Low level radiation health effects data sources:
Data show non-linear, biphasic, effects of low dose radiation;
Radiation hormesis, and medical and health benefits

Science Papers [Links to Science Papers on the Internet (later)]

85 Abstracts of research and review papers 1995-1999 by Shu-Zheng Liu and co-workers at the MH Radiobiology Research Unit, Norman Bethune University of Medical Sciences, 2000, by Shu-Zheng Liu, Ph.D., and co-workers, drliusz@yahoo.com and
113 Abstracts of papers published 2000-2007 by Liu and co-workers, 2008. [.doc, 47 pages, 340KB].
    85 ABSTRACTS-1995-1999 that provide consistent research results and literature reviews that show that low-dose radiation ( LDR ) in whole organisms consistently enhances numerous biological responses,  that are highly significant to health (and acting opposite to high dose, high dose-rate radiation responses), and demonstrate actions to suppress cancer!
     113 ABSTRACTS-2000-2007 A Word document providing an additional 113 abstracts from Dr. Liu's lab from 2000 through 2007!  (to be converted to a table).

There has NEVER been a Time when the Beneficial Effects of Low-Dose Ionizing Radiation were NOT Known, 2002, by Jim Muckerheide, [PDF 530KB] Center for Nuclear Technology and Society at WPI, Radiation, Science, and Health, Inc., Massachusetts State Nuclear Engineer, rad_sci_health@comcast.net 
     Health and medical benefits of radon- and radium-health spas were known for centuries. After radioactivity was discovered, this link was documented.
      In 1896, a few months after Röntgen published his x-ray paper, health benefits of low-dose x-rays were demonstrated (e.g., irradiatied animals injected with lethal doses of diphtheria bacillus readily recovered); along with many reports of high-dose harm. We know now that the response described was primarily immune system stimulation. It cured and prevented diseases, especially infections and inflammations. There were many successful medical applications.
      Studies and review papers, e.g., the cover paper in “Science,” Sept 15, 1915 by A. Richards, documented the consistent and opposite physiological effects between low and high doses.
      In 1936 an NAS report discounted known stimulatory effects of low-dose radiation. This continued after WWII. Data and research showing that low dose radiation is not, can not be, harmful, and even beneficial, demonstrating "radiation hormesis," were simply ignored, and research defunded, by Federal agencies and their funded researchers appointed to the closed radiation protection "advisory bodies." Their various rationales were to foster fear of nuclear weapons; to respond to produce profits for the medical and pharmaceutical industries; and for radiation protection funding and programs.

Is the radon risk overestimated? Neglected doses in the estimation of the risk of lung cancer in uranium underground miners., 2002, by Philippe Duport, Ph.D., International Centre for Low Dose Radiation Research, Institute of the Environment, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada. pduport@uottawa.ca
Only the exposure to inhaled radon decay products is usually taken into account in the determination of the risk of radiogenic lung cancer in uranium miners.  However, the elevated lung cancer risk in uranium miners is due to the total dose of radiation received by that organ, not to the dose from inhaled Radon-222 decay products (²²²Rn D.P.) alone.  Lung doses from sources other than ²²²Rn D.P. may reach 25% to 75% of total effective dose, absorbed dose or equivalent lung dose, are correlated to ²²²Rn D.P. doses and are quite variable between facilities.   Therefore, to neglect these doses leads to a systematic overestimation of the risk of lung cancer

Biologic Responses to Low Doses of Ionizing Radiation: Detriment Versus Hormesis
Part 1. Dose Responses of Cells and Tissues, July 2001, Ludwig Feinendegen, MD, and Myron Pollycove, MD [ PDF 746KB ]
Part 2. Dose Responses of Organisms, September 2001, by Myron Pollycove, MD, and Ludwig Feinendegen, MD [ PDF 455KB ]
Journal of Nuclear Medicine July 2001 and September 2001 pollycove@comcast.net, feinendegen@gmx.net
In this two-part special contribution to Newsline, Ludwig Feinendegen and Myron Pollycove present current basic research data supporting radiation hormesis. Both authors believe that such data is often ignored in the face of a persistent and enduring scientific adherence to the linear no-threshold dose presumption. The authors suggest that a reassessment of this data is overdue and could have striking implications for the future practice of nuclear medicine.

Radiation Biology of Low Doses, 2001, by R. E. J. Mitchel, Ph.D., Radiation Biology and Health Physics Laboratories, Chalk River ON, Presented in Munich, November 29, 2001. mitchelr@aecl.ca
"At low doses and dose rates of low LET radiation, there are no data in the literature that support the LNT as a general hypothesis for cancer risk, and considerable evidence contradicting it, including the evidence given here, then this hypothesis must be rejected. Some of the basic principals used in radiation protection, such as ALARA, as low as reasonably achievable, and the precautionary principle are not consistent with the biology of low doses. It is time for a new risk based approach to radiation protection, firmly linked to the actual biological responses.

