Unconventional Wisdom 6

Policy Issues

“Hey, Curmudge, how did we get into this mess, anyway?”

“Actually Julie, I think there are two messes—the policies themselves and their unintended consequences.  Let’s start with Mess #1, the official recognition of the linear no-threshold (LNT) hypothesis in the U. S. and other countries (but not France).  This is discussed at length in several of the papers in Dose-Response Vol. 10, No. 2 and 4 (2012).  The big problem is that one can’t rigorously prove a small increase or small decrease in cancer deaths at very low doses of ionizing radiation when 20% of the human population die of cancer from any number of causes.  It’s the classical problem of trying to discern a small signal amid a lot of noise.  So the government takes the easy way out and assumes that the LNT hypothesis is valid.”

“Because of that policy, people have acquired an unshakable belief that ionizing radiation at all levels will cause cancer.  Gosh, Old Guy, just imagine the political power derived from that fear by anti-nuclear power activists and the promise of big payments to corporations that move ‘contaminated’ soil from one place to another.  It’s even the raison d’être for the town’s basement tester and radon exterminator.  And this happens because people choose to ignore, or (more likely) are totally unaware of the weight of evidence showing radiation hormesis or at least a threshold.”

“You’ve got it Julie, as usual.  Now let’s consider Mess #2, the consequences of the LNT.  The nuclear accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima provide examples of decisions made by governments that were overly protective against radiation but that caused great harm to the populace emotionally, financially, and socially (1).  In the Chernobyl area 200,000 people were forcibly resettled where the natural background plus the Chernobyl contribution exceeded 500 mrem per year; recall that the natural background in Denver is 600 mrem per year. ‘Following the Chernobyl accident in 1986, an estimated 100,000- 200,000 Chernobyl-related induced abortions were performed in Western Europe.  Perceptions of radiation risks affected personal choices about continuing pregnancies.’ (2)”

“Curmudge, that’s horrible!  And then there was the Fukushima disaster in March 2011.  Ninety thousand people were evacuated from an area that had an estimated first-year dose of 2 rem to as high as 22 rem (3).  There are locations in Brazil and Iran with higher background than that.  Actual losses in the disaster were 15,000 deaths due to the tsunami and $55 billion spent on fossil fuel imports due to the shutdown of almost all of Japan’s nuclear power plants.  Could that happen here?”

“A tsunami on the Great Lakes is quite unlikely, but consider what would happen if a terrorist somehow constructed a rudimentary nuclear weapon—a so-called ‘dirty bomb’—and detonated it over Chicago.  Everyone’s fear of all radiation would cause panic in the streets, and government regulators would probably issue stupid evacuation orders.  Recall that President Obama requested that the Japanese evacuate all Americans from within 50 miles of Fukushima (4).”

“Oh, Curmudge, I’m not surprised.  But wouldn’t a lot of good things happen if the government abandoned the LNT hypothesis and taught people that low doses of radiation were not to be feared and could be good for them?”

“The list would be long Julie, but here are a few examples.  Our electricity would come from nuclear power plants, many of which would use breeder reactor technology that would reduce the problem of radioactive waste.  That would resolve the controversy over greenhouse emissions from fossil-fueled power generation.  Our cars could have small atomic engines that would be fueled once by the manufacturer.  And there would be lots of research on the medical uses of low doses of radiation.  Imagine getting a mammogram for cancer prevention instead of diagnosis.  And maybe old guys like me will live longer.”

“I would be concerned about that, Curmudge.  One old geezer that I know quite well is flakey enough already.  So how is this low-dose radiation controversy going to be resolved?”

“Slowly, I believe.  Consider the stakeholders, beginning with the people and their governments.  An expansive government will take advantage of the people’s fears by promulgating regulations, e.g., a carbon tax, and by practicing crony capitalism, such as investing in solar energy schemes.  Remember, this is the age of policy-based evidence—not evidence-based policies.  NGOs thrive on people’s fears and concerns, so they will fight the concepts of a threshold and hormesis tooth and nail.  Scientists who have not read the literature will view data that fit a ‘J’-shaped curve as counterintuitive.  Nevertheless, it will be up to the scientists to gain an understanding of low doses of ionizing radiation and teach what they have learned.  These findings are too significant to be kept under wraps indefinitely.”

“Hey, Cumudge, that’s what you and I are doing.  It’s a perfect job for a jaded nurse and an old inveterate teacher.  So what issue will we tackle next?”

“We may have more to say about low doses of ionizing radiation, but not right away.  It will soon be May and time to celebrate our sixth anniversary.  À plus tard (see you later), Julie.”

“Ciao (‘bye), Old Guy.”

Kaizen Curmudgeon    

(1)  Dobrzynski, L. (p. 467) and Wilson, R. (p. 480) in Dose-Response 10, No. 4 (2012).

(2)   Mossman, K. L. Dose-Response 10, No.2: 190 (2012).

(3)   Muller, Richard  The Panic Over Fukushima  Wall Street Journal, August 18, 2012.

(4)   Wilson, Richard  Dose-Response 10, No. 4: 480 (2012).

