have constrained radiation health effects
research into the dose ranges and populations of interest, along with scientific knowledge
about radiation and human health, and the potential application of radiation in biology,
agriculture, and human and non-human health and nutrition.
Radiation medicine and other applications and benefits have been
constrained and made uneconomic. Default alternatives cause much greater adverse public
health and safety consequences. These policies have resulted in millions of preventable
adverse health effects while causing enormous public costs for "radiation
protection" that provide no significant associated health benefits.
Data exists at the doses and populations to establish that no adverse effects exist.
Contrary to statements from radiation protection policy sources that
requisite data and knowledge do not exist in the low-dose region of interest, hundreds of
scientifically valid studies are reported 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
appropriately reflect the data.
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 doses. Such responses are demonstrated in the
Hiroshima and Nagasaki populations, as well as in other studies of radiation exposures.
Such beneficial responses are often not seen in biological research in
cells that are not supported by complete immune system and cellular communication and
functional capability susceptible to positive stimulation and repair; nor in animals that
are bred for tumorigenesis and those kept in germ-free conditions 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 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 essentially non-existent value to the knowledge of
radiation dose-response for radiation protection purposes.
Unlike most government-funded population study data, this data is not
available to reviewers, including reviewers and analysts for the government- funded BEIR
reports. Recent US DOE control of the RERF provides further uncertainty in the results,
following DOE defunding and closing the Center for Human Radiobiology, and its failure to
publish the results of the 10-year, $10 million, Nuclear Shipyard Worker Study that
contradicts the LNTH.
However, notwithstanding the limitations of the Japanese survivor data,
Dr. Sohei Kondo and others report on analyses from the 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 exposed to more than about 200 cGy, and
approximately 100 fewer cancers for persons exposed to less than about 20 cGy.
The data find no increases, and even statistically significant
decreases, 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.
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.
The actual doses are significantly higher based on the known errors in
dose estimates.
Kondo and others report on studies that show that current lifetime data
indicate that, for the Nagasaki population (that has better dose data, but a smaller
population), the exposed population has longer life than the controls for all groups
greater than 55 years of age.
2. Occupationally-exposed populations
This includes nuclear reactor facility workers, primarily in weapons
materials and reactor research, and those with significantly lower doses in power reactor
operations. Medical workers, military observers of atomic weapons tests, and radium
dial-painting and related workers, with higher doses, are included elsewhere.
Early nuclear facility workers were significantly exposed to radiation.
More recent nuclear workers have generally been exposed to doses that are not
significantly different than natural background and medical exposures. However, many early
workers exposed to significant radiation doses were also exposed to other chemicals and
adverse stress and physical conditions, and exposures to confounding 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 could 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, but with high quality dosimetry, and limited confounding
effects of chemical exposures and other work conditions.
A 10-year, US $10 million study of the shipyard workers was undertaken
in 1978, and completed in 1987, compared to a significant, well-matched case-control
shipyard non-nuclear worker group. These workers show significant reductions in total
mortality and in other specific adverse health effects. They show an expected increase in
mesothelioma from working with asbestos. This contributes to confirming 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 reported 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 reported in the
literature, although substantial funding and data analysis continues. Although the 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).
Studies of the "high-dose" groups in the US and in the UK,
including the cleanup workers following the 1957 Windscale fire, demonstrate find that no
excess cancers exist in these most significant populations.
No credible scientific studies indicate adverse radiation effects to
nuclear workers.
Scientific data and analysis demonstrate that the few studies that are
used to indicate adverse worker health effects are unfounded, with either deficiencies in
the analysis of the data, or by misrepresenting the data. 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.
A recent significant study used to indicate adverse worker health
effects is the International Association for Research on Cancer (IARC). IARC combined the
nuclear worker studies from the UK, US, and France. 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, funded also by DOE, of approximately
700,000 workers, with analysis of data on 35,000 nuclear workers, plus matched controls.
The IARC analysis was limited to a "test for linear trend". From a single data
point with 6 deaths from leukemia vs 2.3 expected (in 238 deaths in workers exposed to
more than 40 cGy), with no increase with dose in the 113 leukemia deaths in the workers
exposed to doses less than 40 cGy, the IARC study misrepresents the 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
review, reporting that a "linear dose response" from low-level radiation was
found in nuclear workers.