Radiobiology Deceptions Reject Health, 2000, by T. D. Luckey, Ph.D., [ PDF 146KB ] Prof. Emeritus, U. Missouri-Columbia School of Medicine. Presented at ICONE 8, 8^th International Conference on Nuclear Engineering, April 2-6, 2000, Baltimore, MD USA.   tdl108@sunflower.com
     Radiobiology data shows that biological functions are stimulated at low doses of ionizing radiation, radiation hormesis, while high doses result in detrimental effects. This results in improved health, and successful treatment of medical conditions, with low to moderate radiation doses consistently producing radiation hormesis, as shown in numerous studies, in both animal experiments and human epidemiological studies that investigate dose ranges that result in radiation hormesis.
        Public policy, and the public, are misled by deceptions in conducting and reporting research. The unfounded assumption that dose-response is “not inconsistent with” the “Linear No-Threshold” (LNT) hypothesis, is supported to expand radiation protection programs and funding, for no public health benefits, while explicitly suppressing results that demonstrate radiation hormesis.
        Deceptions occur in numerous categories, in both radiobiology and epidemiology research. Categorization and preliminary examples of such deceptions are provided.

Cellular and molecular changes induced by low versus high dose radiation, 2000, Shu-Zheng Liu, Ph.D., MH Radiobiology Research Unit, Norman Bethune University of Medical Sciences, Changchun, China, drliusz@yahoo.com
    Abstract: "..When one goes down to the lower dose range, especially with doses below 0.2 Gy, changes of many biological parameters in the opposite direction to those observed with doses higher than 0.5 Gy are often documented, thus resulting in a U- or J-shaped or an inverted U- or J-shaped curve. In the present paper ... data from the author’s laboratory demonstrate the difference in nature of effects induced by low versus high dose X-rays at molecular and cellular levels, as well as their implications in the intact organism. A hypothetical dose-effect model is suggested to summarize the observations."

Residential Radon and the LNT Hypothesis, Abstract, 2000, Prof. Dr. Klaus Becker, V. P., Radiation, Science & Health, Berlin, Germany, prof.dr.klaus.becker@t-online.de
    "..On the one hand, some institutions claim, based on miners’ and a few case-control epidemiological studies, that large numbers of additional lung cancers in the population are due to residential radon. On the other hand, various recent studies, e.g. with never-smoking women in high radon areas, as well as animal and cell experiments, indicate thresholds, perhaps even biopositive effects, including the reduction of other types of cancer in areas with increased residential radon levels."

Cellular and Organism Dose-Response: Biopositive (Health Benefit) Effects, Myron Pollycove, M.D., U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Rockville MD, pollycove@comcast.net Prof. Emeritus, UC San Francisco; and Ludwig E. Feinendegen, M.D., Prof. Emeritus Julich, and Senior Researcher U.S. DOE and National Institutes of Health, feinendegen@gmx.net
     "Abstract: The genes in every cell continuously undergo an immense amount of metabolic damage by reactive oxygen species (ROS) which is prevented, repaired, and removed by a complex antimutagenic system. Recent studies document low dose radiation stimulation of many cellular functions, including antioxidant prevention, enzymatic repair, and immunologic and apoptotic removal of DNA damage. This homeostatic system is stimulated by a ten, or even a hundredfold increase in background radiation. Enhanced prevention of gene mutations by the spatial and temporal differences of ionizing radiation ROS and metabolic ROS is associated with radiation hormesis: decreased mortality and decreased cancer mortality observed in populations exposed to low dose radiation. Therapeutic stimulation of the immune system by low dose body irradiation prevents and removes cancer metastases in mice, rats, and humans.

Application of Low Doses of Radiation for Curing Cancer, 2000, Jerry M. Cuttler DSc, Cuttler & Associates Inc., 1781 Medallion Court, Mississauga ON Canada, jerrycuttler@home.com; Myron Pollycove MD, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Rockville MD, pollycove@comcast.net; James S. Welsh MD, Johns Hopkins Medical Institute, Baltimore MD, welshja@jhmi.edu
     "Abstract: Successful clinical trials of low dose irradiation therapy for curing cancer were carried out in the USA in the 1970s and, more recently, in Japan and France. A cure of colon cancer and a case study of the successful control of a cancer of the blood following this low-dose therapy are reported. The prompt, beneficial response of the patient’s blood data to the radiation exposures supports the notion of radiation hormesis in humans. Widespread application of low dose therapy would help many cancer patients and could help to correct misconceptions and resolve the controversy about the biological effects of low doses of ionizing radiation."

