Here's an excerpt:
"The basic problem is the overwhelming acceptance of Hermann Muller’s antinuclear, unscientific LNT model of radiation carcinogenesis by most of the scientists in the nuclear community. This is an enormous irony. The following quotations should clarify the picture.
Lauriston Taylor the founder and former president of the NCRPM (1980) on use of LNT model to calculate annual deaths from x-rays:
“These are deeply immoral uses of our scientific heritage.”
“No one has been identifiably injured by radiation while working within the first numerical standards set by the ICRP in 1934.”
Gunnar Walinder renowned Swedish radiobiologist (1995):
“The LNT hypothesis is a primitive, unscientific idea that cannot be justified by current scientific understanding.” “
As practiced by the modern radiation protection community, the LNT hypothesis is one of the greatest scientific scandals of our time.”The rules must be changed to solve this political problem. The most important change is for the ICRP to revert to its 1934 standard of a “tolerance dose” of 0.2 roentgen/day or 700 mGy/year (70 rad/year). Political solutions are needed for the antinuclear problems. This is not a health problem; there is no risk of (adverse) “health effects” from low radiation."
--------------------------------
Quote-mining is not evidence.
Commenting in blogs, is not evidence.
LNT is a scientific theory.
70 rad/year would lead to an increased risk of cancer of (70 rad/year) (50 years)(1%/10 rad) = 350%
No other pollutant enjoys that level of public health endangerment!
Thanks for the link. I find it both reassuring and quite worrying.
ReplyDeleteOn the one hand, the low-dose controversy regards AFAIK only what happens *below 100 mSv*. The risk for 700 mSv seems pretty well established and I don't believe anyone would accept such an absurd demand. That's reassuring :)
On the other hand, since the low-dose controversy only takes place for doses below 100 mSv, Cuttler is obviously misrepresenting this controversy, and he can't just not know it. At the end of the day, he's lying, pure and simple. That's worrying :(
Well, I'd say the low dose controversy is like the evolution biology controversy or the climate change controversy. There really isn't one, other than the manufactuversy (manufactured controversy), which some people feel compelled to create.
ReplyDeleteI find it worrying that anyone, but particularly people with graduate science degrees spit at the scientific method. If Cuttler has evidence to overturn LNT, he is free to publish it. Shortcutting the scientific method by commenting in blogs is very unethical (on top of the lying).
Back here, the situation is somewhat different (I live in France). Back in 2005, the French Academies of Science and Academies of Medicine adopted a report written by a committee whose members, most especially the renowned professors André Aurengo and Maurice Tubiana, where strongly in favor of the hormesis theory (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16168825). This report cited a lot Calabrese's work, and to a lesser degree Duport's.
ReplyDeleteSince then, as you can imagine, the controversy does take place here, considering that radiation protection regulations are based on LNT when our own academies have openly taken position against it.
A sad example of this situation was recently given at a nuclear safety seminar (http://www-sante.ujf-grenoble.fr/SANTE/alpesmed/evenements/rns/pages/vendredi_9.html). Sorry, the seminar is in French, but you can have a look at the bottom-most section, entitled "Low-doses: controversies on radiation-induced carcinogenesis". As you can see, there are *two* talks.
One is from a representative of the French Nuclear Safety Authority, who advocates cautious based on LNT.
The other is from André Aurengo, who claims there is no proof that radiation is harmful below 100mSv, and argues against LNT.
Good news is: nobody pays much attention to what the French academies say, considering that LNT is backed by all the other official agencies. But in the meanwhile, the LNT debate in France is a biased "manufactuversy" :(
I had read the French report, but I don't agree that it is "strongly in favor of hormesis theory." It concludes:
ReplyDeleteIn conclusion, this report raises doubts on the validity of using LNT for evaluating the carcinogenic risk of low doses (< 100 mSv) and even more for very low doses (< 10 mSv). The LNT concept can be a useful pragmatic tool for assessing rules in radioprotection for doses above 10 mSv; however since it is not based on biological concepts of our current knowledge, it should not be used without precaution for assessing by extrapolation the risks
associated with low and even more so, with very low doses (< 10 mSv), especially for benefit-risk assessments imposed on radiologists by the European directive 97-43."
---------------
If I recall correctly, they didn't mention hormesis, mostly they tried to interject doubt about LNT.
