Hormesis & Right Wingers

Here's a book review on a book about radiation hormesis by someone affiliated with the Heartland Institute.  The HI is a right wing "think tank" which conducts public relations campaigns targeted at minimizing the role of government.  No surprise the review is favorable, since the ploy is that if radiation isn't bad, there's no need for government regulation.  The review ends with:

"No honest individual with an IQ above plant life could fail to see the terrible malfeasance of science regarding the LNT after reading this outstanding book."

At about $1 per page, the malfeasance is clearly with the author and publisher.  No way I would buy it just to refute it.  But I'll rebut some of its facets based on the review.  Let's see who has the IQ above plant life.


1. "....which means this author read every single one of them. A life’s work in itself".

No, citing bibliographies doesn't mean the author read every single one of them. We would hope he has, but we don't know that he has.

2.  "In spite of the vast amount of peer-reviewed literature on molecular, cellular, animal and epidemiological — indicating not harm, but benefit from low-dose ionizing radiation — outrageous, unsubstantiated statements continue to be made concerning its hazards, which we have all witnessed in recent months after the near-total distortion of potential harm to the Japanese population as a result of the nuclear power disruptions." 

Wow, so many yet you failed to list one.  Who has distorted the potential harm to the Japanese population?  You provided not one example.

3. "Such distortions are fueled by proponents of the linear no threshold (LNT) assumption, which says any dose of radiation — no matter how insignificant — results in increased mortality from cancer and other diseases. Virtually all predictions of harm, from  Fukushima to Three Mile Island to Chernobyl, are estimates based on an incorrect assumption that has been proven wrong over and over again."

What "such distortions"????  I guess after reading the book, the reviewer doesn't understand that LNT does not say that any dose of radiation results in increased mortality from cancer and other diseases.  It only deals with cancer.  It says that any dose results in an increased risk of cancer incidence.  The risk is very small with very small doses.  I think the reviewer (and presumably the author) are wrong over and over again.

4.  "Outside of Chernobyl, where an explosion in an unprotected plant killed 50 people, there has not been a radiation related fatality in 444 operating nuclear power plants around the world or on 200 nuclear vessels launched in the past 50 years"

Looks like the standard obfuscation of acute effects with cancer. 

5.  "To best explain the fallacy of the Linear-No-Threshold (LNT) assumption, Sanders says that if one assumes that 100 percent of a population would die or get cancer from a certain dose of radiation, then one assumes that 50 percent of that population would die or get cancer from a 50 percent dose. The most serious part of the fallacy that says that 1 percent of the population would die or get cancer from a 1 percent dose of the radiation.

Tsk, tsk.  What LNT says is that based on epidemiological data, to the extent it can be discerned, when we graph the excess cancer risk against dose we get a line.  Cancer also occurs at background levels.  Unless there is some change in the behavior of cells or radiation between the window which separates background and the dose level that can be discerned by epidemiology, then there is no reason not to assume a complete linear relationship.   The fallacies are the reviewer's.

6.  "This LNT assumption Sanders explains, does not consider the role of biological defense mechanisms we know to exist in the human body: The biological model of a single ionization event causing chromosomal damage to DNA in a cell resulting in a single mutation that produces a linear increase in cancer is not supported by research data."

Of course LNT considers biological defense mechanisms.  They exist, but they don't prevent cancer even at background radiation levels.  Hey reviewer, actually read the research data.

7.  " It appears that low-level stress stimulates a system of protective biological processes at the cellular, molecular, and organismic levels, decreasing cancer incidence and the incidences of other deleterious health effects. One has only to recognize the danger of overdoses of vitamins, which are so valuable in small quantities, or to alcohol, always known for its hazards and now known for its benefits."

Yes, we know about adaptive response.  But it isn't perfect.  And alcohol (drinking) has no benefits.  Some components of wine have some benefits, but not the alcohol.  Not only is it a carcinogen and a contributor to liver cirrhosis, but it has lead to the destruction of many lives through drunk driving, addiction, etc.  You should be ashamed reviewer.

8.  "In short: Big doses of substances are hazardous, while low levels of those same substances are beneficial."

Yes, we have evidence of that with some substances.  But that's not true of all substances...and no evidence that it's true of radiation.  In short.

9.  "Sanders explains that the age adjusted cancer mortality rate for the U.S. population decreases with increasing background radiation. A 20 percent lower cancer mortality rate was found in Idaho, Colorado and New Mexico than in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama — where background radiation levels are nearly five times smaller than for those living in the Mountain states.

At Chernobyl, where 65,000 people were involved in cleanup and emergency medical operations, researchers found they had lower-than-normal cancer rates later in life. In fact, the only increases in mortality surrounding the Chernobyl accident were suicides."

The first paragraph employs the ecological fallacy.  The second is a lie: http://chernobyl.cancer.gov/studies.html

10. "A good example is the following discussion by Sanders of lung cancer:

“The risk of lung cancer is dependant on the number of cigarettes smoked per day, use of a filter, type of tobacco, extent of inhalation, number of puffs per cigarette, the length of time smoking, and time since quitting for ex-smokers.”

And related to that is the author’s finding that no single increase in lung cancers was found among those who worked to clean up the Chernobyl accident."

Why do people who've never smoked get lung cancer if it is only dependent on cigarettes?  The reason lung cancer increases haven't been found (assuming anyone is even studying the issue) is that it takes many decades for it to manifest.  Chernobyl is only about 25 years old.  

11.  "All their studies lack a statistical power to demonstrate harm at doses below 100 millisieverts. Rather than admit to the possibility of a threshold — or even benefit — at these low doses, they just say they lack statistical power. The fact is that these studies lack any evidence of harm, but abundant statistical significance of benefit at doses below 100 millisieverts."

No, epidemiological studies of humans lack the statistical power.  But not animal studies.  Not molecular biology studies.  There is plenty of evidence of harm, none regarding benefit.



No honest individual with an IQ above plant life could fail to see the terrible malfeasance of ideology regarding hormesis after reading this overpriced book.