[ RadSafe ] Special issue of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists Special issue is crafted and drafted to reinforce the antinuclear power agnda of the Bulletin

parthasarathy k s ksparth at yahoo.co.uk
Wed May 9 17:55:08 CDT 2012

Dear Dr Scott Bobby,

Thank you very much  for the detailed analysis. Over all, I felt that the authors dealing with radiation epidemiology related topics appeared to be too eager to argue that low dose radiation is riskier than what is thought of so far. We can easily pick up many loaded sentences which point in that direction. The Special Issue is specially crafted and drafted to reiterate and reinforce  the anti nuclear power agenda of the Bulletin.Dr Paul Slovic's article offered  some saving grace!

Low dose radiation dilemma continues

With warm regards

 From: "Scott, Bobby" <BScott at lrri.org>
To: parthasarathy k s <ksparth at yahoo.co.uk>; The International Radiation Protection( Health Physics) Mailing List <radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu> 
Cc: stewart farber <radproject at sbcglobal.net>; Mike (DOH) Brennan <Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV>; dietrich.averbeck at curie.u-psud.fr; Ludwig E. Feinendegen <feinendegen at gmx.net>; Dobrzynski Ludwik <Ludwik.Dobrzynski at ncbj.gov.pl>; Mohan Doss <mohan.doss at fccc.edu>; "Miller, Mark L" <mmiller at sandia.gov>; brant_ulsh at mhchew.com; "Thompson, Richard" <rthompso at jhsph.edu>; "Cuttler, Jerry" <jerrycuttler at rogers.com>; Genn Saji <sajig at bd5.so-net.ne.jp>; Hiroshi Tanooka <tanooka-h at wind.ocn.ne.jp> 
Sent: Wednesday, 9 May 2012, 17:02
Subject: RE: Special issue of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists

Dear Dr. Parthasarathy,
I have accessed the website you indicated related to the Bulletin of
Atomic Scientist Special Issue: Low-Level Radiation Risks. However, accessing
the special issue publications (full papers) requires a fee for each paper
while the abstracts were available without cost. Thus, my comments below are
based on the abstracts.
If the objective of the Special Issue is to equip members of the public
with broad information on the effects of low-level radiation, then the
publication in my opinion is a failure. The paper by Jan Beyea titled
“The scientific jigsaw puzzle: Fitting the pieces of the low-level
radiation debate” is quite misleading based on the abstract. For example
she states the following: “Model fits … to the atomic-bomb data support
a linear no-threshold model, below 0.1 Sv. On the basis of biologic arguments,
the scientific establishment in the United States and many other
countries accepts this dose-model down to zero-dose, but there is spirited
dissent.  The dissent may be irrelevant for developed countries, given the
increase in medical diagnostic radiation that has occurred in recent decades; a
sizable percentage of this population will receive cumulative doses from the
medical profession in excess of 0.1 Sv, making talk of a threshold or other
sublinear response below that dose moot for future releases from nuclear
facilities or a dirty bomb.”  
Modern radiation molecular and cellular biology does not support the
linear-no-threshold (LNT) model. It is now recognized by many scientists that
there is a hierarchy of protective mechanisms that are activated by low doses
of low-LET and low- plus high-LET radiation that include DNA damage repair,
apoptosis of severely damaged cells, removal of already-present aberrant cells
via apoptosis (stress response; regulated by intercellular communication
between aberrant and normal cells), and removal of pre-cancer and cancer cells
via stimulated anticancer immunity.  The French Academies report related
to LNT, which was discounted by Jan Beyea and other LNT advocates, discussed
these protective processes and took them into consideration when concluding
that LNT was not supported by data for low-LET doses < 100 mGy. In contrast,
the BEIR VII Report discussed these protective processes and then ignored their
very important implications when recommending continued use of the LNT model. Our
research has recently uncovered a novel protective mechanism whereby low-dose
gamma rays suppress cigarette-smoke-carcinogen-induced neoplastic transformation
and presumably also smoking related lung cancer. The protective mechanism
relates to gamma-ray suppression of cigarette-smoke-carcinogen-related inflammatory
cytokines released by stromal cells that promote the neoplastic transformation
of normal human bronchial epithelial cells (Chen W. et al., 2012, Carcinogenesis;
prepress abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22556270 ).  We also have new data showing that repeated low doses of gamma rays
can prevent cigarette-smoke-carcinogen-induced lung tumors (adenomas) in mice and
also appear to prevent the occurrence of spontaneous hyperplastic foci in the
mouse lung (Bruce V., et al., Dose-Response 2012 Conference presentation).
The protective processes indicated above are thought to be regulated
via epigenetic mechanisms and epigenetic changes appear to be orders of
magnitude more likely than radiation-induced mutations when the radiation dose
is low (Scott BR. 2012. First generation stochastic gene episilencing (Step1)
model and applications to in vitro carcinogen exposure. Dose-Response, prepress
version available at www.Dose-Response.com). 
The Special Issue paper by David Richardson titled “Lessons from Hiroshima and Nagasaki :
The most exposed and most vulnerable” relied on information derived from
epidemiological studies of A-bomb survivors. In the abstract it is stated that
cancer risk estimates are likely underestimated since frail people were lost to
follow-up shortly after the bombings in Hiroshima 
and Nagasaki .
As with other studies of these populations, the researcher failed to realize
that the Japanese victims were exposed to multiple insults (radiation + blast
wave + thermal wave + other) and had to reside and survive in war torn cities. 
No adjustments have been made for the combined exposure and high stress
environment so that cancer risks are likely to be overestimated, even for high
doses since all harm is attributed to radiation. Further, new information
discussed by Mohan Doss at the Dose-Response 2012 conference indicated that
serious bias in the baseline cancer rate due to year-to-year variation for the
indicated populations likely altered the shape of the dose-response curve for
cancer induction from nonlinear (e.g., threshold or hormetic type) to
apparently linear.  
The Special Issue assigned more credibility to the BEIR VII Report than
to the corresponding French Academies Report.  The BEIR VII Report however
relied essentially on epidemiological studies while the French Academies Report
gave considerable weight to findings from basic research. Regarding relying on
epidemiological studies, there is growing evidence that procedures employed in studies
of radiation-associated cancer can change real threshold- and hormetic-type
dose-response relationships into what appears to be an LNT type dose
response.  Some of these procedures are summarized below:
1.      Applying
standard risk factor adjustments in the hormetic zone where cancer risk is
suppressed by radiation adaptive responses (e.g., preventing smoking related
lung cancer via radiation activated natural protective processes). The indicated
adjustments appears to add back cancer risk (e.g., from smoking) that was
eliminated by the body’s protective mechanisms that were activated by
low-dose radiation (Scott BR. Dose-Response 9:444-464, 2011; freely available
at www.Dose-Response.com ).
2.      Not
eliminating bias associated with year-to-year variation in the baseline cancer
rate (Doss M. Dose-Response 2012 Conference presentation).
3.      Dose
lagging (throwing away parts of the low doses involved in stimulating the
body’s natural defenses and parts of the high doses involved in immune
system suppression) shifting the dose-response curve to the left (Scott B.R. et
al., Journal American and Physicians and Surgeons 13:8-11, 2008; freely
available at http://www.jpands.org/vol13no1/scott.pdf ).
4.      Assuming
a non-existent healthy worker effect when and adaptive response actually occurs
(Fornalski K.W. and Dobrzynski L. Dose-Response 8(2):125-147, 2010; freely
available at www.Dose-Response.com ). 
5.      Averaging
over large dose intervals when evaluating relative risk (RR) or excess relative
risk (ERR) and thereby eliminating a threshold dose or hormetic zone (Scott et
al. 2008; Thompson R.E., et al. Health Physics 94(3):228-241, 2008; Thompson
R.E., Dose-Response 9(1):59-75, 2011, freely available at www.Dose-Response.com  ).
6.      Inclusion
of high-dose data where significant immune system suppression occurs (Shan Y-X,
et al., Radiation and Environmental Biophysics 46:21-29, 2007) that can significantly
increase the cancer risk, when fitting the LNT function to data that includes
low-dose, adaptive-response data that do not support the LNT hypothesis (Scott
et al. 2008).
Advocates of LNT have caused many radiation-phobia related casualties
(e.g., following Chernobyl where > 100,000
abortions of wanted babies were reported by Linda Ketchum in 1987 [Journal of
Nuclear Medicine 28:933-942, 1987] to have occurred in Eastern Europe ). LNT-promoted casualties have also occurred in Japan related Fukushima . Many of the evacuees are now under
enormous stress and are suffering from psychological problems related to their
state of hopelessness (Genn Saji, personal communications). In addition, apparently
based in part on advice from LNT-hypothesis advocates, Japan is
currently running on 0% nuclear power, which will likely lead to a very high
financial cost to the Japanese people related to having to use alternative
energy sources.
Bobby R. Scott
LRRI, Albuquerque , NM , USA

From:parthasarathy k s [mailto:ksparth at yahoo.co.uk] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 9:29
To: The International Radiation Protection ( Health Physics) Mailing
Cc: Scott, Bobby; stewart farber;
Mike (DOH) Brennan
Subject: Special issue of the
Bulletin of Atomic Scientists
Dear Dr Scot

I hope you had a chance to have a quick look at the recently (May 1st, 2012)
issued special issue of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists covering effects of
low level radiation.

You can access it at:
I shall greatly appreciate your critical appraisal of the issue. 

******************************************************************************* This e-mail and any files are protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy
Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521. Its intended to be delivered only to the named
addressee(s) and its content is confidential and privileged. If you are not the
intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail to the
intended recipient, be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and
that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is
prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender
by replying to this message and delete this e-mail immediately. Nothing in this
communication, either written or implied, constitutes or should be construed as a
legally binding agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter

More information about the RadSafe mailing list