Dose Reconstruction

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

> Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 15:18:07 -0800 (PST)
> From: Owen Hoffman <73304.3262@compuserve.com>
> Subject: Dose Reconstruction
> Sender: riskanal@listserv.pnl.gov
 
> Definition of Dose Reconstruction - The reconstruction of the exposure, dose and
> potential health risk from historical emissions of potentially harmful
> substances.  Harmful substances includes:  all potentially toxic chemicals and
> radioactive materials.  Currently, the highest standards of quantitative risk
> assessment are being applied to all ongoing dose reconstruction projects in the
> U.S.  Quantitative uncertainty analysis is mandated in these studies including
> an analysis of uncertainty in dosimetry and dose response function (i.e., "the
> slope factor").
> 
> In situations whereby past releases have been very high, the dose reconstruction
> can be used to support epidemiological studies designed to detect a
> statistically significant dose response.  Where past releases result in doses
> that result in health effects that are below the limits of epidemiological
> detection, the objectives of the study are to publicly disclose the magnitude of
> the risk and the uncertainty associated with this estimate.
> 
> Note that the Oak Ridge Dose Reconstruction Study is designed to use screening
> methods and uncertainty/sensitivity analysis to prioritize resources so that the
> highest risk issues will receive the most intensive investigation.  An iterative
> approach is facilitated through the adoption of risk based decision criteria.
> Currently at Oak Ridge, proposed decision criteria have been set at one chance
> in 10,000 (10^-4) of an excess risk of disease incidence.  Issues that
> confidently fall below this level will be given lower priority in succeeding
> stages of investigation.
> 
> The best basic reference that I can give you on dose reconstruction is:
> National Research Council.  1995.  Radiation Dose Reconstruction for
> Epidemiologic Uses.  Committee on an Assessment of CDC Radiation Studies Board
> on Radiation Effects Research, Commission on Life Sciences, National Research
> Council.  National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

This is all very nice to justify large expenditures, but is not science. As
the HPS Position Statement, and BEIR for that matter, show, the scientific
evidence unambiguously demonstrates the lack of effects, therefore risks, to
populations at low to moderate doses therefore no risk exists and should not
be calculated below (conservatively) 5 rem whole body in a year, and 10 rem
lifetime. The "linear model" on which such rationalizations as 10^-4 risk
criteria are propounded are simply fictions to justify massive $$ for no
public health benefit. BEIR V itself states that no effects exist below 10s of 
cGy for, eg, leukemia, thyroid and breast cancer, etc, but force a 'linear
model' anyway since that's their mandate. 

The knowledgeable radiobiologists and epidemiologists have known this for 30
years, but results have been ignored to produce the linear model results. See, 
eg, Robley Evans HPJ 1974 showing the scientific errors and disinformation of
BEIR (1972) used to fabricate the linear response for the radium ingestion
population; and his summary in HPJ 1983 Supp 1, on the Proc of the 1981 Int'l
Conf, in which he said that 1000s of cases worldwide then combined, with doses 
to 1000 rad (alpha) have no consequences, contrary to linear model
predictions; as is true of 10,000s of medical cases at 10s of cGy with no
consequences (even beneficial effects), contrary to significant increases
predicted by the "linear model", completely disproving the "linear
hypothesis". 

Note that Dr. Evans' next-decade update of the population, based on advanced
hazards analysis, as reported by Dr. Maletskos in the Nov 1994 ANS
Transactions, along with a complex confirmatory independent analyses by Otto
Raabe, and another on the log-normal distribution of the cases by Bob Thomas
(though DOE terminated the program!), continue to show a 1000 to 1100 rad
threshold, and a cancer case log-normal projection to about 400 rad. 

OTOH, NO evidence exists that supports a linear model in populations large
enough and at doses high enough to show significant effect. (This is before
considering the data that gov't agencies suppress from the literature and rad
research programs over the last 30 years, including explicit cases continuing
in recent years, including the 10-year, $10M "Shipyard Worker Study", the
AEC/DOE high-dose worker study, the radium-study programs, etc, and the
'chilling effect' on researchers and programs that then quickly learn to
suppress such unwanted data/results. 

New biology work, at cellular and molecular levels, and in cancer and genetics 
research, confirm conclusively that no linear response is possible in
biological systems with repair mechanisms. (And even without repair,
considering that there are 20 damage events/cell/rad, compared to 8000 damage
events/cell/hour, 240,000 damage events/cell/day, from normal biological
processes <vs. how many R/day do you want to estimate increased damage from?
:-) > )  

Note also that biological responses to radiation demonstrate conclusively the
stimulation of repair (showing that the stimulatory effect of an insignificant 
amount of damage increase can effect the repair and immune system response of
massively more damage from other cell damage events.) 

And note even that biology confirms that suppression of normal background
radiation is detrimental to biological organisms. 

Rad protection policy is technically equivalent to finding that sunshine
causes heat stroke, death, sunburn, with long-term exposure causing cancer,
and deciding to keep your plants (and children) in a closet; and for a gov't
bureaucracy to propose putting opaque domes over cities and requiring total
body covering, and permits and monitors, on persons allowed outside (given any 
opportunity to con a gullible public). Is the "Oak Ridge Study" any different? 

See, eg, the HPS Position Statement that reflects the unambiguous scientific
evidence of the lack of risk, with substantial conservatism, at 5 rem in a
year, 10 rem lifetime. Consider that the whole radium-burden population, to
1000s of rad to bone and high doses from decay radon and products distributed
with no excess, actually slightly lower, cancer, except the few bone sarcomas
and head carcinomas, and a slight breast cancer increase in the young female
dial painters. (If I recall, 1.36 in the US and 1.84 in the UK, or vice
versa?) Recall that the dial painters sat at work benches with LUMINOUS radium 
compounds exposing the head, neck and trunk areas, and no external dosimetry,
that is not counted in the radium dose (nor are the soft-tissue doses from the 
70% of the radon that is not exhaled, along with the decay products,
(including the long-lived products as well as the short-lived?) 

Since these results are not included in education programs, most in HP and
related disciplines are as misled as industry managers and the general public
on these subjects. OTOH, many are knowledgeable in the data and are similarly
constrained in their ability to speak out, which they do in many 'hallway
discussions' but 'not for publication', (and of course some are active in
covering up the data in the successful quest for funding by running this con
on the public, a real 'protection racket' :-)  

Unfortunately, while this disinformation was of minor consequence in the 70s,
keeping research and rad protection activities funded at small cost, new
"standards" have led to massive costs, including estimates of a $ trillion in
US site cleanup alone for 'negligible' public health benefits (see eg,
Goldman, President HPS in Feb 95 HPS Newsletter), another $trillion in Europe, 
etc, and $10s billions/year in useless rad protection interventions at < 5
rem/year, 10 rem lifetime, all passed thru to the gullible public. 

But more importantly, this cost and the fear fostered in the public to keep
the funds flowing has led to the destruction of beneficial contributions of
radiation, radioactivity, and nuclear science and technology applications to
the public health and welfare, along with foregone advances in many areas due
to this waste and misrepresentation. 

Thanks.

Regards, Jim Muckerheide
jmuckerheide@delphi.com
Radiation, Science, and Health

> 
> If you need any additional information, please contact me at:
> 
> SENES Oak Ridge, Inc.
> 102 Donner Drive
> Oak Ridge, TN  37830
> (423) 483-6111 or fax:  (423) 481-0060.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> F. Owen Hoffman