Ionizing Radiation and Radioactivity in the  20^th Century, 2000, by Zbigniew Jaworowski, Ph.D., Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland, at the Int'l Conf on Radiation and its Role in Diagnosis and Treatment. FICR - 2000. Tehran, Iran, Oct. 18-20, 2000.
     "After ionizing radiation and radioactivity were discovered at the end of the 19^th century their social status has oscillated between enthusiastic acceptance and rejection. This was in concurrence with recognition of their three basic aspects: 1) usefulness for medical applications and for technical and scientific aims; 2) beneficial effects of their low levels; and 3) harmful effects of high levels. In the first part of the 20^th century the acceptance prevailed, in the second the rejection. The change of the public mood, that occurred rather abruptly after the World War II, was not due to discovery of some new danger of radiation, but was caused by political and social reasons, not related to real radiation effects."

A Review of Japanese Studies on the Health Effects of Exposure to Low Doses of Ionizing Radiation, 2000, by Masahito Kaneko, Radiation Effects Association, Tokyo, Japan, mkaneko@rea.or.jp
     "Presented here is a brief review of animal and human studies on low dose radiation health effects carried out in Japan.  The ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) principle based on the "Linear No-Threshold Hypothesis (LNTH)" has significantly contributed to keep radiation exposures of workers and members of the public low.  On the other hand, the LNT has been interpreted to mean that  "Even a minute amount of radiation is dangerous" and it has produced, or at least increased, "Radiophobia."  This has made it difficult to fully enjoy the beneficial uses of radiation, to site nuclear power plants, and to dispose of radioactive wastes.  It may not be justified to spend tremendous amounts of natural and human resources to further reduce trivial amount of exposure doses.
     "International cooperation of scientists and radiation safety specialists is essential for the achievement of reasonable radiation protection for the benefit of human beings."

Radiation Protection in the World of Modern Radiobiology: Time for A New Approach, 2000, by R. E. J. Mitchel, Ph.D. and D. R Boreham, Ph.D., Radiation Biology and Health Physics Branch, AECL, Chalk River Laboratories, Chalk River, ON Canada, at IRPA-10, May 2000, Hiroshima, JAPAN.
     "None of the predictions of the LNT hypothesis, as it applies to cancer risk from low or chronic doses of low LET radiation, are supported by the data in human or rodent cells. The limited data in animals also indicates that the observed responses are not consistent with the hypothesis. The protective responses observed in mammalian cells and in animals are consistent with those seen in lower eukaryotes, including yeast, indicating that they are evolutionarily conserved and lending credence to the idea that such responses are the normal and expected consequences of low dose exposures.
    " Scientific advancement depends upon the testing of hypotheses. When the data do not support the hypothesis being tested, that hypothesis must be rejected and replaced with a new testable hypothesis. Since, at low doses and dose rates, there are no data in the literature that support the LNT hypothesis for cancer risk, and considerable evidence contradicting it, including the evidence given above, then this hypothesis must therefore be rejected.
      "It is time for a new risk based approach to radiation protection, firmly linked to the actual biological responses."

RADIATION HORMESIS: Biopositive Effect of Radiations, 1998, T.D. Luckey, Ph.D., Prof. Emeritus U. Missouri-Columbia School of Medicine, Loveland CO, USA.
     "Introduction: My purpose is to promote harmony with nature and to improve our quality of life with the knowledge that cancer mortality rates decrease following exposure to low dose irradiation. Hormesis (Greek HORMO = I excite) is the stimulation of any system by low doses of any agent. Hormology is the study of excitation. Low doses of many agents evoke a biopositive effect ; large doses produce a bionegative effect. The message is simple:  small and large doses induce opposite physiologic results.
    "Radiation hormesis implies stimulation by ionizing radiation. Cancer induction is the most feared action of large doses of ionizing radiation. Therefore, cancer mortality rates will be used to illustrate radiation hormesis in humans. Large doses of ionizing radiation increase cancer mortality rates; this is considered to be harmful. Since small doses decrease cancer mortality rates, low dose irradiation is beneficial. Although small doses of radiation can stimulate cell an cancer growth, the stimulation of different components of our complex immune system more than compensates for simple cellular effects. The net effect is a decreased cancer mortality.
    "This report will a) review the development of the concept of hormesis, b) present an overview of radiation hormesis in humans, c) compare and contrast hormesis and homeopathy, and d) suggest a surprising mechanism. Constraints of time and space dictate that each of these will be very brief."

