RSH Data and Documents

RSH Symposium on "Medical Benefits of Low Dose Radiation," November 15, 2000

Symposium Summary Report, by Dr. Jerry Cuttler

Tutorial: The Biological Imperative: Low-Dose Radiation Stimulation, Ron Mitchel, Ph.D., and Doug Boreham, Ph.D., Health Canada and McMaster University, Hamilton ON CANADA, "...experimental evidence indicates that the basic assumptions [of radiation damage] break down at low doses and dose rates, seriously challenging current radiation protection practices as well as identifying biological responses that can be exploited for medical therapy... Recent advances in molecular and cellular biology have placed such observations on a secure scientific footing.
     This tutorial will review the biology of low dose/low dose rate ionizing radiation exposure and provide examples of the consequences in cells and in animals. Our current understanding of radiobiology, and the actual experimental observations, will be tested against the widely held assumptions about radiation exposure."
See also: Radiation Protection in the World of Modern Radiobiology: Time for A New Approach, 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, 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.

Cellular and Organism Dose-Response: Biopositive (Health Benefit) Effects, Myron Pollycove, M.D., U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Rockville MD, mxp@nrc.gov; 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.

Cellular and molecular changes induced by low versus high dose radiation, 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 (are) in the opposite direction to those observed with doses higher than 0.5 Gy... thus resulting in a U- or J-shaped or an inverted U- or J-shaped curve.
     "...data from the author’s laboratory demonstrate the difference in the 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."
See also: Abstracts of research and review papers since 1995 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 Email:drliusz@yahoo.com
85 abstracts demonstrate consistent research results and literature reviews that indicates that low-dose ionizing radiation in whole organisms enhances biological response, and suppresses cancer. (Clinicians are undertaking applications.)

Radon: Health Risks and/or Benefits? The View from Europe, by Prof. Dr. Klaus Becker, V. P., Radiation, Science & Health, Berlin, Germany, prof.dr.klaus.becker@t-online.de
     "Radon may be one of mankind’s oldest therapies: Close to the source with the highest radon concentration in Gastein/Austria, 5.000-6.000 y old votive offerings have been found: the ancient Romans and other old civilizations appreciated radon spas; and in Japan, the springs on Misasa, with up to 160.000 Bq/l of radon, have been used for 800 years. Currently about 75.000 patients annually are treated in German or Austrian radon spas and many more in other countries, in particular in Russia mostly for painful joint or backbone diseases such as rheumatic arthritis and spondilytis ankylosans (Morbus Bechterew), either by inhaling high radon concentrations (in the Bad Gastein „Heilstollen", for example, about 170.000 Bq/m³, or more than 1000 times of the current EPA residential radon limits), by drinking, or by bathing in radon water. The expenses (e. g. in Bad Gastein about $ 500 for 10 h) are mostly paid by the health insurance systems. Even in the more radiophobic USA, the „Free Enterprise Health Mine" has been operating successfully for half a century.
     "Many clinical studies, some of them randomized double-blind studies, clearly demonstrated the superior effect of radon in comparison with an otherwise identical treatment lasting for several months after the end of the treatment."

Low Dose Radon as Alternative Therapy for Chronic Illness, Barbra Erickson, Medical Anthropologist, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada (USA), WONUC Conference, Versailles, FRANCE June 1999
Abstract: "This paper addresses the possibility that the LNT model may not be applicable for low doses of radon, and that low doses of radon may in fact be beneficial for certain chronic illnesses. There are growing numbers of studies indicating an inverse relationship between cancer occurence and low dose environmental radon exposure, as well as numerous studies examining the therapeutic effects of low dose radiation. This protective or beneficial effect, called hormesis, has gained recognition by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR). A large body of anecdotal evidence in support of hormesis exists, in the form of thousands of people who annually use radon spas worldwide... I argue that if a chance exists that chronically ill people may be helped through treatment with low dose radon, then scientific examination of the radon health mines in Montana should be carried out. The fact that much of the supporting evidence is anecdotal should not be a cause for dismissal; on the contrary, that so much anecdotal evidence exists should provide greater incentive for research."

