[ RadSafe ] Is this the beginning of the end of the debate on low-dose radiation health effects?
Ludwig E. Feinendegen
feinendegen at gmx.net
Fri Jun 27 14:53:21 CDT 2014
Dear Mark: Please accept my disagreement with the worded title: "There is
no effect of radiation exposure below 10 rem (0.1 Sv)". There is, in
principle, the definite effect of adaptive protection - see attachment with
references. Thus I propose to follow an adapted wording of your
O-hypothesis: "Doses below 0.1 Gy cause no increase of the spontaneous
cancer risk."
Regards, Ludwig
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] Im Auftrag von Miller, Mark L
Gesendet: Freitag, 27. Juni 2014 20:01
An: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Cc: marklmiller20 at gmail.com
Betreff: [ RadSafe ] Is this the beginning of the end of the debate on
low-dose radiation health effects?
Ironically, we've all been fooled into wasting our breath and efforts
because we've been pursuing a logical fallacy. Our focus should be on
whether there is an effect below 10 rem (0.1 SV) or not. Completely
separate (and later) can a meaningful discourse begin on hormesis, adaptive
response, etc. begin. Until we convince people that there is a threshold
below which there is no risk, they will be deaf to arguments beyond that
(regardless of their scientific merit).
The null hypothesis should be worded like this: "There is no effect of
radiation exposure below 10 rem (0.1 Sv)". The burden of proof must be
borne by whatever alternative hypothesis one chooses to test (e.g. LNT,
hormesis, etc.)
Or ...
H0: doses below 0.1 Gy cause no change in cancer risk.
H1: doses below 0.1 Gy either increase or decrease cancer rates.
Epidemiology is not likely to provide answers. We MUST use the correct null
hypothesis to avoid a logical fallacy! We need to avoid getting tricked
into trying to prove a negative. The CRITICS of LNT should be the ones
trying to prove THEIR assertion that there IS a detrimental effect.
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: Brennan, Mike (DOH) [mailto:Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV]
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 11:03 AM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Is this the beginning of the end of the debate on
low-dose radiation health effects?
I wasn't thinking of experiments on humans, as there are all those "crimes
against humanity" aspects that are best avoided. I would settle for mice,
with the experiment running a half dozen generations or so.
-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Doss, Mohan
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 9:59 AM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Is this the beginning of the end of the debate on
low-dose radiation health effects?
Dear Mike,
We cannot do any such prospective human studies until the advisory
bodies change their reliance on LNT model for their recommendations, and
radiation safety regulations are modified accordingly.
Mohan
-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Brennan, Mike (DOH)
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 12:44 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Is this the beginning of the end of the debate on
low-dose radiation health effects?
I think a fair portion of the comes down competing models, in particular
"physics" vs "biology" and "deconstructionist" vs "holistic".
The physics of how ionizing radiation can damage genetic material is pretty
clear, with the chances of that damage leading to cancer somewhat less
clear, but still fairly easy to quantify (especially if you look for "cancer
precursors" and stop your experiment early enough). With radiation damage
to cells, biology happens after the physics. Biology is harder than
physics, because a lot of things happen, often very fast, and often for not
completely obvious reasons (As the Harvard Law states, "Under carefully
controlled conditions of temperature, pressure, and humidity, the
experimental subject will behave as it damn well pleases.") It is
traditional in Science that when part of the process is hard and part is
easy, more attention is paid to the easy part.
This leads to the "deconstructionist" vs "holistic" axis. When you break
something down to simpler parts it is easier to understand them in detail,
and write papers on the details. Fitting the pieces back together can be
challenging, however. On the other hand, when you focus on the whole system
without explaining each piece you are likely to wind up like that New Yorker
cartoon, with a blackboard full of equation with "then a miracle occurs" in
the middle.
I, personally, think that there is only so much to be learned by arguing
over old data, especially data that was collected for other reasons. I'd
like to see a couple of dedicated LNT people and a couple of hormesis people
(maybe with a threshold guy as referee) sit down and construct an experiment
that all agree would definitively answer at least part of the question, then
run it.
-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Doss, Mohan
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 7:48 PM
To: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List'
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Is this the beginning of the end of the debate on
low-dose radiation health effects?
Dear All,
The most often-quoted evidence for the increased cancer risk from
low-dose radiation (LDR) in publications is the atomic bomb survivor data,
e.g. in BEIR VII report, publications by Brenner & Hall, etc. In my
opinion, the latest update to atomic bomb survivor data (Ozasa 2012) does
not support the LNT model (and so LDR cancer risk), as I have described in a
few publications. Those who claim LDR cancer risk also apparently accept
this interpretation, as they routinely refer to older atomic bomb survivor
data to validate LDR cancer concerns and ignore the newer data, e.g.
Brenner's recent review article in BJR. When I challenged him in a Letter
to the Editor http://goo.gl/JYPkcp for using the outdated data, he did not
give any explanation why he ignored the newer data in his response. Also,
in the recently published debate in Medical Physics on the subject of LDR
health effects http://goo.gl/vOlQNd , the side claiming LDR cancer risk did
not even bring forth the evidenc
e of atomic bomb survivors in the opening statement, in comparison to
previous debates, where it was the centerpiece of evidence. These actions
by supporters of the LDR cancer risk, of not using the latest data from
atomic bomb survivors (claimed to be "single most important source" by BEIR
VII report, and as "gold standard" by Hall & Brenner), may indicate the
beginning of the end of the debate on the subject.
With best regards,
Mohan
Mohan Doss, Ph.D., MCCPM
Medical Physicist,
Associate Professor, Diagnostic Imaging, Fox Chase Cancer Center,
333 Cottman Avenue,
Philadelphia, PA 19111-2497.
Phone: 215 214-1707
Website: http://www.fccc.edu/research/pid/doss/
Blogs: http://mohan-doss-home-page.blogspot.com/
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email communication may contain private,
confidential, or legally privileged information intended for the sole use of
the designated and/or duly authorized recipient(s). If you are not the
intended recipient or have received this email in error, please notify the
sender immediately by email and permanently delete all copies of this email
including all attachments without reading them. If you are the intended
recipient, secure the contents in a manner that conforms to all applicable
state and/or federal requirements related to privacy and confidentiality of
such information.
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
http://health.phys.iit.edu _______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
http://health.phys.iit.edu
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email communication may contain private,
confidential, or legally privileged information intended for the sole use of
the designated and/or duly authorized recipient(s). If you are not the
intended recipient or have received this email in error, please notify the
sender immediately by email and permanently delete all copies of this email
including all attachments without reading them. If you are the intended
recipient, secure the contents in a manner that conforms to all applicable
state and/or federal requirements related to privacy and confidentiality of
such information.
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
http://health.phys.iit.edu
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
http://health.phys.iit.edu
More information about the RadSafe
mailing list