Acknowledgements:  Curmudge and Jaded Julie gratefully acknowledge the personal communications (face-to-face and email) between Doc Mack and the following distinguished scientists: Douglas R. Boreham, T. D. Luckey, Ron E. J. Mitchel, and Charles L. Sanders.    

Unconventional Wisdom 5

How much?  How does it work?

“Curmudge, I’ve been telling my friends about our recent discussions…about how large doses of radiation are dangerous but very small doses are not only not a hazard but might even be good for you.  After my friends get over being incredulous, those who are truly perceptive start asking questions.  ‘Okay, Julie.  So as the radiation dose gets lower and lower, where does it stop being hazardous and start being beneficial?’ “

“That’s a very important question, Julie, but we should include more recent literature in our discussion.  Remember that Hiserodt’s book was published in 2005.  A more up-to-date resource is Volume 10 (2012) of the peer-reviewed journal, Dose-Response.  I recommend issue No. 2, a special issue on The Role of Linear and Nonlinear Dose-Response Models in Public Decision-Making, and issue No.4 dedicated to the distinguished Polish scientist, Zbigniew Jaworowski.  Actually, issue No. 4 is a follow-up to No. 2 on low doses of ionizing radiation.” 

“I won’t ask how you found this, Curmudge.  You’ve probably already forgotten.  But since you made the discovery and spent the past week reading the papers, would you be so kind as to share with me some of the authors’ more profound findings and comments?  They ought to help me answer my inquisitive and not-fully-believing friends. My friends may need to be reminded that for beta, gamma, and x-radiation, values expressed in sieverts (Sv) or grays (Gy) are numerically the same.”

“I’d be delighted to help inform your friends, Julie.  Let’s start with higher doses and work down.  We’ve learned from Hiserodt’s book:

·      At 100 cSv (100,000 mrem) people experience radiation sickness.

·      Below an instantaneous 70 cGy (70,000 mrem) dose Japanese atomic bomb survivors outlived their unexposed countrymen.  The optimum dose was around 10 cGy (10,000 mrem).  

·      At 48 cGy/yr (48,000 mrem) background, people in Ramasari, Iran are presumably healthy but likely unhappy with their despotic government.

·      According to T.D. Luckey, the optimum annual exposure is 10 cG/yr (10,000 mrem).”

“Okay, Old Guy, now let’s look at more recent literature.  When we refer to the Dose-Response journal, recall that the page numbers are sequential through a whole volume.”   

“In response to a question about whether an 11-mSv CT scan would be cause for worry about future cancer, C. L. Sanders provided this reassurance:  ‘Feel blessed that you have received this dose from CT scans.  You could receive an annual cumulative dose of 100 mSv (10,000 mrem) and experience the benefit of reduced cancer and other disease risk.’ (Personal communication, 2011.)

‘The (protective) adaptive response in mammalian cells and mammals operates within a certain window that can be defined by upper and lower dose thresholds, typically between about 1 and 100 mGy (100 and 10,000 mrem) for a single low dose rate exposure.’ (Mitchel, R. E. J.  Dose-Response Vol. 8, p. 192 [2010])   

‘For doses ≤ 100 mGy (10,000 mrem) [the equivalent of several CT scans] the frequency of neoplastic transformations was reduced below the spontaneous level, presumably because of gamma-ray activated natural protection with selective removal of aberrant cells via apoptosis.’ (Scott, et al.  See reference in our 8/08/11 blog posting.)”

“How do I answer if my friend next asks, ‘Well, Julie, since you seem to know so much, how does this radiation hormesis stuff work in the human body?’ “

“I’d say, ‘Read the literature.  There are great articles that deal with this in depth, including those by Cohen (J. Am. Phys. Sur. 13, no. 3:70[2008]), by Scott and Di Palma (Dose-Response Vol. 5, p. 230 [2006]) and by Vaiserman and by Tubiana et al. (references in our 8/08/11 blog posting).’  A statement by Tubiana et al. that caught my attention was, ‘Life developed in a bath of ionizing radiation and solar ultraviolet radiation and created aerobic organisms requiring (a) defenses against the metabolically induced reactive oxygen species, (b) DNA repair, and (c) elimination of damaged cells.’ It seems as if life required radiation hormesis from the very beginning.“

“But suppose my friend wants me to describe radiation hormesis briefly—as in an ‘elevator speech’.”

“Here it comes, Julie, in the words of Scott and Di Palma: ‘Low doses and dose rates of low LET radiation activate a system of cooperative processes in the body.  (They) include (a) defenses such as scavenging reactive oxygen species, (b) presumably p53 related activated high-fidelity DNA repair/apoptosis, (c) a novel auxiliary protected apoptosis mediated process that selectively eliminates aberrant cells, and (d) induced immunity.’ “       

“Wow, Curmudge.  I believe the big words in those papers tell us that CT scans are good for us and how they do the good things that they do.  By the way, do you understand those big words?”

