Atomic Bomb Survivors Life-Span Study: Insufficient Statistical Power to Select Radiation Carcinogenesis Model

Effects of Chronic Low-Dose Internal Radiation on Immune-Stimulatory Responses in Mice

The Linear-No-Threshold (LNT) model predicts a dose-dependent linear increase in cancer risk. This has been supported by biological and epidemiological studies at high-dose exposures. However, at low-doses (LDR ≤ 0.1 Gy), the effects are more elusive and demonstrate a deviation from linearity. In this study, the effects of LDR on the development and progression of mammary cancer in FVB/N-Tg(MMTVneu)202Mul/J mice were investigated. Animals were chronically exposed to total doses of 10, 100, and 2000 mGy via tritiated drinking water, and were assessed at 3.5, 6, and 8 months of age. Results indicated an increased proportion of NK cells in various organs of LDR exposed mice. LDR significantly influenced NK and T cell function and activation, despite diminishing cell proliferation. Notably, the expression of NKG2D receptor on NK cells was dramatically reduced at 3.5 months but was upregulated at later time-points, while the expression of NKG2D ligand followed the opposite trend, with an increase at 3.5 months and a decrease thereafter. No noticeable impact was observed on mammary cancer development, as measured by tumor load. Our results demonstrated that LDR significantly influenced the proportion, proliferation, activation, and function of immune cells. Importantly, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first report demonstrating that LDR modulates the cross-talk between the NKG2D receptor and its ligands.

Radiophobic Fear-Mongering, Misappropriation of Medical References and Dismissing Relevant Data Forms the False Stance for Advocating Against the Use of Routine and Repeat Radiography in Chiropractic and Manual Therapy

There is a faction within the chiropractic profession passionately advocating against the routine use of X-rays in the diagnosis, treatment and management of patients with spinal disorders (aka subluxation). These activists reiterate common false statements such as "there is no evidence" for biomechanical spine assessment by X-ray, "there are no guidelines" supporting routine imaging, and also promulgate the reiterating narrative that "X-rays are dangerous." These arguments come in the form of recycled allopathic "red flag only" medical guidelines for spine care, opinion pieces and consensus statements. Herein, we review these common arguments and present compelling data refuting such claims. It quickly becomes evident that these statements are false. They are based on cherry-picked medical references and, most importantly, expansive evidence against this narrative continues to be ignored. Factually, there is considerable evidential support for routine use of radiological imaging in chiropractic and manual therapies for 3 main purposes: 1. To assess spinopelvic biomechanical parameters; 2. To screen for relative and absolute contraindications; 3. To reassess a patient's progress from some forms of spine altering treatments. Finally, and most importantly, we summarize why the long-held notion of carcinogenicity from X-rays is not a valid argument.

5 Reasons Why Scoliosis X-Rays Are Not Harmful

Radiographic imaging for scoliosis screening, diagnosis, treatment, and management is the gold standard assessment tool. Scoliosis patients receive many repeat radiographs, typically 10-25 and as many as 40-50, equating to a maximum 50 mGy of cumulative exposure. It is argued this amount of radiation exposure is not carcinogenic to scoliosis patients for 5 main reasons: 1. Estimated theoretical cumulative effective doses remain below the carcinogenic dose threshold; 2. Scoliosis patient x-rays are delivered in serial exposures and therefore, mitigate any potential cumulative effect; 3. Linear no-threshold cancer risk estimates from scoliosis patient cohorts are flawed due to faulty science; 4. Standardized incidence/mortality ratios demonstrating increased cancers from aged scoliosis cohorts are confounded by the effects of the disease entity itself making it impossible to claim cause and effect resulting from low-dose radiation exposures from spinal imaging; 5. Children are not more susceptible to radiation damage than adults. Radiophobia concerns from patients, parents, and doctors over repeat imaging for scoliosis treatment and management is not justified; it adds unnecessary anxiety to the patient (and their parents) and interferes with optimal medical management. X-rays taken in the evidence-based management of scoliosis should be taken without hesitation or concern about negligible radiation exposures.

X-Ray Hesitancy: Patients' Radiophobic Concerns Over Medical X-rays

All too often the family physician, orthopedic surgeon, dentist or chiropractor is met with radiophobic concerns about X-ray imaging in the clinical setting. These concerns, however, are unwarranted fears based on common but ill-informed and perpetuated ideology versus current understanding of the effects of low-dose radiation exposures. Themes of X-ray hesitancy come in 3 forms: 1. All radiation exposures are harmful (i.e. carcinogenic); 2. Radiation exposures are cumulative; 3. Children are more susceptible to radiation. Herein we address these concerns and find that low-dose radiation activates the body's adaptive responses and leads to reduced cancers. Low-dose radiation is not cumulative as long as enough time (e.g. 24 hrs) passes prior to a repeated exposure, and any damage is repaired, removed, or eliminated. Children have more active immune systems; the literature shows children are no more affected than adults by radiation exposures. Medical X-rays present a small, insignificant addition to background radiation exposure that is not likely to cause harm. Doctors and patients alike should be better informed of the lack of risks from diagnostic radiation and the decision to image should rely on the best evidence, unique needs of the patient, and the expertise of the physician-not radiophobia.