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 wartime experience with
wounded military personnel in which case loads, equipment, and practices led to very high
doses. Marie Curie herself practiced at the front lines with her "radiologic
cars", trained hundreds of radiologists, receiving very high doses in the process.
Early radiologists were found to have excess cancers and leukemia in
1950s studies. However, Dr. Peter Smith and Sir Richard Doll reported in follow-up (in
1981) that radiologists in practice since the early 1920s, with mean doses estimated at
about 500 cSv, no excess cancer or leukemia has been found. Also, US studies of 6500 WWII
radiologic technicians, exposed to an estimated 50 cSv in training alone, plus 2 years
service, found that no adverse health effects existed compared to other technicians. In a
study by the US National Cancer Institute of the more than 100,000 US female radiologic
technicians certified since 1926, more than 500 eligible breast cancer cases were
case-compared to 5 controls. 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.
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 followup. Moderate
doses are not found to cause adverse health effects in dozens of studies, considering
significant potential confounding factors from health conditions.
In a representative study, hyperthyroid patients treated with I-131
receive an estimated 10 cSv whole-body/bone dose. Of 22,000 treated by I-131, vs 14,000
treated by other means, primarily surgery, there is no leukemia increase, contrary to LNTH
predictions. 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. Studies of significant x-ray exposures and leukemia incidence are also
negative, with one such study based on competent records of exposures to 300 cSv from
normal x-ray practices over many years.
Nobel Laureate Dr. Rosalyn Yalow reported on the extent of this
evidence that doses at the level of moderate medical exposures 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 show an excess of breast cancer,
ignoring and contradicting its own dose-response data. A more recent report obfuscates
this relationship.
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 than in the general population. Lower genetic malformations and
cancer are found following 1 cGy doses.
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, 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 1000s of cases remained
alive.) Recent followup data and analyses by Dr. Constantine Maletskos, working with
Evans, reports an estimated threshold of 1100 cGy, by Dr. Otto Raabe who reports a
threshold of about 1000 cGy, and by Dr. Robert Thomas, 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.
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. 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.
Kondo reviews the data and reports 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. In
one study of leukemia in one test with relatively 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.
In a more recent 1996 National Academy of Sciences report, 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. 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 radiation. The average dose was estimated to be 6 rem (cSv). There is 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. 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.
No excess cancers are found in the public in Utah exposed to
above-ground atomic bomb test fallout. 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 were found to be significantly lower in the exposed population.
6. Natural background radioactivity
Natural background radioactivity is by far the largest source of
exposure to ionizing radiation. Further, background radiation varies by a factor of about
100. Significant populations are exposed to differences of factors up to about 10.
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. Kondo 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 typically live in the areas for 6 generations,
with a factor of 3 difference in radiation dose. The studies find lower cancer rates in
the high-dose population.
A preliminary analysis funded by the AEC by 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
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 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 US average
dose and cancer data has confirmed these results.
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
poorly differentiated populations. The most comprehensive and scientifically rigorous
study of radon effects and the LNTH has been produced by Dr. Bernard Cohen at U.
Pittsburg, incorporating 272,000 home radon data measurements and county cancer data. This
study demonstrates conclusively that the LNTH can not be valid. Populations in radon spa
areas, especially a study of the population in the spa area of Misasa Japan, find lower
cancer rates in the higher radon source area. Smaller populations with greater dose
differences include Kerala India at about 4 times average background, Guarapari Brazil at
about 6 times background, and Ramsar Iran at about 10 times average background. These
populations all find no adverse effects from background radiation.
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 more than 300 lung cancer cases in women in Shenyang China, with
356 controls. 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. 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.
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. 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, in biochemistry in the U. Missouri
School of Medicine, has summarized more than 2000 studies that demonstrate beneficial
effects from "whole-body" doses, not including studies that demonstrate
beneficial effects from organ doses (eg, radon and lung cancer).
Luckey 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. 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 to radiation protection selectively ignored work and led to
defunding of research to document beneficial effects.
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
science policy direction to assess higher doses for purposes of radiation protection
standards. Studies have demonstrated beneficial effects of low level radiation to response
to infection, as early as 1896, and to wound healing, and other adverse health conditions.
However, no interest was supported in radiation science policy for research on such
beneficial effects for the purpose of establishing the role of radiation in health and
medicine. Beneficial effects in dissolution of selected cancers and in non-Hodgkins
lymphoma have been documented, but research on such potentially beneficial applications
has not been supported by radiation science policy for research.
