Radiation Myths Harming Public Health

Radiation Myths Harming Public Health by Jay Lehr, February 24, 2010

I was recently invited to lunch by the editors of Newsweek magazine in New York City to discuss with them my views on what should be included in their next special issue on the nation's environmental priorities.

They were quite shocked when I told them that one of my top three, just behind applying DDT to stamp out malaria and improving drinking water supplies for impoverished nations, was reducing the unwarranted fear of low-level radiation that grips most of the world's population.

I was determined to call this issue to Newsweek's attention, because I had recently read Ed Hiserodt's new book, Underexposed. I cannot recommend this book too strongly, nor can I praise it articulately enough.

Identifies False Theory

Let us first examine the Linear No-Threshold (LNT) theory, by which we have been held hostage for so long.

To take it to an absurd extreme so you will easily understand it, the theory basically says that if 100 percent of a given population will die from a fall from a 100 foot cliff, and 50 percent would die when falling from a height of 50 feet, then we can expect that one person of a hundred would die when falling from a height of one foot.

Silly as this seems, we use the same theory when studying the effects of chemicals and heavy metal intake by humans. Substances such as mercury, lead, tin, cadmium, oxygen, fluorine, arsenic, and selenium are toxic in large quantities, yet critical to our health in small quantities.

We call the phenomenon of harm at high doses and help at low doses "hormesis," derived from the Greek word "hormo," which means to excite. Thus, a substance that excites a positive bodily response at a low dose and is harmful at high doses is considered hormetic. Vitamins and trace minerals clearly show the difference a dose makes. The same is true of sunlight, noise and stress.

Radiation Fears Unwarranted

A common measure of nuclear radiation is the millirem, or mrem. The average background radiation in the United States is 300 mrem per year, though higher at altitudes well above sea level, like Denver.

Low-level radiation is a "green issue." The media tends not to criticize their green friends who oppose any and all forms of radiation. Indeed, if low levels of radiation are realized to be benign, then there goes a central argument of anti-nuclear activists.

There is in fact no scientifically credible evidence that low-level radiation is harmful, yet there is substantial evidence that it actually inoculates the body to resist the negative effects of future high doses. At the same time, low-dose radiation appears to have positive effects in increasing immune system competency.

Hiserodt informs us that if we want to avoid our natural annual background radiation, we would have to move to Antarctica or live underwater in a nuclear submarine. We could also encourage people to move from the high plains of Colorado - where the cancer rates are low - to states where background radiation is low, but cancer rates are high.

But of course we are not going to do any of these things, because if an increase in low-level radiation caused any problems at all we would have seen the evidence long ago, in the form of dead bodies. If low-level radiation harmed human health, Deadwood, Colorado (elevation 11,000 feet) would be well known for its citizens' short life spans, but that is not the case. In fact, the opposite is true.

According to Hiserodt, the only people who think there is any real danger from low-level radiation are the regulators, antinuclear activists, environmental zealots and government scientists who cling to the Linear No-Threshold hypothesis.

Background Radiation Cuts Cancer

Hiserodt recounts how Dr. Bernard Cohen proved conclusively that geographic areas with slightly elevated levels of naturally occurring radon have a reduced incidence of lung cancer. The first of Cohen's studies was published in 1990, and an even more comprehensive study was reported in 1995. The wealth of evidence rocked the scientific community, most of whom had never bothered to question the Linear No-Threshold model.

Hiserodt exhaustively describes the many mice studies showing conclusively that the LNT model is absurd and that mice actually benefit from low-level radiation. He then explains that similar exposure among humans proves the very same thing.

The greatest proof, worth repeating, lies among the citizens of Nagasaki and Hiroshima - who were exposed to low-level radiation and went on to experience longer and healthier life spans than Japanese living elsewhere.

Study after study of nuclear power plant workers further illustrate the enhanced health of those working in an environment of low-level radiation. The most inclusive study, which was intended to show negative impacts on our nuclear workforce, began at Johns Hopkins University in 1980 and was reported 15 years ago. It conclusively showed positive effects of low-level radiation on 72,356 workers.

Perhaps the most telling real-world evidence of the benefits of low-level radiation is how the uneven distribution of background radiation around the world parallels the variations in human cancer rates. The higher the natural background radiation, the lower the local cancer rates.

Hiserodt briefly but clearly describes nuclear reactors, saying, "The new designs are even safer than the old - but how do you get safer than no deaths, no injuries, and no negative effects to the public from several thousand reactor years of operation with thousands of gigawatt hours of life enhancing electrical energy having been generated?"

Wasting Money, Lives

The question of whether tiny amounts of radiation must be avoided, even at great cost, is neither abstract nor trivial. Hundreds of billions of dollars are targeted to remediate U.S. sites even though there is no scientific basis for claiming any health or other benefit from removing low-level radiation.

Worldwide, Hiserodt tells us, the cost of such remediation has been estimated at more than a trillion dollars. This is in addition to the unquantifiable cost of lives lost by fear and avoidance of mammograms, irradiated food, and other beneficial uses of radiation.

I cannot recommend Hiserodt's book too highly. It addresses a subject few understand, but thanks to this author's comprehensive research and clear writing ability, you are now within a few dollars and a few hours of grasping this important subject.

- Jay Lehr, Ph.D. (lehr@heartland.org) is science director for The Heartland Institute

Acknowledgements

Over the past several years I have had occasion to attend seminars and conference where I was able to meet personally with many of those I have quoted. Without exception, they have taken time for my "dumb" questions and have encouraged me to help "create understanding" about hormesis and the invalidity of the LNT theory.

Don Luckey answered my questions for hours sitting in his den in Ft. Collins, Colorado. Bernie Cohen did the same in his office at the University of Pittsburgh. I met Myron Pollycove at a conference in Ottawa and had a long dinner with Ted Rockwell in Boston. We visited the Chalk River reactor facility at the invitation of Ron Mitchel. Ed Calabrese, the first director of the International Hormesis Society, welcomed me warmly to the Amherst symposium. All these men have doctorates in the hard sciences (Pollycove is an M.D.), and I must admit to being a bit intimidated when I first approached them. Their generous assistance has been appreciated more than they know.

I owe a special thanks to Massachusetts State Nuclear Engineer Jim Muckerheide. Jim - also the president of the non-profit organization Radiation, Science and Health - and his wife Linda, have provided more information for this book than anyone, with the exception of Dr. Luckey. Their support has been invaluable.

Others who were willing to read and make technical comments on the draft manuscript include Michael Gough (then of the Cato Institute), health physicist Paul Beck, pathologist M.G. Simpson, physics professor emeritus Howard Hayden, and my old friend Ed Gran of the University of Arkansas at Little Rock physics department. Lastly, William R. Hendee, Ph.D., dean of the Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences at the Medical College of Wisconsin - not known for his support of the hormesis thesis - gave me valuable insights.

In the nontechnical area, I am indebted to the late Irene Beckmann, my sister Martha Johnson, and Jane Jacob for reading early drafts and making helpful suggestions and corrections.

So many others were helpful along the way, and I have been so lax about recording their names. To all of them, my earnest thanks.

And finally, many thanks to Laissez Faire Books for its support on this project.

Appendix Part 2

3) Immunosurveillance systems are able to eliminate clones of transformed cells, as is shown by tumor cell transplants. The effectiveness of immunosurveillance is also shown by the large increase in the incidence of several types of cancers among immunosuppressed subjects (a link seems to exist between a defect in NHEJ DNA repairs and immunodeficiency).

These phenomena suggest the lesser effectiveness of low doses, or even of a practical threshold which can be due to either a failure or a low level of damage to sufficiently activate DNA repair mechanisms or to an association between apoptosis + error-free repair + immunosurveillance, to determine a threshold (between 5 and 50 mSv?). The stimulation of the cell defense mechanisms could also cause hormesis by fighting against endogenous mutagenic factors, in particular against reactive oxygen species. Indeed a meta-analysis of experimental data shows that in 40% of animal experiments there is a decrease in the incidence of spontaneous cancers after low doses.

This observation has been overlooked so far because the phenomenon was difficult to explain.

These data show that the use of a linear no-threshold relationship is not justified for assessing by extrapolation the risk of low doses from observations made for doses from 0.2 to 5 Sv since this extrapolation relies on the concept of a constant carcinologic carcinogenic effect per unit dose, which is inconsistent with experimental and radiobiological data. This conclusion is in contradiction with those of an article and a draft report [43,118], which justify the use of LNT by several arguments.

1. for doses lower than 10 mGy, there is no interaction between the different physical events initiated along the electron tracks through the DNA or the cell;

2. the nature and the repair of lesions thus caused are not influenced by the dose and the dose rate;

3. cancer is the direct and random consequence of a DNA lesion in a cell apt to divide;

4. LNT model correctly fits the dose-effect relationship for the induction of solid tumors in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki cohort;

5. the carcinogenic effect of doses of about 10 mGy is proven by results obtained in humans in studies on irradiation in utero.

With respect to the first argument, it should be noted that the physico-chemical events are identical but their biological consequence may greatly vary because the cellular defense reactions differ depending on dose and dose rate. The second argument is contradicted by recent radiobiological studies considered in the present report. The third argument does not take into account recent finding showing the complexity of the carcinogenic process and overlooks experimental data. Regarding the fourth argument, it can be noted that besides LNT, other types of dose-effect relationships are also compatible with data concerning solid tumors in atom bomb survivors, and can satisfactorily fit epidemiological data that are incompatible with the LNT concept, notably the incidence of leukemia in these same A-bomb survivors.

Furthermore, taking into account the latest available data, the dose-effect relationship for solid tumors in Hiroshima-Nagasaki survivors is not linear but curvilinear between 0 and 2 Sv. Moreover, even if the dose-effect relationship were demonstrated to be linear for solid tumors between, for example, 50 mSv and 3 Sv, the biological significance of this linearity would be open to question. Experimental and clinical data have shown that the dose effect relationship varies widely with the type of tumor and with the age of the individuals - some being linear or quadratic, with or without a threshold. The composite character of a LNT relationship between dose and all solid tumors confirms the invalidity of its use for low doses.

Finally, with regard to irradiation in utero, whatever the value of the Oxford study, some inconsistencies should lead us to be cautious before concluding to a causal relationship from data showing simply an association.

Moreover, it is questionable to extrapolate from the fetus to the child and adult, since the developmental state, cellular interactions, and immunological control systems are very different.

In conclusion, this report doubts the validity of using LNT in the evaluation of the carcinogenic risk of low doses (< 100 mSv) and even more for very low doses (< 10 mSv). LNT can be a pragmatic tool for assessing the carcinogenic effect of doses higher than a dozen mSv within the framework of radioprotection. However, the use of LNT in the low dose or dose rate range is not consistent with the current radiobiological knowledge; LNT cannot be used without challenge for assessing by extrapolation the risks of associated with very low doses (<10 mSv), nor be used in benefit-risk assessments imposed on radiologists by the European directive 97-43. Biological mechanisms are different for doses lower than a few dozen mSv and for higher doses. The eventual risks in the dose range of radiological examinations (0.1 to 5 mSv, up to 20 mSv for some examinations) must be estimated taking into account radiobiological and experimental data. An empirical relationship which is valid for doses higher than 200 mSv may lead to an overestimation of risk associated with doses one hundredfold lower and this overestimation could discourage patients from undergoing useful examinations and introduce a bias in radioprotection measures against very low doses (<10 mSv).

Decision makers confronted with problems of radioactive waste or risk of contamination, should re-examine the methodology used for the evaluation of risks associated with these very low dose exposures delivered at a very low dose rate. This analysis of biological data confirms the inappropriateness of the collective dose concept to evaluate population irradiation risks.

Risk Analysis and Others in the Nuclear Field

The LNT theory and the concept of collective dose make it relatively straightforward for assessors to determine the risk of exposure to radiation. There is only one problem with this currently accepted method: for the levels of radiation with which they are normally concerned, the results are meaningless - or worse.

As we have seen again and again, a wealth of hormesis data indicates not only that the current assessments of low-level dose-response are wrong in magnitude - but also in sign, with increasing amounts of radiation causing a decrease in harmful response. Would acknowledgement of this fact cause an upheaval in the risk business or what? Instead of "radiation = bad," they'd have to contend with "low radiation = good, but high radiation = bad" - and, moreover, have to determine when the "low and good" became "high and bad."

Risk analysts have about the same problems noted above for regulators - and for a very good reason: regulations are made from risk assessments.

Regulatory Agencies

There are a number of national and international regulatory agencies (not to mention state, county and municipal affiliates) whose entire reason for existence is to measure, verify measurement, and regulate levels of ionizing radiation. If the radiation hazard is defined as a linear relationship between radiation dose and effect (the LNT theory), then the job is relatively straightforward. But abandonment of the LNT would mean tossing most reference books, revising all the charts, and taking down the ubiquitous posters with such catchy phrases as "Every Gamma Ray Can Be a Killer" or "Do You Really Need an X-ray?"

Given an understanding of low-level effects, many government agencies involved in such "non-protection" might mercifully go down the tubes; but for the technicians who have been working in the radiation environment, there may well be a silver lining. It is they who understand the mechanics of radiation - so who better to become operators or partners in the "hormesis clinics" that would undoubtedly spring up once the beneficial effects of low-level radiation were known? ("Good morning, Mrs. Jones, would you be interested in our special on two rads of deep therapy X-rays today for $225? It comes with a bonus of an hour in the 200 pCi per liter arthritis-relief chamber.")

As mentioned earlier, when one is looking forward to retirement, retraining is not a gratifying option - but what is the choice here? It is job security for a few people (who are, incidentally, quite employable) versus the continued enslavement of us all to a lie posing as science: the LNT hypothesis. At issue are the lives of all those who will die by following the LNT theory. Eventually, the truth will prevail - and we should continue to ask, "Why not now, rather than later?"

Overcoming Vested Interests

Bureaucracy defends the status quo long past the time when the quo has lost its status. - Dr. Laurence J. Peter

In light of the available evidence showing either the hormesis model or a threshold below which no harm occurs, it is difficult to understand why anyone would cling to the LNT hypothesis. This question was addressed at the 1999 Tucson Waste Management Conference in Stanley Logan's paper, "Radiation Exposure: Overcoming Vested Interests That Block Good Science." [While I have borrowed heavily from Dr. Logan, I have embellished his material with my comments. In essence, the facts are his; the opinions are mine.]

After outlining the evidence for a re-evaluation of the entire radiation protection mechanism, Dr. Logan defined the following groups that oppose or ignore evidence pointing away from the LNT and collective dose theories. [Stanley E. Logan is founder of the Sante Fe consulting engineering firm that bears his name. A former associate professor of nuclear engineering, Dr. Logan has 27 years experience in areas of hazardous waste management and probabilistic risk analysis.]

Five-Page Penalty for Delay of Book

Sorry to have spent so long on the subject of terrorism. It is far afield from hormesis and the positive applications of nuclear energy, but it is a false argument so often used by anti-nuclear people, and it is never refuted - or even questioned - in the media. We might note that our overseas neighbors know this "threat of terrorism" malarkey is total rot - but what do they care what we think? If it goes on long enough, they will be able to sell high-energy content products to us... while we lap up good old safe solar energy in our cotton fields. Suffice it to say that the "terrorists with the plutonium" excuse for stopping a major reprocessing facility is as thin as a dime - and worth far less.

Dirty Bombs

We have been led to believe - on the basis of the LNT theory and collective dose - that terrorists could mount an effective attack by the use of "dirty bombs," i.e., bombs that spread radioactive materials by use of conventional explosives. At present, such bombs would be an effective weapon, since the fear of radiation, as in Goia and Three Mile Island, would doubtlessly cause panic and result in deaths from heart attacks, auto accidents and the like. But if we understand the actual effects of radiation, we can respect it without allowing it to overcome our rational thought. Let's look at the worst case.

Terrorists park a car bomb filled with strontium 90, which has a long half-life (twenty-nine years) and the propensity for replacing calcium in bones. At noon, with the maximum numbers of people walking down Wall Street on the way to lunch, the bomb is exploded, and strontium 90 is blasted into the air. Radioactive debris is scattered by the wind over an area of many blocks.

Let's look at this scenario as graduates of Hormesis U. First, where are the terrorists going to get a carload of strontium 90? It is a product of nuclear explosions and found in reactor "wastes." Like so many other "waste" radionuclides, it is a valuable commodity being used in medical and agricultural tracers as well as in RTGs (radio thermo-electric generators) for navigational beacons and weather stations. Medically, it is used for treatment of eye diseases and bone cancer. It is a valuable commodity and certainly not widely available in quantities like the ammonium nitrate and fuel oil used in the Oklahoma City bombing.

The EPA's Radiation Information website [www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclides/strontium.htm] tells us that "swallowing Sr-90 with food or water is the primary pathway of intake."

The same source tells us that strontium 90 is a beta emitter. Graduates of Hormesis U. know that beta radiation can travel only a few feet through air and causes minor burns (beta burns) to exposed skin. Knowing this, what action would be required after a terrorist went to the trouble and expense to disburse this most dreaded of radioactive materials in the canyons of Manhattan? I would suggest a warning to the local inhabitants not to lick the pavement or buildings. After that, I would wait for a rain that would wash the dust down the sewers leading to the Atlantic Ocean, where there are already quadrillions of curies (septillions of becquerels) that will still be there long after the vestiges of strontium 90 have disappeared. A potential problem: the sewer rats might be affected bio-positively and take charge of the large metropolitan cities.

So much for dirty bombs.

The Dirty Bomb's Dirty Little Secret

Anyone who has the slightest familiarity with nuclear power knows that it is impossible to steal fuel from an operating reactor.

Is there a nuclear threat to Western civilization? No question. As long as there are nuclear weapons and Islamic terrorists who would murder thousands of innocents without conscience, such a possibility exists. Actions to prevent this are a subject far afield from hormesis, but one possibility might be to offer a higher-than-market price for plutonium to be blended into MOX, rendering it unusable for weapons, as a fuel for power reactors.

MOX is mixed oxide fuel composed of 7% plutonium mixed with depleted uranium. Currently about 2% of reactor fuel is MOX. A very good discussion of MOX and the use of reactor-grade plutonium in weapons can be found online at the following address: www.nic.com.au/nip42.htm.

But What About Fusion?

It is so inviting... to think that our planet can be powered from ocean water. That, as you probably well know, is the expectation of many who would eschew other forms of energy generation. "Cold fusion" - which many of us would hope to be a viable energy source - is unproven. Which leads, naturally, to the hot variety. And I do mean hot!

You may remember from your freshman days at Hormesis U., that both deuterium and tritium are isotopes of hydrogen. (See chapter 5 if your memory is a bit rusty.) As it is generally understood, a fusion reaction in the sun occurs at temperatures in excess of 1,000,000 degrees Fahrenheit, when a deuterium and a tritium atom are crushed together to form helium and expel a neutron. It would be much cleaner if two deuterium atoms could do the trick without a neutron chaperone, but the universe just wasn't made that way. And while it's true that there is a virtually infinite supply of deuterium in ocean water, the horrible fact is: there isn't any tritium. (OK, a few quadrillion atoms or so, but not any that we can extract.) In fact, in the entire United States, there isn't much tritium at all, since your government considers this beta emitter - used on luminous watch dials - to be hazardous to your life. (Please be appreciative.)

Where would we get the tritium? I don't know, and I don't think anyone else does either. But there are other problems that I suspect are overwhelming in light of our present-day engineering and material capabilities - and may be physically impossible to solve. [For more on this subject, see the August 1999 edition of The Energy Advocate, published by Howard Hayden, professor emeritus of Physics, University of Connecticut. P.O. Box 7595, Pueblo West, CO 81007 - or www.EnergyAdvocate.com. ($35/year.)]

First, the energy required to magnetically contain the process (the only way it can be contained, since these temperatures decompose all materials into constituent atoms) invariably requires more energy than can be generated. Yet if, and when, this obstacle can be overcome, we have the problem of that pesky neutron.

While other particles can be redirected magnetically to where they have little danger to humans or equipment, the electrically neutral neutron has a mind of its own. When a plethora of neutrons are released around normal materials, those materials are transmuted into other element that are typically radioactive. Wouldn't this make the fusion reactor radioactive? Yes it would, which is probably why hot-fusion experiments reportedly must be cooled-down, dismantled, and decontaminated after every test run of only a few seconds. This might prompt us to ask, "What about the delivery of energy, twenty-four hours per day, 365 days per year?" There are, in my opinion, two choices.

Some Background for the Study

A 1978 report raise the question of low-dose ionizing radiation risk to nuclear workers at the Portsmouth, New Hampshire, shipyard. [Identified as "Najarian, 1978" in the Johns Hopkins Report Introduction, referring to brief study done by Dr. Thomas Najarian, a hematologist at the Boston Veterans Administration hospital.]

In 1980, a U.S. Department of Energy contract was granted to the Department of Epidemiology at The Johns Hopkins University to study "Health Effects of Low-Level Radiation in Shipyard Workers." [DOE Contract Number DE-AC02-79EV10095.]

It is apparent from the introduction that this was expected to be a confirmation of the earlier "limited study" and certainly had nothing to do with verification of the hormesis principle - which it ended up being. [The term "radiation hormesis" had not even been used yet, as Luckey's first book was still a year or two away when the contract was awarded.]

The study involved an initial pool of 700,000 workers - including 108,000 nuclear workers - at two private and six government shipyards. Most were weeded out because of missing or incomplete records. Then too, many of the non-nuclear workers did not work in a shipyard during the time when nuclear overhauls were done and were therefore not considered to be comparable to nuclear workers. Two other steps - a crosscheck of records and a questionnaire to the worker or next of kin - pared the list down to 72,356 qualified subjects. Workers were divided into three categories:

1. Those with duties not involving radiation, the Non-Nuclear Workers (NNW's - or in our case, the Nones). This group of 33,352 workers was used as the control.

2. Those who had cumulative exposure of less than 500 mrem. These were termed NW<0.5, which we will call the Lows, and totaled 10,462 workers.

3. Those with cumulative exposures greater than or equal to 500 mrem. They were referred to as NW>0.5, which we'll refer to as the Highs, numbering 28,542 workers.

Results of the study were tabulated to show mortality ratios of the above cohorts from various types of cancer and from all causes. By the way, althought the Johns Hopkins report to the Department of Energy was completed nearly fifteen years ago, the Energy Department has yet to acknowledge the results and issue its report on the study.

We're Out of Copper, But How About a Zirconium Bracelet?

Among the cruelest deceptions perpetrated upon people by other people are those having to do with phony medical aids, sham healing potions, "miracle" cures, and other forms of snake oil. It just seems to be my nature to suspect the worst when even the most trustworthy appearing people suggest to me some "cure" that has somehow been overlooked by pharmaceutical manufacturers who spend a few billion dollars a year on research - but is well known to granny and the girls working down in the lingerie department. This isn't to say that it doesn't happen, but these "cures" are certainly suspect from the start with me. And so it was when I first heard about the "Free Enterprise Mine" and its claim to have a beneficial effect on arthritis, bursitis, and a dozen or so other debilitating conditions.

For starters, I didn't like the name. Not because I don't like the free-enterprise system, but because I do. It seemed to me that charlatans might be using a good name to disguise another of those despicable medical deceptions. This was early in my attempt at writing this book - and I didn't think any more about it for several months. By then I knew about the high radon content of many European spas and those at Bad Gastein in particular. To me, these resorts, which compete for having the highest radiation level, just showed that our fears of radon and low-level radiation were what I had already suspected: contrived and ridiculous.

What I didn't know was that the major "cures" offered by such health resorts ad the "Thermal Galleries" (a former gold mine and only one of the many spas in the Bad Gastein area) were for "rheumatic, arthritic and scoliotic disease." What was described in their advertisements was much like what I had heard about the Free Enterprise Mine, with one big difference: The spas had a two-thousand year history of arthritics coming there for relief. Still, the placebo effect and mass hypnosis didn't start with the twentieth century. I don't enjoy being fooled, and what's more, I didn't plan to be a shill for anyone bent on fooling others. Skepticism reigned.

Only very recently did I learn of the Japanese research on the hormonal reactions to inhalation of radon. (The test animals in these experiments were rabbits rather than mice.) As shown in Figure 31, there were marked increases in both beta-endorphins and m-enkephalins in the test animals. Those who know about such things claim that the former is a pain reliever, while the latter hormone creates a feeling of well-being.

Source for Figure 31 Effect of Radon Inhalation on Hormones: Yamaoka, K., Komoto, Y., Suzuka, I., Edamatsu, R., Mori, A., Effects of radon inhalation on biological function - lipid peroxide level, superoxide dismutase activity, and membrane fluidity. Arch Biochem Biophys. 1993 Apr; 302(1):37-41.

It dawned on me that I now had evidence from three continents leading to the same conclusion: that radon inhalation has a positive effect on arthritic diseases.

I remembered that someone had sent me a book on the Free Enterprise Mine, which I had carefully filed in the "probably won't need this" box. The name of the book was Arthritis and Radioactivity, by Wade V. Lewis, the original owner of the mine. [Available from Free Enterprise Mine, P.O. Box 67, Boulder, MT 59632. Email: hlthmine@mt.net.]

I learned that it didn't start out as any kind of treatment facility, but as a uranium mine in 1949. By chance, the wife of a visiting engineer went down in the mine with him and found to her amazement that her debilitating arthritic condition had improved. She convinced a friend in similar circumstances to return with her to see if this was "for real." Apparently it was, as the mine has flourished ever since.

The best thing about the book is its tone. It is not written in a "This is the way it is" and "This is what's happening" manner. It's more like "This is the way it appears" and "Perhaps this is the cause." The author, who died in 1974, was not a scientist but had learned a great deal about radiation and was trying to put the pieces together. If only he had had Luckey and Pollycove around at the time, it's no telling what the trio could have accomplished.

On August 27, 1999, there were a number of scientists on the way to a "Nuclear Technology - Bridging the Millennia" conference in Jackson, Wyoming. Among the speakers was Sadao Hattori, a Ph.D. in nuclear engineering who is vice-president and director of nuclear energy research at the Central Research Institute of the Electric Power Industry (CRIEPI) of Japan. Earlier, while compiling quotations from a large number of scientists (by which I hoped to show the depth of scientific criticism of the LNT and support for hormesis research), I ran across this 1996 quotation from the animated and dedicated "hormesian" [your author's first (and probably last) attempt at coining a word], Dr. Hattori:

"We [CRIEPI] 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. Some basic surveys, including Hiroshima-Nagasaki survivors and animal experiments in Japan, have brought us exciting information on the health effects of low-dose radiation."

He went on to say that results for their research would be forthcoming. Let me tell you: Dr. Hattori delivers. In his paper delivered at the 1999 Boston conference of the American Nuclear Society, the nuclear scientist spoke on the following areas being explored by Japanese researchers:
1. Okumura's longevity of survivors exposed to low dose A-bomb radiation;
2. Sakamoto's non-Hodgkin's lymphoma successes;
3. Onishi's reports of enhancing the p53 tumor suppression gene;
4. An update on Mifune's Misasa Radon Spring study;
5. Yonezawa's research on Adaptive Response Windows;
6. Miyachi's work on stress moderation and pain relief;
7. Yamaoka's studies of hormonal and adrenaline increases.

There is one more study by Yamaoka with which an enterprising tabloid reporter could write his own ticket - if he could only understand a little science.

Yamaoka has found that radiation has a beneficial effect on cell membrane permeability, which in turn has a positive effect on the life of a particular cell. Stimulatory radiation equals high permeability, no wrinkles, no aging - and before this, relief from arthritis and related conditions. Rather interesting stories, wouldn't you say? Gee, I wonder where the reporters have gone.

Keeping Abreast of the Evidence

Breast cancer is a pretty depressing matter. An estimated 44,300 women (and several thousand men) will die of breast cancer this year. It is second only to lung cancer as a cause of cancer death among women. Increased use of mammography is one of the reasons for the decline in death rates. In 1992 (the most recent statistics I could find), 67% of women over forty reported having at least one screening - up from only 22% in 1979.

But sadly, many women are still hesitant to have regular mammography examinations, often because they fear that X-rays from the mammograms will increase their chances of cancer. Doing their own risk assessment, they conclude the risk from "late detection" is less than that from radiation. And who is to blame them, in light of the commonly accepted dictum that all radiation is dangerous and cumulatively so? Besides, it costs time and money to have a mammogram - at least worrying about cancer is cheap.

"So," you say, " they should just consult a professional and ask about the dose they will receive from the mammogram and make the decision on that basis." Not as simple as that may sound. In researching this chapter I called four local mammography clinics with what I thought was a pretty simple question: "What is the dose of radiation received by a woman in the process of having a mammogram?" I had seen a figure before, but it seemed high to me.

I spoke with two mammography technicians and one nurse who relayed messages from their radiologists. The unanimous answer: "We don't know." One of them, however, was kind enough to put me in touch with a local health physicist, who said the dose was "negligible" - but, even better, offered to lend me some of his reference books. In one, I was able to find the range of exposures to a "gland" (their quotation marks) at a dept of 3 cm to be 0.04 to 0.49 cGy (40 to 490 mrem), which was consistent with the 0.15 cGy figure I had found earlier and was trying to confirm.

But the information I had was perplexing, as it mentioned the dose as 150 mrem per breast. It was much like the confusion I had when learning that radon gave an exposure of 24,000 mrem/year to the bronchial epithelium (which, of course, you now know is the windpipe). The borrowed volumes were quite illuminating, I found there is an official weighting factor that, when multiplied by the local dose gives the effective dose equivalent. And what does this tell you? It tells you the increase in your chances of contracting cancer if the Linear No-Threshold theory were true!

Using a weighting factor of 0.15 for each breast, a 150 mrem per breast exposure would be an equivalent "whole body" exposure totaling 45 mrem (0.045 cSv). [Exposure of the U.S. Population from Diagnostic Medical Radiation, NCRP Report #100, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Bethesda, Md.]

The figure - in my opinion - means nothing, but if we pretend it is accurate we can use it as a starting point for a "conventional" analysis.

Published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1989, an investigation by A.B. Miller and associates charted the doses received by 31,710 women who were irradiated in the course of repeated fluoroscopic examinations between 1930 and 1952. [Miller, A.B., et al. Mortality from breast cancer after irradiation during fluoroscopic examination in patients being treated for tuberculosis. New England Journal of Medicine, 321, 1285, 1989.]

In this Canadian study, one group - in Nova Scotia - was fluoroscoped facing the X-ray source. This results in a dose to the breast approximately twenty-five times that when faced away. The women facing the source had a significant increase in cancer risk - it tripled for each 100 cGy (100,000 mrad) of radiation absorbed.

Source for Figure 28 Incidence of Breast Cancer Death Following Fluoroscopic Examination: Miller, A.B., Howe, G.R., Sherman, G.J., Lindsay, J.P., Yaffe, M.J., Dinner, P.J., Risch, H.A., and Preston, D.L. Mortality from breast cancer after irradiation during fluoroscopic examination in patients being treated for tuberculosis. New England Journal of Medicine, 321:1285, 1989.

The balance of the study was for all other provinces, with the results presented in Figure 28. Before going on, please remember that a normal annual U.S. background dose is 0.3 cGy, with the first data point on the graph at 5 cGy - about thirteen times this amount. The minimum mortality rate is at a value fifty times the annual background dose or the equivalent (using their figures) of 100 mammography exams.

On the basis of this evidence - which is almost certainly conservative, since the dose rate for fluoroscopy is much higher and, therefore, considered more traumatic to the breasts than present mammography techniques - women should have four or five mammograms per year.

Does that sound strange? That's nothing compared with the most unusual aspect of the study, namely its conclusion: The authors completely ignored the most statistically significant data points in the entire investigation, namely the 34% reduction in relative risk at 15 cGy and the 15% reduction at 24 cGy. Myron Pollycove, M.D., remarked regarding this omission:

"The decreased RR [risk rate] of breast cancer produced by low dose, low level radiation were rejected a priori by the choice of mathematical models that extrapolate the dose-risk relation from high dose exposures to low dose exposures."

[We met Dr. Pollycover back in Chapter 2. But since he is such an important player in the LNT controversy, allow me to remind you that he is professor emeritus in Laboratory Medicine and Radiology at the University of California at San Francisco, head of Nuclear Medicine at San Francisco General Hospital, as well as a visiting medical fellow on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.]

To most of us that simply means the researchers, for whatever reason, chose to "spike" all results that indicated hormesis. Why? Probably because they were not even considering bio-positive data; they were looking for harmful effects... period. Pollycove continues:

"Nine hundred excess deaths from breast cancer are predicted theoretically from the exposure of one million women to 0.15 Gy. However, the quantified low dose data predicts with better than 99% confidence limits that instead of causing 900 deaths, a dose of 0.15 Gy would prevent 10,000 deaths in these million women."

Pardon me, but do you understand what this man - who has possibly the most impressive credentials in this entire debate - is saying? He is proclaiming that there is unmistakable evidence of hormesis in this study, which, if acted upon, might be developed into an effective weapon against breast cancer in millions of women, thousands of whom will die needlessly because of a theory that was never intended to apply to low-level radiation! It is a pity, a shame, a disgrace that the current ingrained reliance by regulators on the Linear No-Threshold hypothesis makes even a consideration of studying the hormesis phenomen extremely difficult, if not impossible.

Japan

Spring waters have often been found to have significant amounts of dissolved radon. This seems particularly true at springs that are considered "health spas," such as Bad Gastein in Austria, where the activity from radon and its progeny reaches 16,200 pCi/l - a mere 73,600% higher than the "contaminated milk" of such great concern to the media at Three Mile Island. A case in point are the radon springs at Misasa, Japan, where Mifune et al. [Mifune, M., et al. Cancer mortality survey in a spa area (Misasa, Japan) with a high radon background. Japan Journal of Cancer Research, 83, 1, 1992], investigated the prevalence of cancer mortality in Misasa versus that in the nearby town of Beppu Spring, a village with minimal waterborne radon. Also, used as a control, were the Standard Mortality Ratios for all Japan. Data were collected during the period 1952-88.

Caption for Figure 24: Japanese Mortality vs. Radon Prevalence: Mifune, M., Sobue, T., Arimoto, H., Komoto, Y., Kondo, S. and Tanooka, H. Cancer mortality survey in a spa area (Misasa, Japan) with a high radon background. Japan Journal of Cancer Research, 83, 5, 1992.

Stomach cancer mortality is singled out and plotted in Figure 24, since it might be expected from ingesting radon in the water. Obviously there is a significant negative correlation between radon exposure and cancer - in conflict with the LNT and in good agreement with hormesis expectations.

One unusual feature of the data concerns female responses. Often the observed beneficial effect of radiation is less in females than in males. The Misasa data, however, indicate SMRs for colon/rectum and lung cancer that are signficantly lower for women.

Dr. Mifune, regarding a study much like that of Misasa, comments, "Similarly, in one region of Japan with an average indoor level of 35 Bq/m^3, the lung cancer incidence was 51% of that in a low-level radon region (11 Bq/m^3), and the mortality caused by all types of cancers was 37% lower." By the way, to convert Bq/m^3 to pCi/l, you divide by thirty-seven - which means both of the above cited areas have relatively low indoor radon. (Just wait until you see what Bernard Cohen says about all this in chapter 20.)

Table 12
Standard Mortality Ratios for Residents of Misasa, Japan
	Male	Female
Total Cancer	.538	.463
Stomach	.400	.452
Colon/rectum	.296	.142
Lung	.475	.187
Leukemia	.445	.534
Source: Mifune, M. et al. Cancer mortality survey in a spa area (Misasa, Japan) with a high radon background. Japan Journal of Cancer Research, 83, 1, 1992.

American Weapons Plant Workers

In the first of several planned efforts to combine data on workers at all Department of Energy facilities, this 1989 study was supervised by Dr. Ethel Gilbert of the Pacific Northwest Laboratory. [Gilbert, E.S., et al. Analysis of Combined Mortality Data on Workers at the Hanford Site, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant. Radiation Research, 120, 19, 1989.]

Table III of the report gives a breakdown of Causes of Deaths for 3,368 workers out of a total exposed population of 35,933; these data are summarized in Figure 19.

Source for Figure 19 Combined Mortality Data: Gilbert, E.S., Fry, S.A., Wiggs, L.D., Voelz, G., Cragle, D., and Gilbert, G.R. Analysis of Combined Mortality Data on Workers at the Hanford Site, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant. Radiation Research, 120, 19, 1989. Also American Journal of Epidemiology, 131, 917, 1990.

The report summary has some interesting observations:

"These combined analyses provide no evidence of a correlation between radiation exposure and mortality from all cancer or from leukemia. Of eleven other specific types of cancer analyzed, multliple myeloma was the only cancer found to exhibit a statistically significant correlation with radiation exposure. Estimates of the excess risk of all cancer and of leukemia, based on the combined data, were negative." [Emphasis added.]

Sounds terrific for LNT opponents! Could it ever be made more clear than by saying "the analyses provide no evidence of a correlation between radiation exposure and mortality from all cancer or from leukemia"? No doubt the report conclusions will cast aspersions on the LNT and set the stage for hormesis resarch, right? Well, not exactly. It continues:

"SMRs for all cancers were significantly less than one in all three populations, probably because of selection bias and other factors related to the healthy worker effect." [Emphasis added.]

You would think that in a study that expects to "provide a direct assessment of health risk" from exposure to low-level radiation, a provision would be made to eliminate the healthy worker effect. Certainly there were enough non-exposed personnel at these facilities to provide a control cohort. The question is, "Why wasn't this done?"

Ruling out conspiracy and stupidity, one is left with only one possibility I can think of: It was expected that the data would show a cancer mortality rate higher than predicted by the standardized rate - which would be the case if the LNT and collective dose were true. No provision was made for the "unexpected result," thus leaving the study with the extremely weak conclusion that the data showed a negative correlation probably because of well, eh, ah... you know. Almost without doubt the researchers were honest, intelligent, dedicated people. But one thing was simply overlooked in analysis of the data: All results that showed evidence of hormesis were simply ignored.

Leukemia in Male Employees of Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd.

A later study by M.A. Gribbin et al. examined leukemia mortality of 9,997 male employees of Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd., with an average exposure of 4.9 cSv (4,900 mrem) compared to 5,504 unexposed co-workers. [Gribbin, M.A., Howe, G.R. and Weeks, J.L. A study of the mortality of AECL employees, V, The second analysis: Mortality during the period 1950 - 1985, Report No. AECL-10615, p48, Atomic Energy of Canada, 1992. Also quoted by Z. Jaworowski in "Stimulating effects of ionizing radiation: New issues for regulatory policy." Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 22:2, 1994.]

Figure 18 presents the data in the form of standard mortality ratios for the various types of leukemia.

Source for Figure 18 Leukemia Mortality of AECL Employees: Gribbin, M.A., Howe, G.R. and Weeks, J.L. A study of the mortality of AECL employees, V, The second analysis: Mortality during the period 1950 - 1985, Report No. AECL-10615, p48, Atomic Energy of Canada, 1992.

Commenting on this study, Dr. Jaworoski states: "As shown in Table 6 [from which the graph data was taken], the mortality due to all leukemias in the exposed group was only 32% of that in the general Canadian population. The observed mortality among employees of AECL from all cancers and from all non-cancer diseases was also less than expected." [Zbigniew Jaworowski, professor emeritus at the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection (Poland) and a member of the U.N. Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR).]

While this is a relatively small study, the consistently lower leukemia mortality rate - previously considered the established sign of excessive radiation exposure - seems to be a powerful argument for hormesis at work.

Do Nuclear Workers Glow in the Dark?

Mortality study of plutonium workers at Rocky Flats 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

While the workers building bombs and those involved in electric power generation are in entirely different industries (except in the minds of anti-nuclear protesters), there are many similarities in their work environments. Of particular interest to us are the radiation levels (which are in the area where we would anticipate hormesis), the relatively accurate dosimetry (a fancy scientific word for measuring radiation exposure), and excellent follow-up on the health and longevity of the "participants." We'll look first at two Canadian studies of power plant workers and then at investigations of weapons plant workers by both American and British researchers.

Just in case I forget to mention it three or four times in the next few chapters, none of these investigations had any intention of even considering the possibility of hormesis. They were all expecting to prove a positive correlation between radiation and cancer. That's what a "smart" researcher does: makes sure the report comes out to reaffirm what the political authority footing the bill already believes. [Most experimentalists are dedicated scientists who let the data speak for themselves. But as in all other facets of life, there are some who play it "smart" to make sure they stay on the government payroll. It is these few that I refer to here.]

As you'll see, some researchers show data that offer evidence of the hormesis version of dose-response, but they conclude that there is a linear relation between radiation and exposure and any particular cancer you'd like to worry about.

Effects of Radiation on the Life Span of Mice

Surely if ionizing radiation has beneficial effects on growth rate and the immune system competence of mice, as evidenced by a decreased susceptibility to cancer, it ought to have a positive effect on life span. As several studies demonstrate, this is indeed the case.

A 1983 investigation by J.B. Storer [Storer, J.B., et al. Life shortening [sic] in Balb/C mice following brief protracted, and fractionated exposures to neutrons. Radiation Research, 96, 396, 1983] was cited by Luckey as an example of how hormesis effects are often overlooked by researchers who are expected a bio-negative response from radiation. [Radiation Hormesis, 1981, pp 46, 50.]

The authors ignored a peaking of longevity between 5 and 10 cGy, hopefully not in any attempt to be fraudulent or unethical, but probably because it would have appeared anomalous in terms of the LNT.

It is an earlier study [Sacher, G.A. and Grahn, G. Survival of mice under duration-of-life exposure to gamma rays. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 32, 277, 1964] - which most certainly gave unintended results - that is of considerable interest to hormesis researchers. Life spans of mice - 90 in a control group, and 90 to 120 in four exposed groups - are plotted in Figure 10 on the basis of daily exposures to cobalt-60 gamma radiation. Exposures, which began 100 days after birth, were continued until the death of the specimen.

Caption for Figure 10 Life Span for Irradiated Mice  Source: Sacher, G.A., and Grahn, G. Survival of mice under duration-of-life exposure to gamma rays. I. The dosage-survival relation and lethality function. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 32, 277, 1964; also ANL Report 6971, 1964, p 94.

Anti-nuclear activists, "animal rightists," and "popular wisdom" would predict dire consequences for test animals subjected to such huge doses of radiation every day of their lives. But this study offers substantial evidence that mice receiving 1,000 times their normal background dose had the longest life spans. [It is my understanding that similar results were reported by a researcher named Searle in 1964, but I have not been able to obtain any more information.] You might recall that, in the earlier discussion of growth rate, the optimum was also 1,000 times normal background.

Effects of Radiation on Cancer in Mice - Lung Cancer Mortality

There are three studies that address the effects of ionizing radiation on lung cancer mortality in mice. The most recent of these was a 1997 experiment by Y. Hosoi and K. Sakamoto [Suppression of spontaneous and artificial tumors by low dose total body irradiation in mice. In Low Doses of Ionizing Radiation: Biological Effects and Regulatory Control, Atomic Energy Agency, TECDOC-976, Vienna, 1997] in which mice were injected with artificial metastases (a fancy medical term for cancer cells) and then irradiated with gamma rays up to 100 cGy (100,000 mrad). Data showed the lowest cancer rate in a range between 15 and 40 cGy, with the minimum being 41% of controls at 15 cGy.

The Hosoi-Sakamoto study demonstrated another tenet of the hormesis theory, however, which most other experimenters have neglected to investigate - namely that hormesis is a property of the organism and not its individual cells. When tumor cells that had been irradiated with 10 to 50 cGy gamma rays in vitro were injected in the mice, there was no difference from the controls - indicating that the suppression affects the mouse, not tumor cells. Unfortunately, the study involved only 200 - 250 mice (perhaps they are scarce in Japan?) and lacks the statistical significance I would like to see for compelling evidence.

Both of the lung cancer experiments were performed by Ullich et al., whom we have seen laboring earlier with mouse pituitaries; and both experiments involved several thousand mice. His 1977 investigation [Ullrich, R.L., et al. Neutron carcinogenesis. Dose and dose-rate effects in BALB.C mice. Radiation Research, 72, 487, 1977], which showed a minimum lung cancer mortality in the area of 100 cSv, was repeated in 1979 [Ullrich, R.L., et al. Influence of irradiation on the development of neoplastic disease in mice. Radiation Research, 80, 135, 1979]. This time, instead of only two data points, six were examined from 10 to 300 cSv. As shown in Figure 9, the minimum appeared around 25 cSv in the 1979 data but was still significantly lower than controls even at the 100 cSv level.

At the risk of sounding repetitive, it is evident that the LNT is completely inadequate to explain this phenomenon, while the hormesis theory predicts just such an occurrence.

Caption for Figure 9 Lung Cancer Mortality in Mice Source: Ullrich, R.L., Jernigan, M.C., and Storer, J.B. Neutron carcinogenesis. Dose and dose-rate effects in BALB/C Mice, Radiation Research, 72, 487, 1977. Also Ullrich, R.L., and Storer, J.B. Influence of irradiation on the development of neoplastic disease in mice. I. Reticular tissue tumors. II. Solid tumor. III. Dose-rate effects. Radiation Research, 80, 135, 1979.

Effects of Radiation on Cancer - Leukemia Mortality

Of the myriad varieties of cancer, leukemia is most often considered to be associated with exposure to ionizing radiation, so we'll look at it, first, in an experiment involving 1,000 young adult mice per group (about 12,000 mice in all), which were exposed to a single dose of gamma radiation from 20 to 600 cGy at the rate of 300 cGy (300 rad) per minute. (Ouch.) This experiment was directed by J.R. Maisin and reported in Radiation Research, 113, 300, 1988 (see Figure 7). To realize just how far apart the Linear No-Threshold Theory and the hormesis model are from one another, the LNT predicts a 60% increase in leukemia at an exposure of 200 cGy, while the actual data show a 35% decrease. One can argue all day the beauty of the LNT and how it is a terrific standard for regulatory control; but these data show that it just isn't true when compared to experiment.

Caption for Figure 7: Leukemia Mortality in Mice: Source: Maisin, J.R., Wambersie, A., Gerber, G.B., Mattelin, G., Lambert-Collier, M., and Guelette, J., Life shortening and disease incidence in C57BL mice after single and fractionated gamma and high energy neutron exposure. Radiation Research, 113, 300, 1988.