Evidence shows humans can tolerate FAR higher radiation doses than governments allow
Dr. Jerry Cuttler has been concentrating his research on the health effects of low dose radiation for more than 15 years. The events at Fukushima and the human tragedy of the poor decision making both during and after the release of modest quantities of radioactive material have reinforced the importance of his work. Dr. Cuttler and dozens of other dedicated professionals are striving to share what scientists have learned during more than 100 years of intense study of the ways that radiation affects human physiology.
One of Dr. Cuttler’s most recent efforts is titled Commentary on Fukushima and Beneficial Effects of Low Radiation. The original appears in the March, 2013 issue of the Canadian Nuclear Society Bulletin. Knowing that the circulation of the CNS Bulletin is small and limited to nuclear energy professionals who are members of the Society, Dr. Cuttler obtained permission to distribute his paper widely.
The information that Dr. Cuttler has pulled together in his heavily referenced paper can help to alleviate human suffering and restore access to valuable property that has been isolated from human use by well-meaning, but ill-advised government actions. However, facts will not help anyone if they are not put to effective use by people demanding radiation regulations based on science. We have to stop accepting a regulatory structure that stubbornly clings to the 60-year-old, linear no-threshold (LNT) simplification that was initially promoted as a means of scaring people to take action to halt atmospheric nuclear weapons testing.
Here is the quoted abstract of the paper:
Two years after 160,000 people evacuated from the Fukushima area; 70,000 are not allowed back. The 1100 disaster-related deaths caused by the evacuation order show this precautionary action, to minimize cancer risks, was not “conservative.” Recent studies are reviewed on the consequences of the radioactive releases and on benefits of medical treatments with low doses of radiation that were carried out until the 1950s, before the radiation scare was created. Recent research has shed light on the high rate of spontaneous double-strand breaks in DNA and the adaptive protections in cells, tissues and humans that are up-regulated by low radiation. These defences prevent, repair, remove and replace damage, from all causes including external agents. Cancer mortality is reduced. The ICRP’s concept of radiation risk is wrong; it should revert to its 1934 concept, a tolerance dose of 0.2 r/day that was based on more than 35 years of medical experience.
Please help Dr. Cuttler and his colleagues referenced in the paper spread the word that there is no reason to fear the health effects of low levels of radiation. There is no need to worry about the accumulation of moderate radiation doses any more than one should worry about the accumulation of moderate sunlight energy, the accumulation of daily doses of vitamins, or the accumulation of moderate exercise. Human anatomy is a wonderfully evolved work of biological art; it is not susceptible to damage from modest levels of a natural energy source.
When you share this information, be ready for strong resistance from the vested interests that make their living – a fabulous living in some cases – by maintaining fear, uncertainty and doubt about radiation. They have worked hard to establish that FUD in order to discourage the beneficial use of nuclear energy and radioactive material. They prefer continuing to push dependence on inferior products.
New York Times (April 14, 2013) U.S. Rethinks How to Respond to Nuclear Disaster (Please read entire piece – we are making a difference in the discussion!)
Well done Rod, this definitely needs wider circulation.
I’ll be spreading this to my college friends. I’ll be sure to ask them to spread it to their friends as well.
It is shown that the harmful effects of low level radiation show after >20 years (e.g. report no.14 of the LSS).
Just as with (low level) nicotine, asbestos, micro particles (fine dust) in the air, sun burn, etc.
And the studies Dr. Cuttler refers to, cover only a short time span.
So they are worthless for an educated estimation of the long term harmful effects of low level radiation.
Note that these types of studies were also used by the asbestos industry.
That also argued that there was a threshold below which asbestos was safe!
Now it is generally accepted that even only one asbestos fiber can cause its typical deadly cancer after >20 years. That knowledge could be achieved because asbestos caused lung cancer can very well distinguished.
For low level radiation that is more difficult, as it does not generate a typical type of cancer.
Low level radio-active radiation also causes detrimental effects within a short time frame in the unborn (probably due to their high rate of cell division). E.g:
Swedish schoolchildren born shortly after Chernobyl show a real lower intelligence:
http://www.nuwinfo.se/almond-edlund-palme20070811.html (same with Hiroshima)
For an overview of raised rates of stillbirth, etc. in Europe after Chernobyl:
Science paging the New York Academy of Science aka NYAS.
Please respond fellow scientists that belong to this organisation.
Like Jacques Brel said in one of his songs: ‘Serait-il impossible de vivre debout?’
Will anyone stand up for Ted Rockwell ?
I know some people have dismissed Jim Rogers as an anti nuclear, but I never bought into this. I am a long time follower of him.
He shares Rod’s views on gas.
Here is a recent proof on his pro nuclear stand on an interview he did recently. Listen in at the end at 2:10 …
Hey, while you’re at it, could you also help spread the word about biology?
It’s a lie too:
Bob, Do you ever read any of this? Does it ever occur to you that you might be wrong? You are so shrill now that no one is going to consider your opinion.
Yes, I did read it. And it’s hilarious…like reading a creationist’s views on evolution.
