[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Russian Exposure Data - A Goldmine?
Otto G. Raabe wrote:
>
> February 9, 1998
> Mobile, AL
>
> Greeting from the HPS midyear meeting being held this week in Mobile.
>
> The indication from the Russian data that there is a cancer risk
> threshold for lung cancer at about 4 kBq intake agrees with the
> predictions that I have made and published based on the beagle
> studies at Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories and at the
> Lovelace Inhalation Toxicology Research
> Institute that there is an effective threshold at a life-time lung
> dose of about 1 Gy (2000 rem !). See, for example,
>
> 1988 Raabe, O.G. Respiratory System Risk Estimation for Inhaled
> Radionuclides Utilizing Lognormal Response Surfaces. Annals of
> Occupational Hygiene 32, Supplement 1: 1129-1139.
>
> 1989 Raabe, O.G. Extrapolation and scaling of animal data to humans:
> Scaling of fatal cancer risks from laboratory animals to man. Health
> Physics 57 (suppl.1): 419-432.
>
> 1994 Raabe, O.G., Three-Dimensional Models of Risk from Internally
> Deposited Radionuclides, Chapter 30, pp. 663-656 in Internal Radiation
> Dosimetry (O.G. Raabe, Ed.), Medical Physics Publishing, Madison, WI.
>
> 1996 Raabe, O.G., O Wunder! The inverse dose-rate effect is quelled by
> the effective threshold, IRPA 9, 1996 International Congress on
> Radiation Protection, International Radiation Protection Association,
> Proceedings 2:378-380.
Note also a recent review article by Drs. Harald Rossi and Marco Zaider
(Radiat. Environ. Biophys, 1997, 36:85-88) that states, eg:
In the abstract:
"A critical review of the literature leads to the conclusion that at the
radiation doses generally of concern in radiation protection (<2Gy),
protracted exposures to low linear energy transfer (LET) radiation (x-or
gamma rays) does not appear to cause lung cancer. There is, in fact,
indication of reduction of the natural incidence."
And:
"We believe that we have reviewed most of the pertinent publications. (Note:
about 20 refs.) Those involving fluoroscopic patients are the most relevant
ones because they refer to the conditions that concern radiation protection
for long-term low level exposure with a relatively uniform dose distribution
in the lung. In both cases, there appears to be a reduction of lung cancer at
low doses. The probability that the RR is 1 or more at both 0.25 and 0.5 Gy
(Fig.1) is negligibly small."
"Reduction of the cancer incidence at low or moderate doses has been observed
in experimental radiobiology, where it was also found in the case of a lung
tumor. (Ulrich 1976)
"Figure 1 also shows RR vs. dose as given by the risk factor of ICRP which,
based on the postulate of 'linearity' permits extrapolation from the risk at
high doses that can also be average doses. The evidence for no, and probably
a negative risk of lung cancer at small doses not only conflicts with
'linearity' but also invalidates risk estimates based on non-uniform irradiation."
Note also that this includes Mayak worker data, UNSCEAR 1994, with a lot of
the primary data from the 1985-1989 time frame that has been clearly
identified for a long time as contradicting the LNT, including Shimizu 1987
RERF data on the Japanese survivors, (also with no data that support the LNT,
except some of the standard 'analyses' that draw a straight line despite the
data :-). (Note also that Rossi did not depend on Cohen's substantial
studies or other confirmatory studies that show lower lung cancer at higher
radon levels.)
> *****************************************************
> Prof. Otto G. Raabe, Ph.D., CHP
> [President, Health Physics Society, 1997-1998]
> Institute of Toxicology & Environmental Health (ITEH)
> (Street address: Old Davis Road)
> University of California, Davis, CA 95616
> Phone: 530-752-7754 FAX: 530-758-6140 [NEW AREA CODE]
> E-mail ograabe@ucdavis.edu
Thanks Otto.
Regards, Jim Muckerheide
muckerheide@mediaone.net
Radiation, Science, and Health