Radiation hormesis effects demonstrated scientifically valid

[Muckerheide <muckerheide@mediaone.net>]

Radsafers,

See the just-released 70-page issue of the Belle Newsletter:

Vol. 8, No. 2, December 1999
RADIATION HORMESIS: Origins, History, Scientific Foundations
http://www.belleonline.com/home82.html

This (partially) analyzes the original science that proved hormesis from
1895-1940 (263 refs); and the pre- and post-war bias that caused the
"demise" of these known results.

Consider these 'preprints' to publication in the journal of the Br Soc 
of Toxicology.

These reflect a new critical analysis by Calabrese and Baldwin testing
the validity of the original studies to show hormesis (e.g., size of
data sets, dose ranges, analyses, and statistical significance - studies
with lower scores don't mean that hormesis is not valid, but usually
only that study design/size/doses are not definitive - which questions
why more substantial studies were not performed with $Billions for
research above the low-doses of interest - including specifically
dropping/excluding earlier low dose groups (e.g., the Egon Lorenz work
that dropped the 0.044 r/day dose group from the early studies to start
from 0.11 r/day - which still resulted in longer lives in 'whole'
animals).

Note that this report is preliminary to a larger study of more extensive
and recent data (~500 studies) and the tests applied to assess the
validity of the hormesis result. This will be formally issued in the
near future.

Note that this is a (partial) response to ICRP/NCRP/IAEA/UNSCEAR and
gov't agencies that just rejected (at the BRPS Conference) requests from
US and international policy-makers to clarify the science basis for rad
protection standards, including charges that the contrary data is
ignored and suppressed (e.g., since Wingspread in 1997: BEIR VI, NCRP
SC1-6, Seville - and US EPA, DOE, NRC, etc., plus the many int'l gov't
agency rules - which then also actively suppress the data in their
rulemakings). They rejected the request to justify the massive costs
that are being extracted from the public by the health and safety
benefits.

They said they will (must?) ignore the science and maintain extreme
radiation protection standards, justified only because they "work" for
the (highly-funded) rad protection bureaucrats and their
contractors/licensees, at essentially any cost to society. (If it's
"controllable" it is justified for rad protectionists to "control it" -
whether it is measurable or a trivial increment to background - there is
no need to justify it by health benefits. The "controllable dose" would
not temper current standards, and even likely result in higher 
standards as described by the need to impose ICRP-60 on all countries 
and to force compliance through ever more rigorous (and unaccountable) 
IAEA BSS. 

In fact, they essentially rescinded even the minimal 'progress' in the
(unimplemented) recommendations from the Wingspread Conference. This is
presumably because they see no serious questioning of their arbitrary
documents since Wingspread by policy-makers, nor the "industry" that is
also being well-funded by the rad protectionists standards, and no
official organizations speak for the public that is being misled and
defrauded of $100s Billions. We suspect however, that the current
leaders had been given an opportunity to take "corrective action," and
they are too narrow and committed to autonomy and autocracy to see it;
and therefore the change must come from "without." 

Consider attending the Jan 19-20 Program on this at UMass Amherst. See:
http://www.belleonline.com/

Thanks.

Regards, Jim Muckerheide
Radiation, Science, and Health
Center for Nuclear Technology and Society at WPI
muckerheide@mediaone.net
================================================
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html