Defending hormesis and pointing to economic motives for asserting “no safe dose”

The below is an improved version of a comment that I posted on the NRC blog titled Examining the Reasons for Ending the Cancer Risk Study. It was composed in response to accusations from a person named Gary Morgan who stated that I had attacked Greg Jaczko, misunderstood the biological nature of radiation, and promoted hormesis, which he labels as a fallacy. He also accused me and other people that support the nuclear industry of intentionally deceiving the public and claimed that our statements about radiation health effects proved that we could not be trusted in any matter.

Those are fighting words. Since my response on the NRC blog might never appear or might appear too late to matter much, I thought it would be worth repurposing my comment here for additional discussion.

@Mr. Morgan

Mentioning the fact that Chairman Jaczko pushed the initial study hardly qualifies as me making “an attack.” I freely admit to having attacked the former chairman — and current professional antinuclear activist — on a number of occasions on Atomic Insights, but the above comment was not one of those times.

Ionizing radiation does not “bioaccumulate.” In fact, ionizing radiation is a very short lived phenomenon that disappears as soon as the source is removed. The specific particles involved — alphas, betas, and gammas — give up their energy and merge into existing matter through ionization and absorption reactions.

Radioactive isotopes, unlike some materials that are hazardous because of their chemical nature, decay and lose their radiation hazard over time. Some of the specific materials that have a radiation component to their hazard – like uranium – also have a chemical nature to their hazard which does not disappear over time any more than the hazard of lead or mercury disappears.

Radiation hormesis is not a fallacy, but a heavily studied and repeatable phenomenon.

Even the BEIR VII report, which stated that there was not sufficient evidence — AT THAT TIME — to change regulations to incorporate the hormesis response, did not dismiss it as a fallacy. It devoted an entire appendix to the concept and described the results of several experiments that showed it was repeatable in a number of biological models.

That report, published in 2006, was based on science that had been peer reviewed and published sometime before 2004. It recommended further research, much of which was conducted during a ten year long, reasonably supported Low Dose Radiation Research Program by the Department of Energy.

The numerous studies produced as a result of that widespread, diverse research effort continues to add to the weight of evidence that shows the NAS BEAR 1 Genetics Committee was wrong when they overturned 50 years of observations on the effects of low level radiation on humans and issued a report declaring that all radiation was bad “from a genetics perspective.”

They had no evidence available to them. No experiments had been conducted at levels below about 50 Rad (50 cGy). The few that were in the neighborhood of 50 rad (50 cGy) indicated that there was a distinct threshold response below which the irradiated subjects had results that were not distinguishable from the controls.

The sad part of the story is that several of the scientists who knew about those results worked to obscure them from the record and to deny their important implications. They wanted to teach us that all radiation was bad. One of them, Hermann Muller, had been pressing that outlier idea for nearly 3 decades.

The notion that there was “no safe dose” of radiation apparently coincided with the interests of the Rockefeller Foundation, which steadily supported Muller throughout his career even though he earned a reputation as a poor teacher, a difficult colleague, a Communist sympathizer, and a man suffering from such severe depression that he made a serious, almost successful attempt to take his own life.

The Rockefeller Foundation initiated and provided 100% of the funding for the NAS committees on the Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation from 1954-1962.

Warren Weaver, the Chairman of the Genetics Committee, which is the one whose report was covered on the front page of the New York Times on June 13, 1956 and was published in full in the same edition of the paper, served as the director of the Rockefeller Foundation natural science funding program from about 1933-1959. Both before and after he obtained unanimous consensus from his 12 member committee of geneticists, his program provided at least half of the members with most of their research funding.

Bad science can exist and be promoted by people with economic interests. The RF, supported by an oil rich family with major investments in hydrocarbon focused companies, had a strong interest in instilling widespread fear of radiation and limiting the growth of a formidable competitor.

Of course, the Rockefellers were not the only people who were interested in slowing the development of abundant atomic energy. There are numerous economic interests tied to the business of finding, extracting, transporting, financing, refining, distributing, storing, trading, promoting, regulating, protecting and consuming oil and natural gas. Whole economies in several countries are nearly completely dependent on hydrocarbon linked revenues and hydrocarbon combustion has provided the foundation for modern society since the beginning of the Industrial Age.