You can’t see a species evolve, so DNA mutations leading to organism mutations must be a lie.
You can’t see a tumor evolve, so DNA mutations leading to tumore mutations must be a lie.
Is Cuttler a creationist? If so, at least he’s logically consistent. Wrong, but logically consistent.
I’m a simple guy so I really want any simple answers you can supply; since the burden of proof is on the accuser here, just what should we be expecting to see in a world using LNT (your view I believe) as opposed non-LNT, also why not scrap both contesting theories and start afresh and let the chips lie where they may? Hope I said it correctly enough.
There is only one theory in health physics (LNT) and one in biology (evolution). There are contesting pseudo-scientific claims that have been repeated for decades. There are also many theories on other sub-subjects in each field. A theory is an explanation supported by the historical evidence and which makes predictions about the future.
Note that LNT applies to all genotoxic substances not just radiation.
In LNT, you expect the chemical bond energy of DNA to be less than the radiation’s energy. It is. In non-LNT, it would not. This means each particle (regardless of dose) can damage DNA.
In LNT, you expect DNA repair to be imperfect. It is. In non-LNT, it would be perfect. This means each damaged DNA molecule can be non-repaired or mis-repaired (regardless of dose).
In LNT, you expect cancer to have lots of DNA mutations. They do. In non-LNT they would not. This means unrepaired DNA is causative to cancer (just like it is to the evolution of species when the cells are sex cells).
In LNT, you expect a 60+ year, >$1billion study…the best study, will show an LNT response. It does. In non-LNT it wouldn’t. Note that when doing this type of study one has to be 90+% certain one isn’t considering a background effect with the effect of the agent. This leads to a high dose limit of detectability, which improves over time. In the 1960’s that limit was 100 rem, and morons claimed that was the radiation effect threshold. Today, it’s around 20 rem and the same sort of claim is being made. The people are really committing the fallacy of moving the goalposts, but they’re too ignorant to realize it.
In LNT, you expect that if you spend more than a decade and $100 million using the latest technologies to find some molecular mechanism disproving LNT you won’t find it. In non-LNT, you expect you will. The DoE Low Dose Radiation Research Project has failed to find one, as LNT predicts.
I hope that helps and that I said it correctly enough with minimum typos.
Thanks for this comparison in plain words.
I have some questions, maybe you can clarify further.
Does LNT apply only to genotoxic substances or toxic substances in general?
In LNT, you expect the chemical bond energy of DNA to be less than the radiation’s energy.
Is it? Does the expectation bear out?
In LNT, you expect DNA repair to be imperfect. It is. In non-LNT, it would be perfect.
Why would it need to be perfect?
And: In LNT, you expect cancer to have lots of DNA mutations. They do. In non-LNT they would not.
Why not? I can’t say I understand you here.
And what makes it relevant to LNT if and how well DNA is repaired? You’d think that either all body repair and maintainance mechanisms must be taken into account, or none. Not only on cellular level, but at tissue and immune system level too. But I don’t see that in discussions about LNT. Can you tell me why?
In LNT, you expect a 60+ year, >$1billion study…the best study, will show an LNT response.
This is the atomic bomb survivors study, isn’t it? How does a momentary enormous exposure relate to much lower exposures of longer duration? And how well does the stuy differentiate between survivors that had very high doses and those further away from the blast who had much lower doses? And many of them lived their lifes in that contaminated environment, how does the study take that compound dose (acute and continuous) into account?
And a last remark. I see the competition between LNT and other hypotheses as a battle between paradigms. Creationism doesn’t come into the picture here, it’s a false comparison. And it makes me a bit less eager to look into LNT as a serious hypothesis, if it needs that kind of ‘defence’.
But don’t let that deter you from answering my questions.
Can you accept that mutated DNA, with mismatched base pairs is more sensitive to low levels of ionizing radiation than pristine DNA?
@John – I have inside info that Bob will not be answering.
“In LNT, you expect a 60+ year, >$1billion study…the best study, will show an LNT response. It does.”
It does not. I had a very long discussion last year about the new version of the LSS update, with a guy who claimed that the LSS ‘proves’ that acute exposures below 100 mSv are already enough to cause a significant increase in cancer. In order to respond to that argument, I read up on the LSS. But contrary to the claim of proof, it turned out that below 50 – 100 mSv, the LSS results are not robust, i.e. not within regular confidence bands. In other words, acute exposures below 50- 100 mSv cannot be linked to increased cancer risk based on this study.
So much for the lethality of a 100 mSv acute dose. How about a 100 mSv dose spread over a month? It’s even less harmless. As far as any external effect on the human body is harmless, 100 mSv per month is harmless. And 1000 mSv per year of such exposure is harmless too, which should put to rest any fear whatsoever about Fukushima.
Not being an expert, this is my impression for what it’s worth, from reading all the main papers brought forward by LNT-advocates. I’m still looking forward to more evidence.
… less harmFULL … sorry.
