EPA adopts LNT: New historical perspectives

How Hermann J. Muller Viewed the Ernest Sternglass Contributions to Hereditary and Cancer Risk Assessment

ABSTRACT

As one of the most influential radiation geneticists of the 20th century, Hermann J. Muller had a major role in the development and widespread acceptance of the linear no-threshold (LNT) dose response for hereditary and cancer risk assessments worldwide. However, a spate of historical reassessments have challenged the fundamental scientific foundations of the LNT model, drawing considerable attention to issues of ethical probity and the scientific leadership of Muller. This review paper raises further questions about the objectivity of Muller with respect to the LNT model. It is shown that Muller supported Ernest Sternglass's findings and interpretations concerning radiation-induced childhood leukemia, which have been widely and consistently discredited. These findings provide further evidence that Muller's actions with respect to radiation cancer risk assessment were far more ideologically than scientifically based.

Muller misled the Pugwash Conference on radiation risks

The Pugwash Conferences have been a highly visible attempt to create profoundly important discussions on matters related to global safety and security at the highest levels, starting in 1957 at the height of the Cold War. This paper assesses, for the first time, the formal comments offered at this first Pugwash Conference by the Nobel Prize-winning radiation geneticist, Hermann J. Muller, on the effects of ionizing radiation on the human genome. This analysis shows that the presentation by Muller was highly biased and contained scientific errors and misrepresentations of the scientific record that resulted in seriously misleading the attendees. The presentation of Muller at Pugwash served to promote, on a very visible global scale, continued misrepresentations of the state of the science and had a significant impact on policies and practices internationally and both scientific and personal belief systems concerning the effects of low dose radiation on human health. These misrepresentations would come to affect the adoption and use of nuclear technologies and the science of radiological and chemical carcinogen health risk assessment, ultimately having a profound effect on global environmental health.

Hormesis: Transforming disciplines that rely on the dose response

This article tells the story of hormesis from its conceptual and experimental origins, its dismissal by the scientific and medical communities in the first half of the 20th century, and its rediscovery over the past several decades to be a fundamental evolutionary adaptive strategy. The upregulation of hormetic adaptive mechanisms has the capacity to decelerate the onset and reduce the severity of a broad spectrum of common age-related health, behavioral, and performance decrements and debilitating diseases, thereby significantly enhancing the human health span. Incorporation of hormetic-based lifestyle options within the human population would have profoundly positive impacts on the public health, significantly reducing health care costs.

LNT and cancer risk assessment: Its flawed foundations part 1: Radiation and leukemia: Where LNT began

This paper evaluates the scientific basis for the adoption of the linear non-threshold (LNT) dose response model for radiation-induced leukemia. This LNT risk assessment application for leukemia is significant because it: (1) was generalized for all tumor types induced by ionizing radiation and chemical carcinogens at relatively high doses and; (2) it was based on the mechanistic assumption of low dose linearity for somatic cell mutations as determined from responses in mature spermatozoa of fruit flies. A serious problem with the latter assumption is that those spermatozoa lack DNA repair. The acceptance of the LNT dose response model for cancer risk assessment was based on the convergence of recommendations of the BEAR I Genetics Panel (1956a) for reproductive cell gene mutations and those of Lewis (1957a) for somatic cell mutation and its capacity to explain apparent and/or predicted linear dose responses of ionizing radiation-induced leukemia in multiple and diverse epidemiological investigations. Use of that model and related dose response beliefs achieved rapid, widespread and enduring acceptance in the scientific and regulatory communities. They provide the key historical foundation for the sustained LNT-based policy for cancer risk assessment to the present. While previous papers in this series have challenged key scientific assessments and ethical foundations of the BEAR I Genetics Panel, the present paper provides evidence that Lewis: 1) incorrectly interpreted the fundamental scientific studies used to support the LNT conclusion even though such studies show consistent hormetic-J-shaped dose response relationships for leukemia in Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors; and, 2) demonstrated widespread bias in support of an LNT conclusion and related policies, which kept him from making an objective and fair assessment. The LNT recommendation appears to have been uncritically accepted and integrated into scientific and regulatory practice in large part because it inappropriately appealed to existing authority and it garnered the support of those who were willing to risk greatly exaggerating the public's fears of environmentally-induced disease, such as enhanced risk of leukemia, with the goal of stopping the atmospheric testing of atomic bombs. Adoption of the LNT recommendation demonstrated extensive penetration of ideological influence affecting governmental, scientific and regulatory evaluation at the highest levels in the United States. This paper demonstrates that the scientific foundations for cancer risk assessment were inappropriately and inaccurately assessed, unethically adopted and require significant historical, scientific and regulatory remediation.

