Toxicologist says NAS panel 'misled the world' when adopting radiation exposure guidelines

In two recently published peer-reviewed articles, toxicologist Edward Calabrese of the University of Massachusetts Amherst describes how regulators came to adopt the linear no threshold (LNT) dose-response approach to ionizing radiation exposure in the 1950s, which was later generalized to chemical carcinogen risk assessment.

He also offers further evidence to support his earlier assertions that two geneticists deliberately suppressed evidence to prevent the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) from considering an alternative, threshold model, for which there was experimental support. Calabrese's articles appear in the July 26 and August 4 issues of Archives of Toxicology.

Calabrese says, "The regulatory research community needs to hear about this. This isn't an ; it's practical, because all of our rules about chemical and low-level radiation are based on unvalidated assumptions and scientific panel decisions made without sound evidence. Now, after all these years, it's very hard when people have been frightened to death of any exposure whatsoever, to persuade them that we don't need to be scared by certain low-dose exposures."

The first of Calabrese's recent articles is a straightforward history of the LNT model for mutation, a concept accepted by radiation geneticists in the 1950s and recommended by national and international advisory committees for risk assessment and human exposure guidelines and later generalized to chemical carcinogens ever since. It is now used by public health and regulatory agencies worldwide, he notes.

In the second of the two articles, Calabrese repeats his earlier accusations that the distinguished radiation geneticist Hermann Muller, in his acceptance speech for the 1946 Nobel Prize, "made deceptive statements" intended to "promote the acceptance of the linear dose-response model for risk assessment for ionizing radiation" and that Muller's advocacy agenda was "masked" by long-time colleague Curt Stern. Their actions affected "key publications in the mutation literature," enhancing acceptance of the linear dose-response and hiding "Muller's deceptions," Calabrese adds.

His own career-long research on hormesis, which is a non-linear, threshold-based or biphasic approach to dose-response and risk assessment for ionizing radiation and toxic chemicals, provides evidence that low-dose exposure of some chemicals and ionizing radiation are benign or even helpful. In three "substantial validation tests" of the threshold, hormesis and linear no-threshold models, Calabrese and colleagues say, "only the hermetic (biphasic) dose-response made consistently accurate predictions."

The UMass Amherst toxicologist has argued for many years that a reappraisal of cancer risk assessment methods is urgently needed because the LNT model was incorporated into U.S. regulatory policy based on faulty assumptions and by Muller and Stern's manipulation of the scientific literature.

Calabrese's interpretation of this history is supported by letters and other materials he has compiled, many from formerly classified files. Muller and Stern had done many of the key experiments contributing to health risk assessment of ionizing radiation and Muller served on NAS's Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation (BEAR) committee through which the linear dose-response approach to became firmly entrenched, Calabrese related. He offers further evidence that the two successfully suppressed evidence from a key experiment with fruit fly sperm that challenged their views on dose-response.

More information: link.springer.com/article/10.1… 1105-6/fulltext.html

link.springer.com/article/10.1… 07/s00204-013-1104-7

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Experts write on the risks of low-level radiation

May 01, 2012

Each time a release of radioactivity occurs, questions arise and debates unfold on the health risks at low doses—and still, just over a year after the disaster at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Station, unanswered questions ...

Recommended for you

ALS Ice Bucket Challenge arrives in North Korea

Aug 31, 2014

It's pretty hard to find a novel way to do the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge by now, but two-time Grammy-winning rapper Pras Michel, a founding member of the Fugees, has done it—getting his dousing in the center ...

Cold cash just keeps washing in from ALS challenge

Aug 28, 2014

In the couple of hours it took an official from the ALS Association to return a reporter's call for comment, the group's ubiquitous "ice bucket challenge" had brought in a few million more dollars.

Medtronic spends $350M on another European deal

Aug 27, 2014

U.S. medical device maker Medtronic is building stronger ties to Europe, a couple months after announcing a $42.9 billion acquisition that involves moving its main executive offices across the Atlantic, where it can get a ...

User comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

TheHealthPhysicist
1 / 5 (11) Aug 13, 2013
Calabrese said this 2 years ago, just look at Related Stories above. Apparently he feels the need to spread some more propaganda. He is religiously attached to the pseudo-science of hormesis and has a 2009 book on the "revolution" that didn't happen.
cardiacguy
not rated yet Aug 14, 2013
Then there are those who write propaganda about and are religiously attached to the linear theory.
TheHealthPhysicist
1 / 5 (10) Aug 14, 2013
A scientific theory represents our best understanding of phenomena. Religion is going against scientific theories.