“In LNT, you expect the chemical bond energy of DNA to be less than the radiation’s energy. It is. In non-LNT, it would not. This means each particle (regardless of dose) can damage DNA.”
Why does non-LNT require the chemical bond energy of DNA be less than the radiation’s energy? I don’t see where that is required unless you need it to be true so you can claim it as proof of LNT.
“In LNT, you expect DNA repair to be imperfect. It is. In non-LNT, it would be perfect. This means each damaged DNA molecule can be non-repaired or mis-repaired (regardless of dose).”
Why does non-LNT require the DNA repair mechanism be perfect? I don’t see where that is required unless you need it to be true so you can claim it as proof of LNT.
In fact it looks like much of your argument consists of you claiming things are required by non-LNT that aren’t just so you can use it as proof of LNT. That would be a whole basket of strawmen right?
Really, LNT apply to all genotoxic factors? Can I see sources?
DNA repair isn’t perfect, and in non-LNT is also not perfect.
Can you proof, that MISREPAIR of DNA is LINEAR function of radiation? This must be truth, if LNT hypothesis is correct, so I’m waiting evidence.
Biological system respond to ALL environmental stresses in non-linear matter and radiation isn’t exception.
LNT doesn’t predict, that cancer cells will have a lots of mutation, because this prediction is out of scope of this hypothesis, but in the scope of carcinogenesis. And how much is lots? You’re oversimplificating picture.
Cancer cell can increase mutation rate by using kataegis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kataegis).
Also other cells can control mutation rate in different regions of genome (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v485/n7396/full/nature10995.html), this imply, existence of repair mechanism.
Can i see studies that proves LNT is low ranges e.g. 100 rem or 20 rem?
Also there is evidence for non-linear models (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/12/16/1117849108.abstract). If you say, that this is cherry picking, so provide evidence, that formation of DNA repair centers and dose-response is linear and DNR misrepair is linear function of radiation.
And man, you’re making many statement, but doesn’t providing evidence.
It is so sad when someone resorts to bare-faced lying when they are among people who know the truth, including both contrary theories and the data which supports them and conclusively disproves LNT.
@Acme : At low dose, Apoptosis might be the dominant factor of non-linearity, in any case it has such an important role it should be cited. By not repairing the cell at all, instead getting rid of it, it’s the best way to make sure double-strand break will have no opportunity to result in DNA corruption.
OOOppps….should be “organism evolution” and “tumor evolution”.
It’s a little bit difficult to have a civilized discussion when someone keeps taking a dump in the room. If someone shows themselves to be impervious to evidence, and determined to disrupt a positive effort, why keep them around?
I presume you mean Mr. Applebaum?
Here’s a quote from Feinendegen’s article on hormesis:
Following a single low-dose irradiation one may, thus, rightly assume that the delayed and especially the long lasting adaptive protections operate mainly against endogenous damage and cancer development rather than cancer induced by irradiation (Feinendegen et al. 1995), as it is implied also by experimental evidence (Mitchel et al. 2003, 2008).
I think the idea is that the hormetic effect does derive from the stimulated response as it affects nonradiogenic perturbations, mostly double strand breaks (nonradiogenically caused, or spontaneous DSBs).
so the low level radiation repairs spontaneous dsbs that otherwise would not be repaired.
Bob’s analogy of criticisms of LNT and creationism is wrong. I wager that LNT itself makes no sense in the light of evolution. It would be correct, perhaps, if there were no evolution since radiation does cause cell damage.
FWIW, my hunch is that Mr. Applebaum will perhaps accept that LDR does indeed prompt cells to repair DNA damage that would otherwise go unrepaired, but that next to this benefit, it also creates it’s own load of cells having the same type of DNA damage, and more so.
Please help Dr. Cuttler and his colleagues referenced in the paper spread the word that there is no reason to fear the health effects of low levels of radiation.
I described Calabrese’s paper showing that Mueller was a bald-faced liar to my dental hygenist and her comment was, “We spend a fortune paying some guy to certify that the exposure rates meet regulations every year.”
It seems to me that the American Dental Association might be a good place to start…
This is the closest topic to post this. A civil servant neighbor who’s heard my views wants to know if there are any cancer frequency data for lifelong Grand Central station personnel due radiation exposure from the granite structure. Over the years she’s seen people and students laughing at their Geiger counters in the complex and her union says no such rad data exists. She means to make an issue of it along the lines of job-related mesothelioma. Does the airlines keep likewise radiation medical exposure date on their flight personnel? Google comes up empty. Thanks for any tips.
Comments are closed.
Recent Comments from our Readers
@Cyril R What was Tesla’s learning rate starting at the first Roadster? How much do you think that first unit…
A new engine or turbine product line doesn’t just cost triple a unit. That’d make it pointless. Yet this is…
Cyril First of a Kind (FOAK) applies to products whose parts and method of assembly are new, not just products…
The problem with the FOAK argument is that FOAK LWRs were built half a century ago for under $300/kWe. And…
I kind of wonder if there aren’t some smart Canadians looking across the border and rubbing their hands with glee.…