Consequences of a large-scale nuclear accident and guidelines for evacuation: a cost-effectiveness analysis

PURPOSE

We aimed for a quantitative evaluation that justifies guidelines for evacuation which take into consideration both the human and economic costs. To the best of our knowledge, such an evaluation has not been performed yet. The present guidelines published by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) are probably based on averting radiation risk only; IAEA did not cite any quantitative estimation of the human cost of evacuation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Quantitative estimation of the human and monetary costs of evacuation and, alternatively, the human and monetary costs of radiation exposure (non-evacuation). Associating human life with monetary value is psychologically difficult and somewhat challenging ethically; however, there is no escape from such an association (cost-effectiveness analysis) when making decisions regarding public health and safety, since extraneous public expenditures lead to a statistical life shortening. Estimating worst-case health consequences of irradiation, we used the conservative linear no-threshold (LNT) model because this model is widely used in spite of its controversy. In our estimation of the human cost of evacuation, we considered three factors: (a) direct loss of life (after Fukushima, 1% of the evacuees died within 2 years due to causes directly related to their evacuation), (b) loss of quality of life, and (c) loss of wealth leading to loss of life. The connection of economic loss with loss of life was performed according to the median cost-effectiveness threshold of 50-100 thousand USD per quality-adjusted life year.

RESULTS

Even according to mortality calculations based on LNT, the overall loss of life due to evacuation is higher than the loss of life due to irradiation if the population-averaged first-year radiation dose is 500 mSv or less.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the performed analysis, we suggest avoiding evacuation if the projected first-year dose is below 500 mSv. This suggested action level is about five-fold higher than the action level presently recommended by the IAEA (100 mSv per year).

Death of the ALARA Radiation Protection Principle as Used in the Medical Sector

ALARA is the acronym for "As Low As Reasonably Achievable." It is a radiation protection concept borne from the linear no-threshold (LNT) hypothesis. There are no valid data today supporting the use of LNT in the low-dose range, so dose as a surrogate for risk in radiological imaging is not appropriate, and therefore, the use of the ALARA concept is obsolete. Continued use of an outdated and erroneous principle unnecessarily constrains medical professionals attempting to deliver high-quality care to patients by leading to a reluctance by doctors to order images, a resistance from patients/parents to receive images, subquality images, repeated imaging, increased radiation exposures, the stifling of low-dose radiation research and treatment, and the propagation of radiophobia and continued endorsement of ALARA by regulatory bodies. All these factors result from the fear of radiogenic cancer, many years in the future, that will not occur. It has been established that the dose threshold for leukemia is higher than previously thought. A low-dose radiation exposure from medical imaging will likely upregulate the body's adaptive protection systems leading to the prevention of future cancers. The ALARA principle, as used as a radiation protection principle throughout medicine, is scientifically defunct and should be abandoned.

Reforming the debate around radiation risk

The back-and-forth debate on radiation risk, in the recent years, has unscientifically drifted away from proportionality and become increasingly antagonistic. A handful of authors have used exaggerated claims which are corroborated by their own previous work and presented using heated and superlative language. With unwarranted certainty, many have also referenced studies which report inconclusive findings and given undue weight to the results of laboratory animal and cellular studies, regardless of their exact positions on radiation risk. The passion and subjective interpretation with which the debate is now presented detracts from rational, scientific evaluation. A reform of the debate is needed to reach grounded consensus in the community and, if appropriate, begin the process of amending the legislation to reflect it. In this article we have analysed key research on the topic and discussed the fundamental limitations of science in providing satisfactory answers to our questions.

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.

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.

Current Evidence for Developmental, Structural, and Functional Brain Defects following Prenatal Radiation Exposure

Ionizing radiation is omnipresent. We are continuously exposed to natural (e.g., radon and cosmic) and man-made radiation sources, including those from industry but especially from the medical sector. The increasing use of medical radiation modalities, in particular those employing low-dose radiation such as CT scans, raises concerns regarding the effects of cumulative exposure doses and the inappropriate utilization of these imaging techniques. One of the major goals in the radioprotection field is to better understand the potential health risk posed to the unborn child after radiation exposure to the pregnant mother, of which the first convincing evidence came from epidemiological studies on in utero exposed atomic bomb survivors. In the following years, animal models have proven to be an essential tool to further characterize brain developmental defects and consequent functional deficits. However, the identification of a possible dose threshold is far from complete and a sound link between early defects and persistent anomalies has not yet been established. This review provides an overview of the current knowledge on brain developmental and persistent defects resulting from in utero radiation exposure and addresses the many questions that still remain to be answered.

Reconsidering Health Consequences of the Chernobyl Accident

The Chernobyl accident led to major human suffering caused by the evacuation and other counter-measures. However, the direct health consequences of the accident-related radiation exposures, besides the acute effects and small number of thyroid cancers, have not been observed. This absence is challenged by some influential groups affecting public policies who claim that the true extent of radiogenic health consequences is covered up. We consider such claims. The most conservative (in this case - overestimating) linear no-threshold hypothesis was used to calculate excess cancer expectations for cleanup workers, the population of the contaminated areas and the global population. Statistical estimations were performed to verify whether such expected excess was detectable. The calculated cancer excess for each group is much less than uncertainties in number of cancer cases in epidemiological studies. Therefore the absence of detected radiation carcinogenesis is in full correspondence with the most conservative a priori expectations. Regarding the cover-up claims, rational choice analysis was performed. Such analysis shows that these claims are ill-founded. The present overcautious attitude to radiological hazards should be corrected in order to mitigate the present suffering and to avoid such suffering in the future.