There is proof (evidence) that radiation is harmful below 100 mSv. Using molecular biology we can see the DNA damage caused by one photon. And we can see that DNA doesn't repair itself perfectly.
Since cancer is associated with damaged DNA, LNT is the best explanation. We can't use epidemiology to discern cancer increases at low doses because of the statistical nature of epidemiology.
I agree the conclusion of the report was not openly advocating hormesis.
ReplyDeleteHowever, here are the most significant sentences with the keywords "hormesis" or "40%" in the report:
Executive Summary:
"Indeed, a meta-analysis of experimental animal data shows that in 40% of these studies there is a decrease in the incidence of spontaneous cancers in animals after low doses."
Glossary:
Hormesis: "Some physical or chemical agents have one effect at high doses and the reverse effect at low doses. This phenomenon is known as hormesis. It probably results from the activation of defense mechanisms. Hormesis is
observed with several drug molecules that are toxic at high doses, but which can have a beneficial protective effect at low doses."
Body:
"Among the experimental studies in which the incidence of cancer was sufficiently high in control animals, a reduction of this incidence was observed following low dose irradiation in 40% of them, an observation which is consistent with the concept of hormesis."
"In animal, not only does a threshold seem to exist, but also in 40% of experiments, there is even a hormesis [79]."
"We feel that the importance of hormesis should not be overlooked. Hormesis has been reported in 40% of the animal experiments [79], moreover, the biological bases of hormesis now seems to be understood [87], and its existence is beyond question [50]."
Considering how often the report mentions hormesis (I just picked a few), and considering that Tubiana has co-authored a paper on hormesis with Calabrese (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0041008X07001032) among several papers against LNT (http://scholar.google.fr/scholar?q=hormesis+author%3Atubiana), I do believe I can sustain my claim that Tubiana is an hormesis advocate.
Aurengo is much less vocal about it in the scientific literature, plus his statements are most often in French, but he openly advocates hormesis nonetheless. See for example his recent editorial on "Hormesis or the beneficial effects of low doses", google-translated here: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pseudo-sciences.org%2Fspip.php%3Farticle2026
I had heard Aurengo was a hormesis advocate, I was just saying the French report didn't seem to strongly advocate it.
ReplyDeleteDo you know what prompted the French report?
The BEIR VII report was requested by the U.S. EPA because they had been following the U.S. DoE Low Dose Research Program. That program was established to see if there was any molecular or cellular evidence to refute LNT (since epidemiology can only discern so low). After a decade the DoE didn't find any. The EPA thought the lack of evidence made LNT pretty conclusive, and called on the National Academy of Sciences to reach their own objective conclusion.
What prompted the French report?
Thnaks for your explanations regarding the BEIR VII report.
ReplyDeleteI am obviously very critical of the French Academies' report, mainly because they have provided a falsified basis for the claim that "40% of animal experiments show hormesis". For example, the French Wikipedia used to be strongly biased against LNT and toward hormesis (you know the classics: Ramsar, 60-Co buildings in Taiwan, Cohen's study on Radon). I tried to fight the tide, then gave up. Thus, the problem in France is pretty well summarized by Jan Beyea (bos.sagepub.com/content/68/3/13): "For LNT dissenters, the French Academy's study has been their counterpoint when the authority of the US BEIR report is invoked." In France, attacking LNT is not quackery, it's on the contrary very fashionable :(
To answer your question, I have never found any record regarding why the French Academies' report, and I am not aware of any explicit mission statement. A possible explanation could be that the radiation safety legislation was changing, as some European directives were implemented into French law at the time. For example the 97/43 directive (http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/radioprotection/doc/legislation/9743_en.pdf) effectively made it into French law in 2003.
So maybe the Academies decided the pendulum had swung too far and decided to set-up a task group against regulations they believed were overkill. But that's a wild guess really.
I think understanding why the report was issued is important. What was the motivation?
DeleteI will also point out, though you may know, that the number of people on the BEIR VII report is much greater than the number on the French report. The BEIR selection process is very objective.
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/information.aspx?key=Committee_Appointment
I don't know how the French selection process works.
I don't recall seeing resume's for the people involved in the French report, the BEIR report includes resumes.
The BEIR report is peer reviewed prior to publication:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11340&page=R9
I don't recall seeing something analogous to this in the French report.
(I used to have an English link to the full French report, but it is no longer available)
Oh, BEIR VII is consistent with previous BEIR reports.