“Consider me biology-challenged, Julie, but the hyperlink at p53 was really helpful.  I already knew that apoptosis means programmed cell death, and if the dying cells are cancer cells, that’s good news for all of us.”

“So what’s next, Obsolete Academic?”

“Let’s talk about policy issues.  That might be our ‘last hurrah’ on low doses of ionizing radiation, at least for the moment.”

Kaizen  Curmudgeon   

Unconventional Wisdom 4

Radiation Background—All Around and Underground

“Curmudge, I sense your dogged determination to convince our readers that (a) the LNT hypothesis has been disproven, and (b) radiation hormesis occurs.  This is the fourth posting in the current series —so readers should already know what we are talking about—plus we introduced the topic way back on August 8, 2011.”

“Don’t give us too much credit, Julie.  You and I can’t change how people think.  If we could, we’d be employed or at least put to better use as volunteers.  The most we can do is make readers aware of the existing science.  That through 2005 is found—as noted previously—via complete citations in Hiserodt’s book.  It’s up to our readers to convince themselves.  And remember, it’s easy to scare people but hard to un-scare them.”

“Time for some cold, hard facts, Old Guy.  We mentioned that the average background in the U.S. is 300 mrem per year with radon as the largest contributor.  Other typical background values in the U.S. are 200 mrem/yr in Gulf Coast states and 600 mrem/yr in the Denver area.  More extreme backgrounds are found elsewhere, e.g., 1,300 mrem/yr in Kerala, India and 48,000 mrem/yr in Ramasari, Iran.”

“Here is a situation, Julie, where background radiation is more than an academic question.  It can become a major financial issue.  In the U.S. if one is selling his house, he may be asked to have the radon concentration in his basement air checked.  If the radon is found to be above the EPA’s action level of 4 picocuries per liter of air, the prospective buyers may require the seller to have equipment installed to reduce the radon concentration.  This is due to concern about lung cancer thought to be caused by radon.  (Note: A curie is 37 billion disintegrations per second; a picocurie [pCi] is one trillionth of a curie.)”

“Because you brought it up, Curmudge, please tell me how Cohen and others studied the ‘concern about lung cancer caused by radon’.”

“Bernard Cohen of the University of Pittsburg (1995) (chap. 20 in Hiserodt’s book) collected radon exposure and cancer mortality data from 1,729 counties in the U.S. (90% of the population).  Cohen’s results showed an inverse relationship between lung cancer mortality and radon concentration.  The LNT theory would have predicted ‘4.5 deaths per 10,000 men per year for each pCi/L increase in airborne radon.’  Cohen’s research showed ‘a minus 4.7 deaths per pCi/L.’  More specifically, Cohen (1994, chap 17) studied residential radon vs. lung cancer rates.  In the Rocky Mountain states the lung cancer rate was 47 per 100,000 persons, and the average residential radon was 2.6 pCi/L.  In the Gulf Coast states the lung cancer rate was 68 per 100,000 persons, and the average residential radon was 0.5 pCi/L.  ‘The low-LET* component from radon progeny was probably responsible for the strong hormetic effect described for lung cancer’ (1).”

 

“Wow, Curmudge!  That helps explain the popularity over the centuries of the Gasteiner Heilstollen (Healing Gallery) in Bad Gastein, Austria as well as a lot of other spas in Europe.  The radon content in the healing gallery is advertised at over 1,000 times the EPA action level.  Too bad you didn’t stop there when you were in Austria; it might have helped your late wife’s arthritis.”

“There are similar but much more rustic ‘radon mines’ in the western U.S., Julie.  The oldest is the Free Enterprise Radon Health Mine in Boulder, Montana.  Barbra Erickson has studied and reported on the radon spas in Europe and the radon mines in the U.S. (2).”

“As I recall, Curmudge, chap. 17 of Hiserodt’s book describes studies in Asia of radon in spring water as well as in air.  Mortality from stomach cancer and all cancers was lower in a Japanese town with higher radon in its spring water (Mifune et al. 1992).  A similar trend was noted for lung cancer in indoor air.”

“And in China, Zhai et al. (1982) compared cancer mortality from geographical areas with ‘low background,’ ~100 mrem/yr, and ‘high background,’ ~330 mrem/yr (near U.S. average).  Nearly all cancers were less in the ‘high background’ area as were spontaneous abortions, neonatal mortality, and infertility.”

“So I guess we can conclude, Curmudge, that at the levels studied it’s healthier to live in a higher radiation background, whether it is in the air we breathe, the water we drink, or our total surroundings.”

“It looks that way, Julie, but at my age it doesn’t matter much.  What really concerns me is the mistaken fear of low-level radiation among younger people and our whole society.  In a subsequent posting we’ll speculate how life might be different if that unjustified fear were absent.”

Kaizen Curmudgeon

*LET (linear energy transfer).  Betas and gammas are low-LET radiation.

(1)  Sanders, C. L.  Dose-Response 10:619 (2012).

    

(2)  Erickson, B. L.  The therapeutic use of radon; a biomedical treatment in Europe; an ‘alternative’ remedy in the United Stated. Dose-Response 5:48-62 (2007).