"Organizing and Applying the Extensive Data that Contradict the LNT" by Jim Muckerheide, March 2, 1999, Waste Management '99, Tucson AZ.
     "The identification, and organization, of radiation health effects data, is needed to effectively apply the large body of relevant, valid, scientific data. The existing data are being organized to provide an initial basis to undertake the necessary credible, rigorous, technical review needed to reassess the bases produced by ICRP, NCRP and BEIR Committees that ignore substantial data to characterize low level radiation as a hazard. Such a reassessment and reexamination of the bases for regulation has been called for by the NRC Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste¹.
    "The Radiation, Science, and Health, data source document provides extensive relevant data. It incorporates the contributions of many independent, knowledgeable, radiation scientists and public policy analysts, working in the public interest. This "Data Document" is being updated to incorporate additional significant data from existing and developing scientific sources."

Molecular Biology, Epidemiology, and the Demise of the Linear No-Threshold (LNT) Hypothesis, by Myron Pollycove, M.D.,   Visiting Medical Fellow, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Professor Emeritus Laboratory Medicine and Radiology, University of California, San Francisco. June 8, 1998,  International Symposium on Health Effects of Low Dose Ionizing Radiation, International Centre for Low-Dose Radiation Research, University of Ottawa.  
     NCRP 121 states "...essentially no human data, can be said to prove or even to provide direct support for the concept of collective dose with its implicit uncertainties of non-threshold, linearity and dose-rate independence." Michael Bishop, Nobel Laureate discoverer of the oncogene, states, "A single mutation is not enough to cause cancer. In a lifetime, every single gene is likely to have undergone mutation on about 10¹⁰ separate occasions in any individual human being." A new understanding of the effects of radiation on organisms has developed from rapid advances of molecular biology during the past two decades. We now understand why low-level radiation is beneficial. These biological studies have confirmed that free radicals produced by the normal metabolism of oxygen generate a very high background of oxidative DNA damage in every cell every day. Low-dose radiation stimulates immune response. Extensive human data, including successful treatment of cancer, confirm these biological effects.

The Rise And Fall of the Linear No-Threshold (LNT) Theory, by Myron Pollycove, M.D., Visiting Medical Fellow, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Professor Emeritus Laboratory Medicine and Radiology, University of California, San Francisco.
     "No low-dose radiation study ( less than 20 cGy ) supports the LNT theory of increased carcinogenesis and mortality risk, while several statistically significant low-dose studies do contradict the theory. The biophysical concept of carcinogenesis from mutations that are induced by low-dose, low-dose rate DNA damage is incorrect because it ignores:
    "That the molecular biology of our DNA damage-control biosystem that each day effectively removes 10¹⁶ mis/unrepaired DNA alterations of which only 10⁹ are induced by background radiation. That.low dose radiation stimulates and improves the highly effective DNA damage-control biosystem that keeps us alive until it declines with age or is damaged by high doses of radiation or other agents."

Test of the Linear No-Threshold Theory of Radiation Induced Cancer, (Abstract) by Bernard L. Cohen, Ph.D., U. Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA USA Proceedings of the 38th SAAPMB and the 1st SARPA Congress, May 12, 1998.
     "Data on lung cancer mortality rate vs mean radon exposure in 1729 U.S. Counties (comprising 90% of the U.S. population) were used to test LNT. The LNT predicts a mortality increase with increasing radon concentration by 7.3% per pCi/L; whereas the data show a decrease of about 8 (+/-0.8)% per pCi/L, a discrepancy of 20 S.D. Extensive efforts to explain this discrepancy have been unsuccessful in even appreciably reducing the discrepancy. Requirements on some unrecognized confounding factor that can explain our discrepancy make its existence highly implausible. Our data do not conflict with any other known data. By far the most plausible explanation of our discrepancy is gross failure of LNT in this low dose region where it has never been experimentally tested."

Radiation Research: Biasing the Data for a Predetermined Result, by Jim Muckerheide, March 2, 1998, Waste Management '98.
     "Bias was introduced by funding to support radiation protection rather than research on radiation in       biology and health, and to assess the evidence of beneficial effects. No substantial evidence supports the LNT hypothesis. Substantial evidence contradicts it. Natural radiation levels are beneficial, perhaps even essential as doses below low background levels are detrimental. Low-doses stimulate immune functions, and are used to successfully treat and prevent cancer. However, radiation science policy has  ignored and suppressed evidence of beneficial effects and prevented confirmatory research."