I Say There, Old Chap

A final study on weapons workers and nuclear power workers comes from England's National Radiological Protection Board. The study, involving 95,100 workers over 3,237,378 person-years was conducted by G.M. Kendall, et. al. and caused a recent stir in the United States. [Kendall, G.M., et al. Mortality and occupational exposure to radiation: first analysis of the National Registry for Radiation Workers. British Medical Journal, 304, 220, 1992.]

T.D. Luckey has taken exception to the manner in which the data was presented, in particular that it dramatically increased the apparent cancer risk by not differentiating between the doses received by certain workers. The English authors have objected to Luckey's objection and are apparently unwilling to undertake any revision that would jeopardize their conclusion. [Not only are they uninterested in considering a revision, they don't want Luckey doing so either and have refused to supply specific age information, as it might identify particular workers. (Interestingly, in the report, fewer than 2% of the workers requested anonymity.)]

What conclusion is that?

"There is evidence for an association between radiation exposure and mortality from cancer, in particular leukemia (excluding chronic lymphatic leukemia) and multiple myeloma, although mortality from these diseases in the study population was below that in the general population." [Emphasis added.]

So, considering the data presented in Figure 20, how can the report claim a positive correlation between radiation and cancer? You guessed it: "There is strong evidence of a healthy worker effect." Why? Because, according to the report, "Mortality is lower in radiation workers than in the general population of England and Wales - overall and for most specific causes, including cancer."

Caption and source for Figure 20 Mortality Among British Nuclear Workers: The "lagged analysis excludes the first two years (leukemia) or first ten years (other cancers) after the start of radiation work. Source: Kendall, G.M., Muirhead, C.R., MacGibbon, B.H., O'Hagan, J.A., Conquest, A.J., Goodill, A.A., Butland, B.K., Fell, T.P., Jackson, D.A., Webb, M.A., Haylock, R.G.E., Thomas, J.M., and Silk, T.J. Mortality and occupational exposure to radiation: first analysis of the National Registry for Radiation Workers. British Medical Journal, 304, 220, 1992.

One might suggest there is a case of circular reasoning here: There is evidence of healthy worker effect since the workers are healthier. As in the study by Dr. Gilbert, no controls of unexposed co-workers were used; nor was any consideration given to the possibility of hormesis.

The LNT dies hard.

For those who have, or may contemplate, working around radioactive materials, you might be pleased to read the following:

There was a 66% decrease in the death rate from infection and parasitic disease in exposed workers at the Savannah River Plant when compared with unexposed controls within the same area. [Cragle, D.L. et al. Mortality among workers in a nuclear fuel products facility. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 14, 397, 1988.]

Los Alamos workers exposed to greater than 1 mGy (100 mrem) were compared with the U.S. population. The exposed group had only 58% as much total cancer mortality as controls, although brain cancer mortality exceeded controls by 17%. Other cancer categories were: lymphopoietic, 56%; respiratory, 57%; digestive, 67%; leukemia, 75%; no thyroid or bone cancer mortality was found in exposed persons. [Acquavella, J.F., et al. A melanoma case-control study at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, Health Physics, 45, 587, 1988.]

"The total number of deaths experienced by Union Carbide employees in the three Oak Ridge atomic energy facilities over the past 16 years, 1950 through 1965, was compared with the deaths which would be expected or predicted by applying U.S. Bureau of Vital Statistics (BVS) mortality rates to the employee population over this period of time. There were 692 deaths among the plant population over this period, which involved over 200,000 man-years of employment. Based upon the BVS mortality rates, one would have predicted 992 deaths. It is therefore concluded that these employees are experiencing a signficantly lower death rate than the average of the white population [the employees were predominately white] throughout the United States." [Larson et al. Comparison of Union Carbide employees in Oak Ridge atomic energy facilities with U.S. Bureau of Vital Statistics Mortality, UCC Report K-A-708, issued June 9, 1966.]

"Up-to-date cancer incidence data for those cohorts [weapons plant workers] are reviewed and continue to show rates below those expected in the general population. This, in a population of workers exposed during their occupations over many years to radiation doses that would be considered unacceptable today, and studied as a 'bellwether' for predicting risk to current workers, there is evidence at a cellular level of their having received that exposure, but as yet no evidence of unpredicted harm." [Emphasis added.] [Berry, R.J., et al. Biological markers, morbidity, and mortality in a long-serving radiation worker population. American Nuclear Society Transactions, November 1994.]

Mortality studies of plutonium workers at Rocky Flats [Colorado] involving 7,112 workers from 1952 to 1979 gave cancer deaths at 64% of the expected number in the general population. [Nuclear News, December 1981, pp. 135-38.]

***

I would hate to be a regulator these days and to be required to continually come up with excuses as to why the data are wrong, and why my opinion is right. But then, perhaps things would look differently if my prestige and paycheck were on the line.

Maybe What We Know Ain't So?

The trouble with people is not that they don't know, but that they know so much that ain't so. - Josh Billings 1818-85

If you've been living on planet Earth anytime during the past fifty years, you are well aware of the dangers of radiation. We have learned that whenever we are exposed to X-rays, for example, there are certain precautions that must be taken. For dental X-rays, we'll need to have that lead-lined apron over us to make sure our reproductive organs are shielded from ionizing radiation. And, of course, the hygienist or technician must duck behind a lead partition because of the cumulative effect of any radiation that might bounce around the room. Not abiding by these rules will cause our cancer risk to increase substantially and may cause mutations in any children born after exposure of parental glands. All radiation is dangerous, and its danger is cumulative.