DeleteIs the French report consistent with previous (if there are any) reports?
I fully agree with you about wanting to know more about why and how this report was written. However, I've simply never found these pieces of information anywhere.
ReplyDeleteAccording to this bibliographic notice (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bdsp.ehesp.fr%2FBase%2F326112%2F):
"In 1994 and 1989, the Ministry of Research had asked the Academy of Sciences a report on the effects of ionizing radiation on humans.
In parallel, the Academy of Medicine had issued several recommendations on the same topic, e.g. in 1999 and 2001.
In 2003, the two Academies have associated their efforts to conduct a new analysis in the light of more recent data [...]"
That's about all the more-or-less official information we have really.
More specifically:
- Mission statement? Unspecified. I couldn't find any official request around these years to constitute this task-group.
- Selection process? Unspecified. Most likely, the lead authors (Aurengo and Tubiana) were allowed to pick their co-authors as they saw fit.
- Resume's for the authors? Not provided anywhere, no mention of potential conflicts of interest either.
- Comparison with BEIR VII? There's no comparison really. The BEIR VII Committee was set-up to examine all available data and draw conclusions. I tend to think the French report was written to put forward some conclusions of which the authors were already convinced. In any case, the amounts of work are hugely different.
- Peer-review? None, AFAIK. Reports are only submitted to the Academies for approval without any official review process. I don't know of any official record as to how and when this report was approved.
- Consistency with previous reports? I don't have any pdfs of the previous reports, I'll have to dig into that.
The English-speaking version of the report I have is here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/dwr2umd6qg73un4/Aurengo%202005%20-%20Dose-effect%20relationships%20and%20estimation%20of%20the%20carcinogenic%20effects%20of%20low%20doses%20of%20ionizing%20radiation.pdf
It may have come from our friends at RS&H :)
Sounds like a politically motivated report dressed up as science.
DeleteDefinitely.
DeleteFrom what I gathered, the worst of the lot (by far) is Tubiana, who openly believes in the virtues of propaganda (he is known for having praised Goebbels' efficiency during a talk in 1977). It seems Tubiana considers that "the broadcasting of what is known [may in some instances] be itself a dangerous thing to do"... (http://whqlibdoc.who.int/trs/WHO_TRS_151.pdf)
That is called a nobel lie, usually associated with the far right wing in the U.S.:
Deletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_lie
Based on that old WHO paper, Tubiana should be quite old today. Maybe that will slow him down.
Thanks for your insights (I knew you'd produce! HA!)
Thanks! I'll stop there checking on this old geezer (born 1920!), I find it rather depressing really!
DeleteOn the bright side, Duport's work has now been proven valueless (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10937404.2012.659140#.UeQoQDfcOSA), and the newest studies seem to confirm LNT down to 30mGy (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2812%2960815-0/abstract and http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f2360)... Their hormesis sandcastle seems to be crumbling fast :)
Nice talking with you, I'll keep popping on your blog whenever I get some free time!
You will always be welcome here!
DeleteThat Duport paper is a gem! I had seen the Lancet study, but not the BMJ, so I'll do a post on it.
Thanks!
Regarding the authors:
ReplyDelete-André Aurengo, PhD in physics, MD, specialist in nuclear medicine, was briefly president for the French Society for Radiological Protection. Member of the French Academy of Medicine (oncology and biomedical commissions). Has strong ties with Electricité de France (foremost French electric utility company, well known for its extensive nuclear program).
-Maurice Tubiana, PhD in physics, MD, renowned oncologist, has been a consultant for WHO, IAEA and so on. Member of both Academies. Has strong ties with the French nuclear industry (has been president of the French equivalent for ANS), especially with Areva (uranium mining and construction of nuclear plants).
-Bernard Le Guen: Radiation protection expert, was working with Electricité de France at the time the report was written (http://irpa.icrp.org/page.asp?id=54429)
I don't know much about the other authors: some belonged to one of the academies (either as full members or as corresponding members), some did not (Dietrich Averbeck, Florent de Vathaire).
My own belief is that some of them were chosen so as to include a member of all major French players in the field: both academies, the Society for Radiological Protection, the Health Physics Society, the Radioprotection and Nuclear Safety Institute and so on. I am not sure whether they all actively participated in the writing (André Bonnin died at age 68 before the report was published).
Ok, thanks.
Delete