Dr. H. Planel 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 research has not been supported.
In plants, Dr. S. Sheppard in Canada, Dr. Alexander Kuzin in Russia 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 programs to enhance food supplies.
8. Cellular and molecular biology, genetics, and cancer research
Radiobiologist Dr. Gunnar Walinder 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 rejects the biological 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. 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 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, and others show that
radiation damage effects can only initiate at levels that exceed background 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, Ludwig Feinendegen, and others, report on work by
Drs. Dan Billen, John Ward and others that find 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 normal metabolic and oxidative and related normal 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.
While this does not provide evidence 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, 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 at LLNL and Tom
Downs 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.
Weber reflects current work that applies unconstrained modeling to the
data to allow the data to reflect the dose-response relationship, rather than force data
to a preordained model as is currently applied in radiation science policy to support the
linear model.
10. Nutrition and health
Drs Luckey, Planel and others have produced research data that find
that background radiation deficiency effects microbes, plants and invertebrates 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 policy establishment, even
though: 1. substantial results would be established at the doses of interest for radiation
protection; 2. such preliminary research would require less than 1% of current funding for
current research (while such research can provide limited if any significant results; and
3. the potential benefits to human health are very great, along with the potential
eliminating large and unwarranted public costs for radiation protection , and eliminating
unfounded public fear of radiation.
11. Costs
Radiation science 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 $2
million-million worldwide to meet standards that are far below levels of
naturally-occurring radioactivity and radioactivity releases to exposure of 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.
Radiation protection policies cause further unwarranted public costs by
constraining nuclear technologies due to high costs, and by causing radiation fears that
provide incentives for government and private interests to apply alternatives that are
more costly, provide lower public health and safety, less effective, and with 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.
12. Conclusions
BEIR V (1990) states (p 5) in the "Executive Summary, Carcinogenic Effects"
"Studies of populations chronically exposed to low-level
radiation... have not shown consistent or conclusive evidence of an associated increase in
the risk of cancer."
Nobel Laureate, Professor emeritus Dr. Rosalyn Yalow states (1994) that:
"The association of radiation with the atomic bomb and with
excessive regulatory and health physics ALARA radiation levels practices has created a
climate of fear about the dangers of radiation at any level. However, there is no evidence
that radiation exposures at the levels equivalent to medical usage are harmful.
"The unjustified excessive concern with radiation at any level,
however, precludes beneficial uses of radiation and radioactivity in medicine, science,
and industry."
Professor Dr. Gunnar Walinder states (1996a) that:
"I have found and adduced arguments for that the current
pretensions to knowledge about low-dose transformations of cells into malignant phenotypes
are inconsistent with modern oncology as well as entirely futile on purely epistemological
grounds. In this respect, modern oncology has clearly shown that the contribution of a
small (non-dominant) radiation dose is not a stochastic event but a highly conditional
one.
"The linear, no-threshold doctrine, currently held within the
international radiation protection is, to say the least, remarkable... Where is the
scientific skepticism and from where does the certainty emanate that we can pretend to
have knowledge about the effects of even 'homeopathic' radiation doses? I don't hesitate
to say that the linear, no-threshold hypothesis is one of the greatest scientific scandals
in modern time."
Professor emeritus Dr. Don Luckey states (1994) that:
"The consistent, statistically significant results ...in cancer
invalidate the zero thesis and all linear models derived by linear interpolation...from
large doses to controls. There are no comparable data which support the linear models.
...Cells in culture are laboratory artifacts with little intercellular communication and
negligible hormonal, neurologic or immune control systems. These are the reasons that the
apparent optimum for humans far exceeds the recommended minimums set by various
agencies."
"In addition to lowered cancer mortality rates, physiologic
functions which appear to be enhanced include growth and development, auditory and visual
acuity, learning and memory fecundity, and resistance to infection. ...The subsequent
increased average life span appears to explain the decreased mortality from infections and
cancer; this appears to be due to a stimulation of immune competence."
"Ames noted that most leading scientists are 'very skeptical about
all these worst case, low-dose extrapolations from high-dose animal tests.' (1989) He
reiterates 'the dose makes the poison' and the number of human cancer or birth defects
from man-made pesticide residues is close to zero."
"The argument remains that one ray can cause mutation and cancer.
