• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Home
  • About
  • Podcast
  • Archives

Atomic Insights

Atomic energy technology, politics, and perceptions from a nuclear energy insider who served as a US nuclear submarine engineer officer

hormesis

Displacing LNT assertion with evidence

September 30, 2018 By Rod Adams 4 Comments

A joint ANS/HPS (American Nuclear Society/Health Physics Society) meeting titled “Applicability of Radiation Protection Models to Low Dose Protection Standards” (hashtag #LowDose2018) will kick-off tonight.

This much anticipated event has attracted 200 medical, radiation and nuclear energy experts to the booming metropolis of Pasco, WA. The site is appropriate, Pasco is one of the three municipalities known as Tri-Cities located in close proximity to the Hanford Site in eastern Washington.

That is the site of a massive radioactive material clean-up effort that has an annual budget of approximately $3 billion. A substantial portion of that money is consumed in attempting to reduce general area radiation doses to the LNT-based regulatory standard of less than 0.15 mSv/year.

Unlike many less focused conferences, the program will proceed along a single track. This ensures that all attendees have the opportunity to hear every talk, interact with every speaker and make their own informed judgements on the esoteric, but impactful topics discussed.

The organizers of this meeting began working on the event and the agenda approximately four years ago. Last night, I spoke with Alan Waltar, a past president of the ANS and the leader of the dedicated group of planners. He shared his excitement about the worldwide interest in the meeting and his confidence that it will provide valuable information to support important decisions.

I also talked with Dr. Jerry Cuttler, a radiation scientist and engineer who began focusing his research efforts on the health effects of low dose radiation in 1995. He was imspired by a talk by Dr. Myron Pollycove at the ANS meeting held in San Francisco that year. Dr. Cuttler will be making a case for radiation hormesis (beneficial effects of a range of low doses) during a panel discussion on models of dose response relationships.

He will also be presenting a poster describing his work as a lead researcher for an early stage trial using radiation to treat Alzheimer’s. The three patient trial is a next step in a phased research effort to more fully test the excellent indications from a case report using radiation in the form of conventional brain CT scans to provide relief of symptoms for Alzheimer’s sufferers.

Aside: I have an intense, personal interest in learning more about this treatment modality and in working to make it more readily available as soon as possible. AD is a devastating disease that ruins quality of life for far too many people. End Aside.

Along with Meredith Angwin from Yes Vermont Yankee, I will be covering the conference and providing daily summaries for attendees that will also be published here for broader, worldwide access. We’ll also be doing our best to provide highlights via Twitter as they happen.

David Schumacher, the director of The New Fire, will be filming the historical event.

Please follow along, engage in the comment threads and ask questions in rea time so we can seek comments from the experts while they are available.

Filed Under: Health Effects, hormesis, LNT, Low Dose 2018

Debating validity and effects of assumption that all radiation adds risk

January 6, 2017 By Rod Adams 8 Comments

Medical Physics recently hosted a point/counterpoint debate about the effects of assuming that all radiation carries a risk that justifies application of the ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) principle.

Here is an overview of the debate proposition.

The ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) principle is based upon the assumption that low doses of radiation might be harmful and, therefore, should be minimized for medical imaging procedures. Some consider, however, that such low doses are not only harmless but might also even be beneficial, and that advocating for use of the ALARA principle in the context of medical imaging fails to recognize that the risk is hypothetical and so serves to reinforce patients’ fears of radiation.

I’m biased. I am already convinced by nearly three decades worth of study, discussion and professional experience as a manager of people who are occupationally exposed to low dose radiation that there is no justification for assuming that radiation doses below about 10 Rem (100 mSv and 100 mGy) can cause cancer. Those doses do not cause any other effects that should concern people, in fact, their effects are analogous to moderate exercise because they stimulate human immune systems, stimulate disease resistance, and stimulate the body’s ability to repair itself and recover from stress.

Actions required by regulators and others seeking to minimize radiation dose with all “reasonable” efforts are costly, time consuming and often detrimental to health and safety.

My position and that of numerous colleagues in the nuclear energy industry and in other fields that use radiation or are affected by radiation doses is not universally accepted. In fact, it is a position that is not aligned with the official position of many recognized bodies of radiation protection experts.

This issue is extremely important. There are experienced, intelligent and dedicated professionals who hold viewpoints all along the spectrum between complete acceptance of radiation hormesis (a theory that radiation at moderate doses and dose rates provides a measurable net benefit for complex biological organisms) to complete acceptance of the linear, no threshold dose response model as an accurate predictor that can quantify radiation health effects with reasonable precision.

The participants in the Medical Physics point/counterpoint debate are both highly qualified and experienced professional practitioners whose arguments should be read in their entirety.

I’m in contact with Dr. Jeffry Siegel, who holds the position that adherence to principles of LNTH-based ALARA and a definition of “optimization” that assumes that the lowest possible dose is the best dose is both flawed and indefensible. Here is how he concluded his rebuttal in the debate on Medical Physics.