Nuclear energy is a huge transforming technology. Many interests still have motives for asserting that there is no safe dose, but the mountain of evidence accumulating that refutes the notion is getting more and more difficult to ignore.

We are doing our part to resist the efforts to deny evidence. We refuse to stop talking about the harm done by ignoring evidence that low doses of radiation are not harmful to people. In fact, they are most likely beneficial.

Message is reaching the public – radiation risks have been greatly exaggerated

An important message that has been discussed often by web publications like Hiroshima Syndrome, Yes Vermont Yankee, Canadian Energy Issues, Nuke Power Talk, Neutron Bytes, Atomic Power Review, and ANS Nuclear Cafe has jumped to the mainstream press in the form of a New York Times article by George Johnson titled When Radiation Isn’t the […]

Read more »

NRC calls off expensive search for witches

On September 8, 2015, the NRC announced that it would stop funding the National Academy of Sciences’s (NAS) five-year-long, multimillion dollar effort to create a method that could be used to study whether or not populations that are exposed to radiation doses that are a tiny fraction of average background radiation related to proximity to […]

Read more »

Fukushima – The Price of “No Safe Dose” Assumption

A friend pointed me to a heart-rending piece in the New York Review of Books titled Fukushima: The Price of Nuclear Power by Michael Ignatieff. The piece is a first hand account of a visit to Japan’s Fukushima prefecture; it includes vivid descriptions of the devastation caused by the massive earthquake and tsunami that struck […]

Read more »

The Left Needs to Reconsider its Automatic Position Against Nuclear Energy

by BILL SACKS and GREG MEYERSON As leftists who have studied the issue of nuclear energy for years, we want to reply to Robert Hunziker’s “Real Story” titled What’s Really Going on at Fukushima? (CounterPunch, June 15, 2015). It’s time for much of the left to reconsider a long-standing opposition to nuclear energy that often […]

Read more »

Leukemia and lymphoma study recently published in Lancet being strong challenged by SARI

A recent study published in Lancet Haematology claims to show that even extremely low doses of radiation increase the risk of leukemia and lymphoma. The study includes several statistical flaws, ignores the effects of medical exposures — which are of similar levels to occupational exposures — that change dramatically over the duration of the study, […]

Read more »

Atomic Show #240 – Prof Gerry Thomas radiation health effects

Gerry Thomas, Professor of Molecular Pathology of the Imperial College of London, has a subspecialty in the study of the health effects of radiation. She strongly believes that “public involvement and information is a key part of academic research,” and she is “actively involved in the public communication of research, particularly with respect to radiation […]

Read more »

Doctors petitioning NRC to revise radiation protection regulations

The wheels are in motion for an official review of radiation protection regulations at the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Doctors who are radiation health specialists are challenging the NRC’s use of the linear, no-threshold (LNT) dose response model as the basis for those regulations and the associated direction to maintain radiation doses As Low As […]

Read more »

Romance of Radium – How did our relationship with radioactive material sour?

Radium glow finale

Note – This post was initially published on February 23, 2013. After attending the ANS President’s Special Session about the way we should communicate about radiation, I thought it would be worth repeating. Sometimes, we need to look outside of our immediate time and place to find “best practices” that we should emulate. Hitting road […]

Read more »

Atomic Show #239 – Sarah Laskow and the LNT model

In March 2015, Foreign Policy magazine published an article by Sarah Laskow titled The Mushroom Cloud and The X-Ray Machine. The article described the controversy over the radiation protection model known as the linear, no-threshold dose response. Ms. Laskow conducted some admirable literature research and talked with a number of well-known people. The ones that […]

Read more »

Consumer Reports Editor Clings to LNT to Spread Uncertainty About Radiology

Consumer Reports, a widely read magazine in the U. S., has published more than half a dozen articles in the past couple of years warning people that every CT scan carries with it the risk of causing cancer. Here are the headlines of those articles. Consumer Reports: January 03, 2013. Many patients unaware of radiation […]

Read more »

Professor Gerry Thomas explains radiation health risks

A friend whose Twitter handle is @ActinideAge just posted a link to Gerry Thomas Highlights Misconceptions over Health Impacts of Nuclear Accidents. (Embedded below.) Even though it was published in November 2014 on the UN University YouTube channel, it had received a grand total of 189 views at the time I visited on April 6, […]

Read more »