In the context of the thousands of ...ionizing rays which pass through each of us every
minute, the great repair powers of each cell and the greater recuperative powers of the
integrated whole organism make this a very remote possibility. The evidence shows the
opposite. Low doses of whole body irradiation activate repair and immune responses with
the result that there are fewer cancer deaths in lightly exposed individuals than in
controls. This is repeatedly noted in reports with doses <0.2 Gy or levels <1 cGy/d,
a level about 1000 times mean natural background exposure of adults in the U.S."
"Radiobiologists have not seriously addressed the problem of
hormesis in radiation mutation with challenge experiments. The results from cells in
culture suggest this is a viable avenue."
Dr Sadao Hattori reports (1996) that:
"In 1982, Prof. Thomas D. Luckey asserted 'Radiation Hormesis' in
the Health Physics Journal. He also published two books. ...CRIEPI began our research
program to find the scientific truth because his assertion was extremely different from
the concept of radiation protection. CRIEPI is now promoting this research with fourteen
universities in Japan. The interesting results we have obtained can be categorized in five
groups. "1. Enhancement of immune systems such as lymphocytes and suppression of
cancer, etc., "2. Radio-adaptive response relating to the activation of DNA repair
and apoptosis, "3. Rejuvenation of cells such as increase of SOD and cell membrane
permeability, "4. Radiation effect on neuro-transmitting system through increase of
key enzymes, "5. Others, including the therapy of adult-disease such as diabetes and
hypertension."
"We are now carrying out experimental activities on the effects of
low- dose radiation on mammals. After several years of research activities, we are
recognizing Luckey's claim."
"We have such an impression that a certain low dose radiation
raises some vitalizations of basic biological functions. The recent progress of analytical
technique on the observation of DNA structural responses greatly contributes the enormous
success of our research on hormesis... Our research activities on the biological effects
of low-dose radiation are getting to a very exciting stage. It seems to me that in the
next century we are going to open research to its greatest scope on the mechanism of
life."
Professor emeritus Dr. Bernard Cohen states (1994) that:
"Evidence that low-level radiation substantially enhances the
effectiveness of repair mechanisms is summarized. This finding destroys the theoretical
basis (there is no other basis) for use of a linear-no threshold dose-response
relationship to estimate the cancer risk of exposure to low- level radiation. Such a
methodology will exaggerate the risk. This conclusion is further supported by
epidemiological evidence and by studies of the effects of radon exposure in the
home."
Professor Emeritus, and Member of UNSCEAR, Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski states (1995b)
that:
"The ICRP assumption on linearity was not very realistic. The
original purpose was to regulate ... a relatively small group of occupationally exposed
persons, it did not involve exceedingly high costs to society.
"The dose limit for the public was ...less than one-third of the
global average ...dose from background radiation ...and many tens or hundreds of times
lower than ...many regions of the world.
"Limiting exposure below the levels of natural radiation at which
millions of people have lived since time immemorial is a logical consequence of the ...
assumption
"Yet such reasoning was less than palatable... not only because of
the epistemological problem of trespassing beyond the limits of knowledge ... but also
because of the absurd practical consequences and the moral aspects.
"As demonstrated by Walinder, ...the stochastic phenomenon of
radiation carcinogenesis cannot be for an open system, such as a human being or a
population. It can only be done if the radiation dose is much more powerful than the
natural dose,... A conception that mathematical models adapted for high-dose effects can
be limitlessly extrapolated to low doses and still represent a biological reality is
epistemologically unacceptable. The absurd practical consequences were exposed by the
Chernobyl accident.
"Professor W.V. Mayneord, ...stated: 'I have always felt that the
argument because at higher values of dose an observed effect is proportional to dose, at
very low doses there is necessarily some 'effect' of dose, however small, is nonsense.'
"Dr. Lauriston Taylor, former president of the US NCRP, defined
applications of the linear, no-threshold dose-effect relationship to such calculations as
'deeply immoral uses of our scientific heritage'.
"The no-threshold arithmetic ...led to a decision by the Supreme
Soviet (but against the advice of the leading Soviet scientists (Ilyin 1993) to evacuate
about 116,000 inhabitants of Ukraine and Belarus, causing unspeakable suffering and a loss
of many billions of dollars, equivalent to about 1.5% of the GNP of the ... Soviet Union.