ALARA-dosing fosters radiophobia because denials that low-dose radiation confers a net benefit, and averrals that it confers risk, are demonstrable falsehoods that neglect the sciences of biology, chemistry, and physics that demonstrate the falsity of the LNTH and the reality of the hazards caused by any policy based on the ALARA principle.

His opponent, Dr. Cynthia H. McCollough concluded her rebuttal as follows.

Without a focus on optimization, a cavalier approach to imaging – one that aims for the best pictures and not the best balance of overall care – would ensue. Such disregard of the actual dosage applied would erode the public’s faith in imaging providers because of people’s underlying belief that radiation is dangerous. Failure to acknowledge potential risks would ignore these beliefs and undermine trust, which is at the core of the patient–doctor relationship. Clear recognition of potential risks and demonstration of technical expertise to minimize risk and maximize benefit is essential in maintaining the trust of our patients.

On the SARI email list, Siegel expressed his frustration with the fact that the editor of Medical Physics isn’t interested in a continuation of the debate to a point of resolution. I respect that journalistic publishing decision. All editors must choose topics and policies; even if the cost of publishing words is close to zero, there are limitations on what audiences will read.

As a partial solution, I offered Dr. Siegel a chance to continue the argument on this forum. He provided the following background points explaining the importance of allowing the discussion to continue.

In case you are not aware, the format of the P/CP debate in Medical Physics is that each person writes an independent opening. Then each debater receives the other’s opening and then writes a rebuttal. That’s it, we do not see each other’s rebuttal, so the debate format is short and sweet so there is little chance any issue will be resolved.

A surrebuttal is an effective debate device used to great advantage in a “search for the truth” in legal proceedings. Surrebuttals allow a reinforced and more targeted focus on conflicting ideas, only one set of which, at most, can be valid. And given that a surrebuttal is, by definition, a rebuttal of a rebuttal, some repetition is to be expected (the journal did not like the idea of repetition, apparently it did not appreciate its intent). Nevertheless and importantly, this repetition is necessary, since, rather than introducing new ideas, the purpose is to call attention to what are thought to be the relevant portions of an opponent’s arguments and highlight the major conflicting ideas in order to better frame the debate for the readers.

I was and still am prepared to go as many rounds as necessary – this is way too important an issue to not allow both sides to “go at it” until there is nothing left for one side to say. But I need an opponent and unfortunately this time I did not have one that agreed to participate in any further dialogue. I certainly hope that the Journal will consider adding the surrebuttal feature to its P/CP debate format in the future.

Atomic Insights is interested in moving towards a resolution on the issue. We hope that we can attract opponents into an honest, respectful and ongoing discussion that helps to alter the world’s radiation health paradigm. As a step in that direction, here is Dr. Siegel’s “surrebuttal” to Dr. Cynthia H. McCollough, his opponent in the point/counterpoint debate published in the December 2016 issue of Medial Physics.


Comment on: “Point/Counterpoint: Advocating for use of the ALARA principle in the context of medical imaging fails to recognize that the risk is hypothetical and so serves to reinforce patients’ fears of radiation”

To the Editor:

I am pleased that Dr. McCollough agrees that “credible evidence of imaging-related low-dose (<100 mGy) carcinogenic risk is nonexistent.” It is precisely this simple truth that discredits the LNT model and delegitimizes the need for ALARA-dosing, leading me to advocate an effort to undo the public’s misperception that all radiation is dangerous (carcinogenic), no matter how low the dose, including at the doses encountered in medical imaging.

Radiation is an extremely weak carcinogen, even at relatively high doses. Patients’ fear of radiation is certainly understandable, but not all radiation exposure is bad or associated with risk, in particular not at the low doses involved in medical imaging. Public misperceptions must not be disregarded or ignored; rather they must be addressed and corrected by providing people with accurate information. This could start with the recent nuclear accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima where health risks were not due to radiation exposure but rather to the misguided radiophobic policies adopted by the authorities. For example, most people are unaware that no health effects are expected to result from the radiation exposure associated with the Fukushima nuclear accident, but that over 1600 individuals who were needlessly evacuated did actually die.

While it may seem logical for us to attempt to assuage the public’s fears by accommodating to their misperceptions and focusing on “optimization” in the absence of harm, I contend that this will only reinforce their misperception. The public’s trust in medical practitioners can only be preserved if we can convince them (public and physicians alike) that there is no harm to begin with. Indeed, accurate information about low-dose radiation is the only way to undo the fears. Granted we have to acknowledge the current disagreements among the experts, but no agreement will ever be reached if we accede to, rather than refute, their neglect of protective biological responses.

