Lessons to be learned from a contentious challenge to mainstream radiobiological science (the linear no-threshold theory of genetic mutations)

False and Misleading Claims of Scientific Misconduct in Early Research into Radiation Dose-response: Part 1. Overlooking Key Historical Text

ABSTRACT

In reviewing a video series that they created for the website of the Health Physics Society (HPS), past leaders of the Health Physics Society have treated as authoritative and trustworthy the scientific misconduct theories of University of Massachusetts Professor Edward Calabrese. No mention is made of detailed critiques of Calabrese's work. I show that Calabrese's historical work as presented by HPS's authors is unreliable because it overlooks key historical text and key statistical concepts about the limits of an early atomic bomb genetics study. When these errors are corrected, claims of scientific misconduct on the part of historical figures evaporate. Claims of threshold behavior in early radiation genetic experiments are wrong for atomic bomb data. Calabrese's unique claims about thresholds in early animal genetic data are not credible for human cancer, given the doses at which they were carried out (>30 R). Recent epidemiological studies of both acute and protracted exposure in humans fail to show dose-rate effects or a dose threshold above 30 R. Such results from human data should be more relevant for most regulators and review committees than Calabrese's claims about old data on animals. Disclaimers, errata, and links to critiques should be added to the HPS webpage hosting the 22-part video series. Failure to do so can cause damage to reputations and historical accuracy because it erroneously validates Calabrese's inflammatory claims of scientific misconduct against past scientists, including three Nobel Prize winners, members of the NAS, and presidents of the AAAS.

Low Dose and Non-Targeted Radiation Effects in Environmental Protection and Medicine-A New Model Focusing on Electromagnetic Signaling

The role of signalling in initiating and perpetuating effects triggered by deposition of ionising radiation energy in parts of a system is very clear. Less clear are the very early steps involved in converting energy to chemical and biological effects in non-targeted parts of the system. The paper aims to present a new model, which could aid our understanding of the role of low dose effects in determining ultimate disease outcomes. We propose a key role for electromagnetic signals resulting from physico-chemical processes such as excitation decay, and acoustic waves. These lead to the initiation of damage response pathways such as elevation of reactive oxygen species and membrane associated changes in key ion channels. Critically, these signalling pathways allow coordination of responses across system levels. For example, depending on how these perturbations are transduced, adverse or beneficial outcomes may predominate. We suggest that by appreciating the importance of signalling and communication between multiple levels of organisation, a unified theory could emerge. This would allow the development of models incorporating time, space and system level to position data in appropriate areas of a multidimensional domain. We propose the use of the term "infosome" to capture the nature of radiation-induced communication systems which include physical as well as chemical signals. We have named our model "the variable response model" or "VRM" which allows for multiple outcomes following exposure to low doses or to signals from low dose irradiated cells, tissues or organisms. We suggest that the use of both dose and infosome in radiation protection might open up new conceptual avenues that could allow intrinsic uncertainty to be embraced within a holistic protection framework.

Radiation Biology and Its Role in the Canadian Radiation Protection Framework

The linear no-threshold (linear-non-threshold) model is a dose-response model that has long served as the foundation of the international radiation protection framework, which includes the Canadian regulatory framework. Its purpose is to inform the choice of appropriate dose limits and subsequent as low as reasonably achievable requirements, social and economic factors taken into account. The linear no-threshold model assumes that the risk of developing cancer increases proportionately with increasing radiation dose. The linear no-threshold model has historically been applied by extrapolating the risk of cancer at high doses (>1,000 mSv) down to low doses in a linear manner. As the health effects of radiation exposure at low doses remain ambiguous, reducing uncertainties found in cancer risk dose-response models can be achieved through in vitro and animal-based studies. The purpose of this critical review is to analyze whether the linear no-threshold model is still applicable for use by modern nuclear regulators for radiation protection purposes, or if there is sufficient scientific evidence supporting an alternate model from which to derive regulatory dose limits.

It Is Time to Move Beyond the Linear No-Threshold Theory for Low-Dose Radiation Protection

The US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is the primary federal agency responsible for promulgating regulations and policies to protect people and the environment from ionizing radiation. Currently, the USEPA uses the linear no-threshold (LNT) model to estimate cancer risks and determine cleanup levels in radiologically contaminated environments. The LNT model implies that there is no safe dose of ionizing radiation; however, adverse effects from low dose, low-dose rate (LDDR) exposures are not detectable. This article (1) provides the scientific basis for discontinuing use of the LNT model in LDDR radiation environments, (2) shows that there is no scientific consensus for using the LNT model, (3) identifies USEPA reliance on outdated scientific information, and (4) identifies regulatory reliance on incomplete evaluations of recent data contradicting the LNT. It is the time to reconsider the use of the LNT model in LDDR radiation environments. Incorporating the latest science into the regulatory process for risk assessment will (1) ensure science remains the foundation for decision making, (2) reduce unnecessary burdens of costly cleanups, (3) educate the public on the real effects of LDDR radiation exposures, and (4) harmonize government policies with the rest of the radiation scientific community.

Old Data-New Concepts: Integrating "Indirect Effects" Into Radiation Protection

PURPOSE

To address the following key question, what are the consequences of nontargeted and delayed effects for linear nonthreshold models of radiation risk? This paper considers low-dose "indirect" or nontargeted effects and how they might impact radiation protection, particularly at the level of the environment. Nontargeted effects refer to effects in cells, tissues, or organisms that were not targeted by irradiation and that did not receive direct energy deposition. They include genomic instability and lethal mutations in progeny of irradiated cells and bystander effects in neighboring cells, tissues, or organisms. Low-dose hypersensitivity and adaptive responses are sometimes included under the nontargeted effects umbrella, but these are not considered in this paper. Some concepts emerging in the nontargeted effects field that could be important include historic dose. This suggests that the initial exposure to radiation initiates the instability phenotype which is passed to progeny leading to a transgenerational radiation-response phenotype, which suggests that the system response rather than the individual response is critical in determining outcome.

CONCLUSION

Nontargeted effects need to be considered, and modeling, experimental, and epidemiological approaches could all be used to determine the impact of nontargeted effects on the currently used linear nonthreshold model in radiation protection.

Health Impacts of Low-Dose Ionizing Radiation: Current Scientific Debates and Regulatory Issues

Health impacts of low-dose ionizing radiation are significant in important fields such as X-ray imaging, radiation therapy, nuclear power, and others. However, all existing and potential applications are currently challenged by public concerns and regulatory restrictions. We aimed to assess the validity of the linear no-threshold (LNT) model of radiation damage, which is the basis of current regulation, and to assess the justification for this regulation. We have conducted an extensive search in PubMed. Special attention has been given to papers cited in comprehensive reviews of the United States (2006) and French (2005) Academies of Sciences and in the United Nations Scientific Committee on Atomic Radiation 2016 report. Epidemiological data provide essentially no evidence for detrimental health effects below 100 mSv, and several studies suggest beneficial (hormetic) effects. Equally significant, many studies with in vitro and in animal models demonstrate that several mechanisms initiated by low-dose radiation have beneficial effects. Overall, although probably not yet proven to be untrue, LNT has certainly not been proven to be true. At this point, taking into account the high price tag (in both economic and human terms) borne by the LNT-inspired regulation, there is little doubt that the present regulatory burden should be reduced.

Urology mythbusters: Radiation and radiophobia

In this episode of Mythbusters we critically examine the premise that there is strong biological and epidemiologic evidence that radiation exposure at levels associated with modern genitourinary diagnostic imaging increases the risk of subsequent malignancy, especially in children.