'Misled The World' When Adopting Radiation Exposure Guidelines

[Marlin]

National Academy Of Sciences 'Misled The World' When Adopting Radiation Exposure Guidelines

Toxicologist Edward Calabrese of the University of Massachusetts Amherst has dropped cultural bombs on both the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and two scientists who provided crucial information for Atomic Age carcinogen risk assessment.

Regarding the linear no threshold (LNT) dose-response approach to ionizing radiation exposure in the 1950s, Calabrese says there was deliberate suppression of evidence to prevent the regulatory panel from considering an alternative, threshold model - the LNT model was later generalized to chemical carcinogen risk ssessment.

The first of Calabrese's articles, both in Archives of Toxicology, is a history of the LNT model for ionizing radiation mutation, a concept accepted by radiation geneticists in the 1950s and recommended by national and international advisory committees for risk assessment and human exposure guidelines and later generalized to chemical carcinogens ever since. It is now used by public health and regulatory agencies worldwide.

In the second of the two articles, Calabrese repeats his earlier accusations that the distinguished radiation geneticist Hermann Muller, in his acceptance speech for the 1946 Nobel Prize, "made deceptive statements" intended to "promote the acceptance of the linear dose-response model for risk assessment for ionizing radiation" and that Muller's advocacy agenda was "masked" by long-time colleague Curt Stern. Their actions affected "key publications in the mutation literature," enhancing acceptance of the linear dose-response and hiding "Muller's deceptions," Calabrese adds.

Calabrese says, "The regulatory research community needs to hear about this. This isn't an academic debate; it's practical, because all of our rules about chemical and low-level radiation are based on unvalidated assumptions and scientific panel decisions made without sound evidence. Now, after all these years, it's very hard when people have been frightened to death of any exposure whatsoever, to persuade them that we don't need to be scared by certain low-dose exposures."


More at link...

http://www.science20.com/news_articles/national_academy_sciences_misled_world_when_adopting_radiation_exposure_guidelines-118411

[Marlin]

This article is a few years old but fits nicely with the one above.
***************************************************************

Radiation May Be Good For You, Says Study

Radiation is dangerous. In high doses it is certainly lethal and chronic exposure is linked to the development of cancer. That's why we have bomb shelters and canned food.

But what if a short-term controlled exposure to a low dose of radiation were good for our health? Don Luckey, emeritus professor at the University of Missouri, claims just that in the International Journal of Low Radiation.

Luckey was also the nutrition consultant for NASA's Apollo 11 to 17 moon missions and has spent the last several years developing the concept of improving health through exposure to low-dose radiation.

"When beliefs are abandoned and evidence from only whole body exposures to mammals is considered, it becomes obvious that increased ionising radiation would provide abundant health," Luckey explains. He suggests that as with many nutritional elements, such as vitamins and trace metals it is possible to become deficient in radiation. "A radiation deficiency is seen in a variety of species, including rats and mice; the evidence for a radiation deficiency in humans is compelling."

In the first part of the twentieth century our understanding of radioactivity was only just emerging and health practitioners began to experiment widely with samples of radioactive materials. Then, exposure to radiation, rather than being seen as hazardous, was considered a panacea for a wide variety of ailments from arthritis to consumption.(1)

The discovery of antibiotics and the rapid advent of the pharmaceutical industry, as well as the fact that it became apparent that exposure to high doses of radiation could be lethal, led to the demise of this "alternative" approach to health.

Today, radioactivity is used in targeted therapies for certain forms of cancer but the use of radiation sources for treating other diseases is not recognized by the medical profession.

Luckey argues that more than 3,000 scientific papers in the research literature point to low doses of radiation as being beneficial in human health and says that, as with many environmental factors, we have evolved to live successfully in the presence of ionizing radiation. His research suggests that radiation exposure can minimize infectious disease, reduce the incidence of cancer in the young, and substantially increase average lifespan.

Studies on the growth, average lifespan, and decreased cancer mortality rates of humans exposed to low-dose irradiation show improved health, explains Luckey. This represents good evidence that we live with a partial radiation deficiency and that greater exposure to radiation would improve our health, a notion supported by 130 on the health of people living in parts of the world with higher background levels of ionising radiation than average.

Luckey suggests that the medical use of small samples of partially shielded radioactive waste would provide a simple solution to radiation deficiency. Of course, there are several questions that will have to be answered before a health program based on this study could be implemented. How much should we have and what is the optimum exposure?

Evidence suggests that low dose exposure increases the number and activity of the immune system's white blood cells, boosts cytocrine and enzyme activity, and increases antibody production and so reduces the incidence of infection, assists in wound healing, and protects us from exposure to high doses of radiation.

More at link...

http://www.science20.com/news_releases/radiation_may_be_good_for_you_says_study

[RDTroja]

Interesting. I seem to remember being ridiculed in this very forum for suggesting that the Radiation Hormesis theory was probably valid. Some 'evilman' suggested a cigarette company wanted to use me for it's next commercial...

[storm13]

Interesting. I seem to remember being ridiculed in this very forum for suggesting that the Radiation Hormesis theory was probably valid. Some 'evilman' suggested a cigarette company wanted to use me for it's next commercial...

I'm hopeful that the Hormesis theory has some validity.  I currently receive about 900 mrem/year occupational dose.

[Rennhack]

I'm always grumpy before I've had my first cup of Rem. 

[Marlin]

I'm always grumpy before I've had my first cup of Rem. 

After 18 years of DOE demolition and remediation I am in serious withdrawal. 

[Rennhack]

After 18 years of DOE demolition and remediation I am in serious withdrawal. 

It's like per diem.

[GLW]

It's like per diem.

no,...no it's not,....

you can be pulling down $110/hour in wages and $110.00/day in per diem and that little $770.00 check once a week still feels really cool,...

just like, somebody comes by your cube, says, "Here you go!" and hands you a little 3.75" X 8.5" check with $770.00 printed on it and your like;

"Dam!, This is just so cool! I sit here doing my thing and somebody just dumps these little slices of numeration on  my desk every week, you know, sometimes I just love being in this country in this age and time, I really, really do!",...

just like it happened 15 minutes ago, oh wait,....it did!!!!!!!

it's almost as good as the triple time and a half + holiday pay working a half shift at GD on Christmas Day once upon a time,...

almost, but not quite,....

a cup of rem never made me feel like that,....

I'm just saying,...

[61nomad]

"I'm hopeful that the Hormesis theory has some validity.  I currently receive about 900 mrem/year occupational dose."

That's not enough for the hormesis benefit.  You need at least 5 R /yr. My health has been going downhill since I worked IP 2 back in the 80's. 3 R /qtr is a healthy dose.

[Wlrun3]

ICRP Task Group 91
Radiation Risk Inference at Low-dose and Low-dose Rate Exposure for Radiological Protection Purposes
The detriment-adjusted nominal risk coefficients recommended by ICRP have been based, to a large extent, on data obtained from the atomic bomb survivors in Japan. Because their exposure was a single acute exposure, and because it was thought that the most plausible biological model for the dose response relationship should be linear quadratic (which implies a larger slope at high doses than a low doses), many international and national relevant bodies, such as UNSCEAR, BEIR and also ICRP have used over the years a Dose and Dose-Rate Effectiveness Factor (DDREF) for estimates of these coefficients at low doses. A value of 2 was used by ICRP for low-dose and low-dose rate exposures, which are typical in radiation protection. With more epidemiological information becoming available and with modern techniques of Bayesian analysis, UNSCEAR has recently re-evaluated all the available information using Bayesian techniques and has estimated risk coefficients that are similar to the ICRP estimates using high doses and a DDREF value of 2. However, in their 2006 report the BEIR committee (BEIR VII) also using a Bayesian approach recommended a DDREF of 1.5.

The Task Group will review the currently available information on the estimation of risk coefficients and recommend:
(1) Whether it is desirable to continue to estimate risk at low doses by assessing the slope of the dose response at high doses and then applying a DDREF reduction factor. The alternative is to adopt the UNSCEAR approach of inferring the risk coefficients at low doses by using all available information and techniques of Bayesian analysis for estimating the best expert judgment.
(2) Whether such coefficients are applicable to acute, protracted and prolonged exposure or need a particular correction.

The Task Group will prepare a position paper including recommendations for further action, for consideration by Committee 1 and the Main Commission.

Chair
Prof. Werner Rühm   
Helmholtz Zentrum München, Germany

[SloGlo]

I'm hopeful that the Hormesis theory has some validity.  I currently receive about 900 mrem/year occupational dose.

while eye am currently at an annual dose of e-3 to the above, aye think the hormesis theory application to radiation exposure will take decades of debate. won only kneads two look at the discussion on viatmins and minerals supplements as a rodemap four this subject.