The thesis of this book contradicts such "common knowledge." While it is unquestionable that very high levels of radiation can cause death, illness and the increased risk of cancer, there is unimpeachable evidence that low levels of radiation are not harmful to human life at all. In fact, we require additional exposure to ionizing radiation in order to achieve our optimal health and vitality.

It is my purpose in this book to convince you that:

• Low levels of ionizing radiation (that which we call "nuclear" or "atomic" radiation) are not harmful to human beings - or any other living creatures for that matter;
• With rare exceptions, we live in an environment where most of us could achieve improved health and vitality by increasing our exposure to radiation;
• While cancer is one of the three hazards of radiation (the other two being radiation sickness and death from huge doses), exposure to low levels of radiation would actually reduce occurrences of cancer; and
• Society is being denied a virtually unlimited source of clean energy with unimaginable benefits because of this irrational fear of radiation.

Certainly these statements may sound like the ravings of a mad man. I fully understand that and realize that it is up to me to provide adequate evidence to support my claims - which is mostly what this book is about. But first I'd like to lay a little groundwork, starting with a question that must be bothering you. "If low levels of radiation are not harmful and appear to be beneficial, why aren't scientists publishing papers about this and attempting to correct the public's misconceptions about radiation effects?"

That's an easy one. They are. And they too are amazed that what some see as "the story of the decade" is being totally ignored by the general media. Even those of us who diligently try to keep up with the news by reading a variety of news sources are unlikely to come across the subject (unless we are regular readers of Health Physics or The Journal of Radiation Research).

This book cites well over a hundred scientists - almost all with doctorates in their fields of specialty - that have published reams of data in more than fifty peer-reviewed scientific journals and scores of government documents. They are trying desperately to communicate their experimental results and the implications thereof to the public.

Many of them have not figured out that this is a Green Issue and that the reporters and editors are not about to go against their Green friends who reflexively demonize anything considered to be "pro-nuclear." But they're learning. If low levels of radiation are realized to be benign, then there goes the argument against nuclear power - and that may well tumble the house of cards that is the Green-Primitivists' argument against an industrialized society.

While there are, as mentioned, hundreds of scientists who are pushing for a truthful assessment of the effects of low levels of radiation, it was not always so. The one figure whose research in this area has been pivotal is Professor T.D. Luckey, now-retired chairman of the Biochemistry Department at the University of Missouri School of Medicine. His 1980 book Hormesis with Ionizing Radiation cited more than a thousand experiments indicating that small amounts of radiation promoted growth and prolonged life in non-mammalian subjects. I can recall hearing of the book in 1981 and expecting a firestorm of interest in the beneficial uses of radiation. Not a word.

Dr. Luckey's second book, Radiation Hormesis, is the seminal work on the subject of beneficial effects of radiation on humans and other mammals. By this time other researchers had concluded there was at least a threshold of radiation exposure below which there were no adverse effects. But Luckey would not back down from his hypothesis: that most of us require additional ionizing radiation for optimal health and well being. The evidence, as you will see, makes a compelling argument. But still not a word in the general media. It is from Luckey's second book that much of the material herein has been "harvested."

[Hormesis with Ionizing Radiation, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, 1980 (out of print); Radiation Hormesis, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, 1991. Available from CRC Press, 2000 NW Corporate Blvd., Boca Raton, FL 33431, for $195 plus shipping.]

* * *

This book is about radiation hormesis - a phenomenon virtually unknown outside of certain scientific circles, but the understanding of which offers the potential for significant health benefits and a pathway to rational treatment of radiation dangers. By reopening access to the wonders of nuclear technology, it promotes a more abundant life for mankind. Since the radiation hormesis hypothesis was put forth, it has caused a major upheaval in the scientific community about the effects of low-level radiation. At the same time, there has been an almost complete news blackout for the rest of us. I hope this book will help lift that veil.

The plan here is to provide you with information that helps cut through the confusing units of radiation intensity, its doses, the types of radiation, and other information that should allow you to make sense of the evidence. Then most of the book is in the form of evidence from experiments that were intended as studies of high-level effects, but in which the low-level data were also recorded. There are also several important investigations (with huge numbers of participants) where it was anticipated that the subjects would experience more cancer with an increase in radiation exposure, only to find that the exact opposite occurred.

At the outset you should know that there is nothing I can claim as original in the following pages. I am but an engineer reporting the results of scientists who have done the experiments or epidemiologists who have complied and analyzed data related to the effects of low levels of exposure. Being free to "pick and choose," I've selected the studies I thought were most interesting and indicative of hormesis. However, I did not exclude any because they showed opposite results. While I am certainly aware that there are many with opinions to the contrary, those who opine that low-level radiation is a danger have no data and must rely on extrapolations - and indeed, it is these very extrapolations that are the problem.

To Work, Dear Reader

You also have a job: It is to be totally skeptical of everything you read here. Doubt every sentence until I have presented sufficient evidence to back it up. There is an unbelievably large body of evidence about the effects of low doses of radiation on health, and some ninety-eight percent of it supports the hormesis model. I consider it quite an adventure to expose you to just a fraction of it.

Carefully and critically examine the evidence that is put forth here, and when you do, I believe that you will agree that the case I am making is indeed supported by the facts. And no longer will you allow the wool to be pulled over your eyes or those of your family, friends, and associates.

Let's begin by looking at how our attitudes toward radiation have changed during the past few decades.