Challenges in providing low-dose irradiation therapy, J.M. Cuttler, Sc.D., Cuttler & Associates Inc., Mississauga, ON, CANADA, jerrycuttler@home.com
Abstract: "Although the existence of beneficial health effects following low radiation doses has been known for a century, a controversy rages among scientists regarding this subject. This seems to be due largely to political, social and economic issues... The medical community could resolve this health concern by starting to provide low-dose irradiation (LDI) therapy, which would help many cancer patients cope with their illnesses at very little risk. Slow progress is being made in Japan and Europe, but there are many barriers everywhere to the introduction of this therapy. The nuclear community should help physicians overcome these barriers. Cancer patients and their support groups, by urging hospitals to offer LDI therapy, may be the key."
See also: Application of Low Doses of Radiation for Curing Cancer, 2000, Jerry M. Cuttler D.Sc., Cuttler & Associates Inc., Mississauga, ON, Canada, jerrycuttler@home.com; Myron Pollycove, M.D., U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Bethesda, MD, mxp@nrc.gov; James S. Welsh, M.D., 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, Zbigniew Jaworowski, Ph.D., Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection,Warsaw, POLAND,   International Conference on Radiation and its role in Diagnosis and Treatment. FICR - 2000. Tehran, IRAN October 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."

It’s Time to Tell the Truth About the Health Benefits of Low-Dose Radiation, by James Muckerheide, Radiation, Science, and Health, Needham MA; Center for Nuclear Technology and Society at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester MA; Mass. State Nuclear Engineer, Framingham, MA rad_sci_health@comcast.net.
"Low-dose radiation is documented to be beneficial for human health but, for political reasons, radiation is assumed to be harmful at any dose.   Radiation-protection scientists, and others, who cover up the data that contradict present policy should be investigated for misconduct.
    "Low-dose radiation has been shown to enhance biological responses for immune systems, enzymatic repair, physiological functions, and the removal of cellular damage, including prevention and removal of cancers and other diseases. Research on low-level radiation has also shown it to have no adverse effects. Yet, current radiation protection policy and practice fail to consider these valid data, instead relying on data that are poor, ambiguous, misrepresented, and manipulated.
    "With no regard for the cost to scientific truth, and to taxpayers, radiation policy is based on the linear no-threshold (LNT) concept, that holds that radiation at any levels above zero is deleterious. In the LNT view, the known damaging effects of high-dose radiation are linearly extrapolated down the dose scale. LNT contradicts the scientific evidence, which shows that there is a radiation threshold, below which there is no harm and, in fact, there is benefit for human health, a process known as hormesis, which is normal biological response to all stressors. In defiance of this evidence, radiation-protection policy relies on falsification of the actual science research and reporting. Such malfeasance warrants scientific misconduct investigations for the results promulgated by some radiation protection-funded scientists."

Applying the Data: In Science, Law, and Public Policy, Theodore Rockwell, Sc.D., Founding Officer: Radiation, Science, and Health, Inc. and MPR Associates, Inc.; Technical Director, US Naval Nuclear Program, US AEC-retired. tedrock@cpcug.org
The credible science shows that while high doses of radiation can damage living organisms, low doses stimulate the body’s defenses to promote many important beneficial health effects and medical applications. More aggressive actions are planned or under way; and more are being proposed: to apply the science to challenge, in court if necessary, EPA's proposed rule on 'radionuclides in water;' to challenge DOEs false reports on radiation health effects in workers, and NRC on the false NCRP SC-1 report; to consider filing allegations of 'scientific misconduct' in the more egregious cases of manipulation and misrepresentation of the data that claim support for the LNT; and to apply the science to expand LDR medical applications to treat cancer, infection, inflammation, and other conditions, including diabetes, AIDS, wound healing, with appropriate research and clinical trials.