Just Another Manic Monday P1

With health physics denier Mohan Doss, courtesy of Ed Calabrese (search his name on this blog to learn more about him).

Doss wants to discuss 3 different aspects regarding low dose radiation effects in order to spread his propaganda.

Let's dig in.....

The three aspects are:

1.  Atomic bomb survivor data - here he points out that in a recent review of the data, there was an unexplained anomaly in the intermediate dose range.  The cancer incidence was less than expected.  That's true.

He fails to mention (SURPRISE!) that in the lower dose range there was a second unexplained anomaly...the cancer incidence was more than expected.  Convenient omission, eh Doss?

Of course, this is just a smoke-screen.  Before this fairly recent review Doss was a hormesis advocate.  With the recent review (and its anomalies) Doss is a hormesis advocate.  With the next review, I expect Doss will be a hormesis advocate.  It's like Creationism.  He already "knows" the answer and will twist the evidence (or neglect some as he did by neglecting the low dose anomaly) in order to get hormesis as his answer.

He also mentions that the authors use a rigid model which precludes a threshold.  No, they are using the same model which has been used before (see page 3 of study) and which is standard epidemiology.  When they took the data and ran a maximum likelihood estimate they got a most likely threshold of zero.  This is just an objective, raw statistical test which has nothing to do with our understanding of the fundamentals (that radiation ionizes DNA, DNA has imperfect repair systems, etc.).  But combined with the fundamentals, it leads most objective people to conclude (absent any evidence to contrary, which Doss is free to discover, rather than performing for YouTube videos) that there is no threshold.


2. LNT model - he claims using the LNT model during emergencies has had disastrous effects on human health (ie, Chernobyl & Fukushima).  His point is that the stress and emotional trauma associated with the evacuations does harm.  Well, that may be true, but that is committing the fallacy of appeal to consequences.  The evidence shows LNT is the best theory of low dose radiation effects, regardless what the consequences are of that theory.

He accuses the scientists who serve on prestigious radiation effects committees (usually elected by their peers) for being responsible for the excess deaths caused by the evacuations!

Shame on you, Doss.  Besides for being absurd, it's completely unethical.

Let's explore your notions of education and personal exercise (Cuckoo!).

The Japanese government, in the calm of day, decided to employ nuclear power and decided on safety measures to employ during a nuclear accident.

They should have (or forced TEPCO to) implemented and EXERCISED emergency planning and response.  Had they done so, the public would have been educated on the risks and what to do, and this would have alleviated their stress and emotional trauma.

The IAEA, which promotes SAFE nuclear power concludes this.

Nowhere do they blame science for poor human practices. Nowhere do they recommend depending on people to exercise in order to maintain a lower cancer risk.

3.  DNA damage - Doss commits three fallacies here.  One, I call the "10,000 + 10 = 0" fallacy.  Obviously, 10,000 + 10 = 10,010.  Doss tries to convince people that because there's DNA damage by other causes (exercise, thinking, etc.), everything is fine.  No, the DNA damage caused by radiation is additive to DNA damage caused by other things.

He also commits the red herring fallacy.  Yes, exercise has many health benefits (like improving cardio-pulmonary function, bone density, etc.).  Radiation also has many health benefits like enabling us to image inside the body or treating tumors.

But the subject is DNA damage.  Exercise, due to increasing metabolism, increases the amounts of reactive oxygen species in the body, which increases DNA damage.  Radiation, in addition to some of its benefits, increases the amount of DNA damage.

He fabricates a generalized "adaptive response".  There is no evidence of that.  There are certain unique circumstances in which we can observe adaptive response very narrowly.  But we don't see it under low dose radiation circumstances.

He commits the fallacy of cherry picking by discussing the Taiwan apartment study.

Let's realize the bubble being created here.  The Taiwan study was published in the International Dose-Response Society's journal.  That's Ed Calabrese's society and his journal.  The YouTube channel Doss appears on belongs to Calabrese (or a supporter(s)).  Doss is then cherry picking this particular study from seven years ago!

I would question the validity of any paper published in a pseudo-scientific journal, but taken at face value the mean dose to about 10,000 people was 0.4 Sv.  It appears their cancer incidence was checked after about 12 years (they reference a Chinese language, 1996 source so I don't know the methodology).  Since the book was published in Feb., 1996, it's likely any cancer incidence study was done in 1995 (if not earlier).  And the authors of the paper state most of the buildings were completed in 1983 (though not necessarily occupied).

With these small numbers of people (the a-bomb study was around 120,000 exposed people) and short time period (a-bomb study over 60 years old and still going) and low dose (a-bomb study only detects a cancer incidence increase at 0.2 Sv after all that time, with so many people), it's not surprising that any cancer incidence study (if done correctly) would not show any increased incidence.

But cherry-picking that study does support your propaganda campaign and bubble-building exercise.

In summary, what is going on here is very unethical.  EVERYONE should know that the scientific consensus should be supported and taught.  People with science degrees should be more sensitive to this than those without science degrees.  People with science degrees should know that they are free (and encouraged) to discover new evidence to submit for publication in peer-reviewed, scholarly journals.  By publishing in these journals the work of authors can be reviewed by other experts and either accepted or criticized.  The best scientists shift a long-standing consensus and win respect and awards through their newly introduced evidence.

Doss foregoes doing the hard work of real science.  Instead he short-cuts the process by promoting his erroneous personal views via YouTube in order to convince and confuse the general public.  Can't convince the experts?  Move down to the general public!  That is intellectual cowardice, intellectually lazy, unethical, and narcissistic.

P.S. My spell check isn't working, so sorry about any typo's.

Music, please Maestro: