[ RadSafe ] BEIR VII Discussion Continued

[Maury Siskel]

These might well be codified as Luckey's Rules. The Rules can then be 
used to ensure funding for appropriate proposals. I look forward to 
seeing your (Scott's) paper.
Cheers,
Maury&Dog   maurysis at ev1.net
=================
Scott, Bobby wrote:

>TD Luckey in his article "Radiation Hormesis Overview", published in RSO
>8(4):23-29, 2003, states the following (a through j) which appear to
>apply directly to BEIR VII (Phase 2):
>
>Most epidemiologist and government agencies err by one or more of the
>following:
>
>a)      assume all radiation is harmful;
>
>b)      include data from low-dose participants in their control cohort;
>
>c)      have no low dose group in the protocol;
>
>d)      do not use available low-dose data
>
>e)      use a one dimensional formula or statistic which do not allow
>expression of beneficial effects;
>
>f)        ignore data that does not fit the LNT dose-response curve;
>
>g)      interpolate between high doses and background levels to obtain
>fancied results to produce an support unreasonable regulations;
>
>h)      assume cell functions are not subject to whole body activities;
>
>i)        ignore increased immune competence found in exposed organisms;
>
>j)        ignore increased health and average lifespan while emphasizing
>risks and death.
>
> Form the above list, please choose your favorites and comment on them in
>the Radsafe Digest with respect to BEIR VII (Phase 2). 
>
>Please note that use of DDREF as was done in BEIR VII restricts
>dose-response functions to have positive slopes.  Hormetic dose-response
>is not possible with use of DDREF approach. 
>
>Please note also that application of DDREF forces nonlinearity in the
>dose-response curve.  This is interesting given the emphasis of BEIR VII
>on data being consistent with LNT. BEIR VII then uses DDREF to impose
>nonlinearity!
>
>It is my understanding that the control group used by BEIR VII was
>redefined to include higher dosed individuals.  If so, could this have
>included persons in a hormetic dose zone?  That would not be a good
>thing to do.
>
>Dose rate is quite important related to evaluating radiation risks.
>Dose rates for A-bomb survivors were likely more than 10 orders of
>magnitude greater than for high background regions of the globe.  If so,
>can on justifiably extrapolate form A-bomb survivor data to exposure to
>background radiation.  BEIR VII concluded that even background radiation
>was harmful.  I respectively disagree. Our research points to elevated
>background radiation suppression cancer risk. Of course such suppression
>cannot be simulated via use of DDREF.
>
>I don't have time today for additional comments as I am preparing to
>catch a plane shortly to attend the PSA '05 meeting tomorrow in San
>Francisco to present a talk entitled "The LNT hypothesis may have
>outlived its usefulness for low-LET radiation."  The presentation will
>be given in the LNT plenary session chaired by Dr. Chauncey Starr. The
>presentation will be made available in pdf format via my website
>http://www.radiation-scott.org <http://www.radiation-scott.org/>  within
>a few days.  It will be placed in the section on Low Dose Research.
>
>Best wishes.
>
>Bobby R. Scott
>
>LRRI, Albuquerque, NM USA
>  
>