The intervention level for evacuation was ...about twice the world average natural
background dose... [where] the Cs-137 body burden in children still living in these areas
was ... between 40 and 2250 Bq, which is less than the natural burden of radioactive K-40
(4000 Bq) in adults. Body burdens of several thousand Bq are now common in Northern Canada
and were as high as 100,000 Bq during weapons tests in the 1960s."
"...one might ask why governments ... do not relocate populations
in (high natural background) areas ... (W)hy isn't everyone evacuated from Norway, where
the average lifetime dose is 365 mSv and in some districts 1500 mSv? Should not regions of
India with >2000 mSv be depopulated?
"What about areas of Iran with >3000 mSv? ... (I)n the city of
Ramsar several generations in one household have been receiving average individual
lifetime doses of natural radiation of 17,000 mSv, 240 times the current ICRP limit. Yet
these individuals show no increased incidence of disease, and some of them have lived to
be 110 years of age."
"The recognition by UNSCEAR, the most distinguished international
scientific body on the matters of ionizing radiation, of the possibility that low doses of
radiation may result in changes in cells and organisms which reflect an ability to adapt
to the effects of radiation, may inspire the authorities to begin a more realistic
approach to problems of estimating and managing the risks of ionizing radiation. The past
4 decades witnessed regulatory activity, stemming from the linearity principle, steadily
decreasing radiation standards to an absurd subnatural level of 1 mSv per year. The time
is ripe for renunciation of linearity principle in radiation protection of the public and
for considering a practical threshold dose as a basis for radiation standards."
"Since the 1960s, (hormetic) effects have been ignored in
radiation protection practice, while research on stimulating and adaptive effects of
radiation, the radiation hormesis, has continued over several decades. The results of more
than 1200 published papers on hormesis were recently reviewed by Luckey - many of them in
an excellent book by Kondo. The studies on hormesis were also presented at four
international conferences... It is astonishing, however, that even recently the obvious
hormetic effects appearing in the epidemiological studies were often not noticed, not only
by the readers, but by the authors themselves." "Radiation hormesis goes beyond
the notion that radiation has no deleterious effects at small doses; at small doses new
stimulatory effects occur that are not observed at high doses and these new effects may be
beneficial to the organisms.
"Recognition of the existence of hormesis opens up an important
new field of research.
"In mammals, radiation hormesis enhances defense reactions against
neoplastic and infectious diseases, increases longevity and improves fertility . . . in an
experiment with mice the incidence of leukemia, cancers, and sarcomas was lower in animals
irradiated with cesium-137 gamma radiation doses of 2.5 to 20 mSv than it was in
non-irradiated controls. The number of all malignant neoplasms in animals exposed to a
single dose of 10 mSv was more than 30% lower than in non-irradiated controls. In several
experiments, small initial radiation doses have been shown to improve the survival of
animals subsequently irradiated with large, near lethal doses. In other experiments, an
increased life span was found in animals irradiated with doses between 250 and 3000 mSv. .
. . a group of French studies started in the early 1960s, indicate that protozoa and
bacteria exposed to artificially lowered levels of natural radiation demonstrate
deficiency symptoms expressed as dramatically decreased proliferations. This indicates
that ionizing radiation may be essential for life."
Professor emeritus Myron Pollycove, MD, states (1994) that:
"Significant positive health effects associated with low level
radiation have been demonstrated in a review of five epidemiologic studies: decreased
mortality of nuclear shipyard workers, decreased noncancer mortality of atomic bomb
survivors in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Nagasaki alone, decreased lung cancer
mortality associated with increased radon exposure of the U.S. population, and decreased
breast cancer mortality of women in Canada after having received multiple fluoroscopic
examinations. The tendency to neglect or reject data that contradicts the linear-no
threshold theory of radiation carcinogenesis is supported by confidence that chromosome
aberration and gene mutation can be produced by a single particle of ionizing radiation
and so initiate a malignancy. ...Multiple defense mechanisms at molecular, cellular,
organ, and systemic levels involving enzymatic, hormonal, immunologic, and stress protein
interactions are currently being demonstrated and confirmed by numerous investigators (21
refs)."