Ethical failings: The problematic history of cancer risk assessment

This paper demonstrates that unethical conduct by the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation (BEAR) I Genetics Panel led to their recommendation of the Linear Non-Threshold (LNT) Model for radiation risk assessment and its subsequent adoption by the US and the world community. The analysis, which is based largely on preserved communications of the US NAS Genetics Panel members, reveals that Panel members and their administrative leadership at the NAS displayed an integrated series of unethical actions designed to ensure, (1) the acceptance of the LNT and (2) funding to radiation geneticist panel members and professional colleagues. These findings are significant because major public policies in open democracies, such as cancer risk assessment and other issues impacted by public fears of radiation or chemical exposures, require ethical foundations. Recognition of these ethical failures of the BEAR I Genetics Panel should require a high level administrative, legislative and scientific reassessment of the scientific foundations of cancer risk assessment, with the likely result necessitating revision of current policies and practices. The BEAR I Genetics Panel, 1956 Science journal publication should immediately be retracted because it contains deliberate misrepresentations of the scientific record that were designed to manipulate scientific and public opinion on radiation risk assessment in a dishonest manner.

Chlorophyll hormesis: Are chlorophylls major components of stress biology in higher plants?

High oxidative stress inhibits the synthesis and accumulation of chlorophylls, the pigments that absorb and use light. We collated evidence from a diverse array of studies demonstrating that chlorophyll concentration increases in response to low-level stress and decreases in response to high-level stress. These observations were from 33 species, >20 stress-inducing agents, 43 experimental setups and 177 dose responses, suggesting generality. Data meta-analysis indicated that the maximum stimulatory response did not differ significantly among species and agents. The stimulatory response maximized within a defined time window (median = 150-160% of the control response), after which it decreased but remained elevated (median = 120-130% of control response). The common stimulation of chlorophylls by low-level stress indicates that chlorophylls are major components of stress biology, with their increased concentration at low-level stress suggestive of their requirement for normal functioning and health. Increased chlorophyll concentration in response to low-level stress may equip systems with an enhanced capacity for defense against high-level (health-threatening) challenges within defined time windows, such as pollution or herbivores. These developments have wide-ranging implications in ecophysiology, biotic interactions and evolution.

The Impact of Dose Rate on DNA Double-Strand Break Formation and Repair in Human Lymphocytes Exposed to Fast Neutron Irradiation

The lack of information on how biological systems respond to low-dose and low dose-rate exposures makes it difficult to accurately assess the carcinogenic risks. This is of critical importance to space radiation, which remains a serious concern for long-term manned space exploration. In this study, the γ-H2AX foci assay was used to follow DNA double-strand break (DSB) induction and repair following exposure to neutron irradiation, which is produced as secondary radiation in the space environment. Human lymphocytes were exposed to high dose-rate (HDR: 0.400 Gy/min) and low dose-rate (LDR: 0.015 Gy/min) p(66)/Be(40) neutrons. DNA DSB induction was investigated 30 min post exposure to neutron doses ranging from 0.125 to 2 Gy. Repair kinetics was studied at different time points after a 1 Gy neutron dose. Our results indicated that γ-H2AX foci formation was 40% higher at HDR exposure compared to LDR exposure. The maximum γ-H2AX foci levels decreased gradually to 1.65 ± 0.64 foci/cell (LDR) and 1.29 ± 0.45 (HDR) at 24 h postirradiation, remaining significantly higher than background levels. This illustrates a significant effect of dose rate on neutron-induced DNA damage. While no significant difference was observed in residual DNA damage after 24 h, the DSB repair half-life of LDR exposure was slower than that of HDR exposure. The results give a first indication that the dose rate should be taken into account for cancer risk estimations related to neutrons.