Jeffry A. Siegel, Ph.D.
Nuclear Physics Enterprises,
Marlton, NJ 08053


I’ll close this post with the reminder that there never was any experimental evidence that supported the assumption that radiation effects can be predicted by a straight line whose origin is zero dose and zero effects with every incremental increase in dose leading to a proportional increase in radiation health damage or risk of cancer induction. The notion of stochastic effects that has been taught and retaught for the past 60 years is based on a theory pushed mainly by a single man — Hermann Muller. There is a long and interesting story of how that theory was developed and promoted that is beyond the scope of this particular post.

Filed Under: Health Effects, hormesis, LNT

Can Radiation from CT scans help patients suffering from Alzheimer’s Disease?

July 7, 2016 By Rod Adams 8 Comments

Computed tomography (CT) scans may be able do more than just take high resolution pictures inside human bodies. They might provide a useful treatment modality for certain neurodegenerative diseases. A recently published case report suggests that the adaptive response of a human immune system stimulated by a short series of standard, painless, simple to administer […]

Filed Under: Book, Health Effects, hormesis, LNT

Can low dose radiation stimulate improvement in patients with Alzheimer Disease?

April 8, 2016 By Rod Adams 74 Comments

Many people have a strong fear of contracting “the big-C.” Though I share that concern based on my personal observation of too many loved ones who lost their battle with cancer, my personal nightmare disease is Alzheimer’s. It’s difficult as someone who thoroughly enjoys challenging mental activity to imagine the experience of slowly losing my […]

Filed Under: Health Effects, hormesis, LNT

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

October 9, 2015 By Rod Adams 31 Comments

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 […]

Filed Under: Fossil fuel competition, Health Effects, hormesis, LNT

Former NRC counsel attacks quoted source used in “Radiation isn’t the Real Risk”

October 1, 2015 By Rod Adams 153 Comments

In a recent post titled Message is reaching the public – radiation risks have been greatly exaggerated I pointed to a New York Times piece by George Johnson describing how the evacuations ordered after the Fukushima reactor core melt events has already caused about 1600 early fatalities. He also explained how the radioactive material that […]

Filed Under: hormesis, LNT

The Left Needs to Reconsider its Automatic Position Against Nuclear Energy

August 7, 2015 By Guest Author

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 […]

Filed Under: Antinuclear activist, Atomic politics, Guest Columns, Health Effects, hormesis

Hormesis is entering the mainstream

July 22, 2015 By Rod Adams

Even if you read nothing else today, please take the time to visit Environmental Toxicologist Hopes Hormesis Hypothesis May be Acknowledged by U.S. Regulatory Action. The story offers a renewing tale of the value of persistence in the pursuit of truth in the face of sometimes hostile opposition. It is a press release from the […]

Filed Under: hormesis, LNT

Atomic Show #240 – Prof Gerry Thomas radiation health effects

June 29, 2015 By Rod Adams

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 […]

Filed Under: Accidents, Health Effects, hormesis, LNT, Podcast

Doctors petitioning NRC to revise radiation protection regulations

June 29, 2015 By Rod Adams

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 […]

Filed Under: Health Effects, hormesis, LNT

Atomic Show #239 – Sarah Laskow and the LNT model

April 16, 2015 By Rod Adams

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 […]

Filed Under: Atomic politics, Health Effects, hormesis, LNT, Podcast, Radiation

Health effects of nuclear radiation in plain language

January 7, 2015 By Guest Author

By Jerry Cuttler, DSc, PEng All organisms have very remarkable protection capabilities. While most people still think that living cells are structurally stable, scientists discovered in the 1980s that cells undergo a very high rate of naturally-occurring physical and chemical damage caused by the heat, oxygen and other chemicals in their bodies. Approximately 10,000 measurable […]

Filed Under: Health Effects, hormesis, LNT

  • Go to page 1
  • Go to page 2
  • Go to page 3
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Categories

Join Rod’s pronuclear network

Join Rod's pronuclear network by completing this form. Let us know what your specific interests are.

Recent Comments

  • Roger Clifton on Atomic Show #297 – Krusty – The Kilopower reactor that worked
  • Chris Aoki on Atomic Show #296 – Julia Pyke, Director of Finance Sizewell C
  • Michael Scarangella on Catching Oklo — a rising star!
  • Gary Nicholls on Atomic Show #297 – Krusty – The Kilopower reactor that worked
  • Jon Grams on Atomic Show #297 – Krusty – The Kilopower reactor that worked

Follow Atomic Insights

The Atomic Show

Atomic Insights

Recent Posts

Atomic Show #297 – Krusty – The Kilopower reactor that worked

Nuclear energy growth prospects and secure uranium supplies

Nucleation Capital’s Earth Day in Atherton

Atomic Show #296 – Julia Pyke, Director of Finance Sizewell C

Solar’s dirty secrets: How solar power hurts people and the planet

  • Home
  • About Atomic Insights
  • Atomic Show
  • Contact
  • Links

Search Atomic Insights

Archives

Copyright © 2022 · Atomic Insights

Terms and Conditions - Privacy Policy