"Mounting reproducible evidence of the operation of various
defense mechanisms and their stimulation by low dose ionizing radiation will provide
further details of how biological defense mechanisms, nonoperative at high doses, are
stimulated and enhanced by low level radiation damage so as to overcorrect and
predominate. These investigations have clarified why the negative health effects observed
at high levels of radiation that effectively overwhelm these defense mechanisms cannot be
extrapolated to the low levels in which these stimulated defense mechnanisms predominate
with decreased cancer induction, decreased mortality, and other observed positive health
effects."
Professor Pollycove, states also (1996c) that:
"U.S. NCRP 121 states, '...essentially no human data can be said
to prove or even provide direct support for the concept of collective dose (based on the
linear non-threshold (LNT) theory) with its implicit uncertainties of non-threshold,
linearity. and dose-rate independence with respect to risk." (NCRP 1995) Efforts to
present low-dose data that support the LNT theory, a monotonically increasing risk of
cancer, have led to misrepresentation of their data by the authors of three studies: 1)
the 1989 Canadian Fluoroscopy Study, (Miller 1989) (2) its 1996 revision in which the
0.10-0.19 Sv and 0.20- 0.29 Sv dose groups are missing, (Howe 1996) and 3) the IARC
Occupational Workers Study. (Cardis 1995)
"The ICRP and the French Society for Radioprotection under
Chairman Roger Clarke, reviewed the 1996 RERF Report 12 which includes the 1985-1990
mortality data. (Pierce 96, Nucleonics Week 1996) The ICRP claimed, though the authors of
the Life Span Study did not, that their analysis of this new data showed a statistically
significant increased solid cancer mortality at doses as low as 5 rem. According to Warren
Sinclair, president emeritus of the NCRP and chairman of the ICRP Committee 1 which
analyzes results of health-effects studies, the new results 'vindicate' previous
recommendations to lower permissible dose limits to 2 rem/year for occupational workers
and to 0.1 rem/yr for the general public. 'The combination of more data points and a more
precise analysis,' Sinclair said, 'allowed the RERF researchers to state with confidence
that excess cancer risk due to radiation was observed at doses as low as 50 mSv.'
(Nucleonics Week 1996) "Statistical analysis of the excess solid cancer deaths
following exposures of 5 rem (P=0.11) and 15 rem (P=0.42) demonstrate that they are not
statistically significant; the lowest significant DS86 dose for increased solid cancer
mortality is 35 rem (p=0.002) [for colon cancer]. The correct dose for this significant
increase is considerably greater than 35 rem since the revised DS86 dosimetry used gives
estimates for neutron radiation from the Hiroshima atomic bomb that are lower by an order
of magnitude than both the original T65D dosimetry and the experimental values obtained
from neutron activation measurements at the distances from the hypocenter that correspond
to low-dose exposures. (Kondo 1993)"
Professor Dr. Klaus Becker states (1995) that:
"Ph. H. Abelson [in Science, stated], '...extrapolating high dose
to low dose effects is erroneous for both chemicals and radiation. Safe levels of exposure
exist. The public has been needlessly frightened and deceived, and hundreds of billions of
dollars wasted. A hard-headed, rapid examination of phenomena occurring at low exposures
should have a high priority.'
"The extrapolation from high level... to low level... effects
leads to ...obviously questionable results, not only in the radiation protection
community. For example, never in the history of environmental protection have serious
attempts been made to regulate very small fractions of an agent's natural occurrence. The
currently accepted exemption levels for radioactive materials... corresponds to 0.2-0.4%
of the annual average natural exposure, or to a mountain hike or a long flight. Does it
really make logical, economical, or ethical sense to spend substantial sums to avoid such
minute dose increments, for instance in the decommissioning of nuclear facilities?
"In another Editorial in Science, Ph. H. Abelson wrote: 'The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) continues to assert that radon is a major cause of lung cancer in this
country (USA). EPA is fostering a radon programme that could entail huge financial and
emotional costs while yielding negligible benefits to public health.' As W.A. Mills,
President of the Health Physics Society, wrote recently to me privately: 'Fortunately, the
general public is not buying EPA's activist efforts and only the US Congress and those in
the "radon business" keep the "hazard" alive'.
"1. If very small theoretical risks are multiplied with large
numbers of people, very unrealistic and frightening numbers of potential casualties result
with tens or hundreds of thousands of deaths described as 'estimated', 'possible' or
'likely'. In fact, it becomes increasingly clear now, ten years later, that the final
number of radiation related casualties of Chernobyl will be around one or two hundred,
which is about 1-2% of the Bhopal, or 10-20% of the Estonia accidents. However, the
psychological damage done by this type of public misinformation is tremendous, and even
alcoholism, impotence, and laziness are attributed to radiation effects in the Chernobyl
area.
"2. As pointed out by the NRPB, the largest group of
occupationally exposed workers in the UK is the 50,000 or so whose workplaces are in radon
prone areas. The authorities recommend a limit for radiation from radon on a level ten
times higher than for radiation from nuclear installations. As one participant at the 1994
Portsmouth Regional IRPA Congress remarked, 'When God created radon, he did not feel
obliged to follow ICRP recommendations...'.
"There is a serious danger of a loss of credibility for radiation
experts and their sets of recommendations, regulations and restrictions."
"Unfortunately, it is not only anti-nuclear activists in the
media, etc. who are promoting excesses. Some vested interests in the radiation protection
community are detrimental to a more relaxed and reasonable approach. There is a great
temptation for some self proclaimed 'concerned scientists' to get public attention,
interesting committee memberships, lecture invitations, etc.. by, for example, claims of
the discovery of still another 'leukaemia cluster' or 'Chernobyl birth defects increase'.
Such claims give rise within the radiation protection community for even more sensitive,
accurate, and, of course, more expensive instruments and monitoring systems to be
developed, tested, calibrated and sold, institutes to be financed with costly research
projects, expensive training courses and meetings to be organized, and so on. In Germany
we have seen many such cases, and radiation experts from other countries report similar
observations.
"As an example, Prof. P. Pellerin, up to recently director of the
French National Radiation Protection Service. recently wrote to the author :'...classical
lobby attitude among large sectors of the real or so called radiation protection experts,
looking for more institutes, more jobs, more financial support, more comfortable meetings
in pleasant places. The more the public fears radiation, the less politicians can refuse
funds: the more authorities increase the severity of limits, the more the public believes
that any level of radiations is hazardous... I deeply regret the waste of money, efforts
and expertise, spent to prevent most unlikely effects of very low radiation levels... It
would be a real pity if our governments adopt, without any sound scientific basis, the
even more restrictive limits proposed to the Council of Ministers in Brussels, the cost of
which would be tremendous in coming years ... while so many human beings are suffering
from real, not hypothetical, illnesses, underdevelopment, unemployment and starvation.'
"This process may be called the loss of innocence in radiation
protection. It seems indeed important to prevent radiation protection from becoming just
another luxury which only a few rich countries can afford, and which is based more on
entrenched vested interests and politics than on hard scientific facts. Fear of radiation
is rapidly becoming more dangerous than radiation itself and people may soon need more the
protection from false prophets in the radiation protection community than from
biologically irrelevant minute radiation doses."
Dr. Robert Thomas reports (1995) that:
"The analysis of the radium luminizer epidemiology study ...
demonstrates that it is time to evaluate data objectively instead of formatting an
extrapolation scheme beforehand and forcing data to fit a preconceived pattern such as
linearity through a dose-effect origin. The no- effect dose levels discussed should signal
that it is also time to reevaluate (again) the large variations in background radiation
levels throughout the world and to cease being concerned with, and regulating against,
minuscule doses for which no biomedical effects on humans have ever been satisfactorily
identified or quantified."
Professor Emeritus Dr. Harald Rossi states (1996) that:
"During the last two decades the concepts of radiation protection
and the applicable physical quantities have drifted into what must be regarded as chaos.
There is increasing evidence that basic assumptions are wrong and that recommended
measuring procedures are not only at variance with practice but also often impracticable.
While the main responsibility for this situation must be attributed to the International
Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP)..."
"The problems began with ICRP Report 26 which adopted the linear
hypothesis..."
"The dubious straight lines drawn through epidemiological data
have been extrapolated by factors exceeding 100 despite the complexity of cancer induction
and of homeostatic controls. On the basis of ICRP recommendations 'risks' from background
radiation and occupational exposure were calculated that could not be verified in
epidemiological studies."
Professor R.C. von Borstel states (1995) that:
"Linear extrapolation from higher doses to low doses turns out not
only to be a conservative way to calculate risks, but also to be errant and even
misleading. Although...known for at least 30 years, national and international regulatory
agencies are institutionalized and authoritative, and thus have left the door open for
journalists and even radiation experts to predict damages to human beings from
radioactivity fallout. 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.
"Now we have ...an eminently logical book by Sohei Kondo. He uses
the available data on irradiated human subjects to conclude that individuals subjected to
low levels of radiation have longer life spans than those in control populations, and
fewer cases of most types of cancer as a bonus."...
"Kondo's reasons for writing the book were to counter two dogmas:
(1) that radiation is poisonous, however small the dose, and (2) that tumor- causing
mutations depend on DNA replication. He succeeded in dispelling the first dogma. His
argument against the second one is profound, but more experiments are necessary to fully
establish his thesis; nevertheless, he asked testable questions."
"This book is clearly written by an extremely wise man. Let us
hope that regulators of nuclear policy around our planet can use the compiled data and its
conclusions in an equally sagacious manner."
In an abstract, Loken and Feinendegen state (1993) that:
"Because of the strong scientific evidence in support of radiation
hormesis, we can no longer ignore this concept. There is, however, need for additional,
carefully documented investigations in selected biological systems exposed to LLIR if the
matter of radiation hormesis is to be settled once and for all. This need should be
addressed without delay, as the matter of benefits derived from LLIR exposure could have
major economic and epidemiologic implications. ...Furthermore, ...the major source of
exposure from background radiation comes from ...radon gas. The very high cost associated
with effective radon abatement would lead to an abandonment of this mitigation effort so
that the limited funds available to improve public health world wide could be used more
effectively elsewhere. Thus, we conclude that the time is now to consider eliminating the
concept of the radiation paradigm from scientific thinking. We must not continue to
unequivocally accept the propositions that 1) all radiation is harmful and 2) that the
health effects of LLIR may be directly inferred by scaling down from known deleterious
high- dose effects, in as much as there is no scientific basis for an agent not to cause
multiple effects."
Dr. Harold Boxenbaum reports (1992) that:
"Although both Boxenbaum et al and Neafsey have recently addressed
the problem of potentially overlooked longevity hormesis, the risk assessment community
has failed to give it serious consideration. Previously, Smyth had taken notice of the
fact that low doses of otherwise toxic substances can be beneficial. His reward - the
epithet: "Dr. Smyth and his fellow poisoners"
"Although the scientific community envisages itself as the epitome
of institutionalized rationality, many researchers have noted the high degree to which
anomalous information is ignored if it disconfirms basic assumptions of established
paradigms. Once a group agrees that a particular kind of reality is desirable, they
develop a style that permits them to deal with observations solely on their own terms -
and woe to the individual with different ideas (vide supra - Dr. Smyth).
"For most individuals, escape from these intellectual-scientific
fetters is difficult, for the obduracy of established perspective locks practitioners
together in a rigid framework of beliefs that is not readily overcome."
Geras'kin states (1995) that:
"Analysis of up-to-date conceptions and approaches to assessment
of biological effect of small doses of radiation showed that presently there is no unified
concept of biological effect of ionizing radiation in the range of low doses. The models
using for genetic risk assessment are usually based on the linear non-threshold concept
and have insufficient biological justification. They are of extrapolation nature and come
into conflict with available experimental data. The analysis of experimentally observed
cell reactions to irradiation allows the author to conclude that the behavior of genetical
disorders in the range of low doses in universal and could be approximated by
linear-threshold curve. The doses at which the change of dependence takes place are
different for various objects and determined by their sensitivity to external
influence."
Hickey, Bowers and Clelland state (1983) that:
"Although evidence of the reality of radiation hormesis has been
reported in about 1000 scientific publications over the last century, this effect has been
largely unrecognized. Moreover, this widespread non-acceptance of hormesis as a real-world
phenomenon is usually but not always present in the case of chemical hormesis; the
oversight appears systematic. The ignoring of the hormesis phenomenon seems to constitute
a very serious error in modern biomedical science and in preventive medicine."
Dr. Alexander Kuzin states (1979) that:
"On the basis of fundamental investigations in radiobiology,
numerous methods of using ionizing radiations in agricultural practice have been proposed.
The current status of the problem, on the basis of basic, semi- production and
industrial-scale tests of the suggested methods, is described. We conclude that there is
now a satisfactory, economically viable radiation- biology technology. For wide
introduction of this technology into agricultural practice, governmental decisions
concerning the production of specialized equipment, training of service personnel and
overall organization of the work under production conditions are required. |
|
