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

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.

Epidemiology beyond its limits

In 1995, journalist Gary Taubes published an article in Science titled "Epidemiology faces its limits," which questioned the utility of nonrandomized epidemiologic research and has since been cited more than 1000 times. He highlighted numerous examples of research topics he viewed as having questionable merit. Studies have since accumulated for these associations. We systematically evaluated current evidence of 53 example associations discussed in the article. Approximately one-quarter of those presented as doubtful are now widely viewed as causal based on current evaluations of the public health consensus. They include associations between alcohol consumption and breast cancer, residential radon exposure and lung cancer, and the use of tanning devices and melanoma. This history should inform current debates about the reproducibility of epidemiologic research results.

Addressing Risk Perceptions of Low-Dose Radiation Exposure

Concern over low-dose radiation (LDR) (exposure of less than 100 milligray (mGy)) is resulting in people refusing diagnostic procedures and medical treatment¹ and also inhibiting revision of the linear no-threshold (LNT) assumption that informs much of science policy. This article reviews representative surveys in Ontario and Saskatchewan and focus groups conducted with science and policy stakeholders in addressing how the public and policy stakeholders understand issues of exposure to LDR and how policy issues can be addressed.

Research results from focus groups demonstrated that policy stakeholders are knowledgeable about issues surrounding the public and perceptions about LDR and implications for policy consistent with LDR literature. Participants understood that the challenge went beyond providing more education about LDR and issues of emotions and biases must be addressed. This research resulted in rich suggestions for public communication and engagement surrounding LDR and a process for addressing the issue of the LNT.

Low-dose radiation therapy (LDRT) for COVID-19 and its deadlier variants

Coronavirus variants are gaining strongholds throughout the globe. Despite early signals that SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus case numbers are easing up in the United States and during the middle of a (not so easy) vaccination roll out, the country has passed a grim landmark of 600,000 deaths. We contend that these numbers would have been much lower if the medical community undertook serious investigations into the potential of low doses of radiation (LDRT) as a mainstream treatment modality for COVID-19 pneumonia. LDRT has been posited to manifest anti-infectious and anti-inflammatory properties at doses of 0.3-1.0 Gy via the activation of the Nrf-2 pathway. Although some researchers are conducting well-designed clinical trials on the potential of LDRT, the deep-rooted, blind, and flawed acceptance of the Linear No-Threshold (LNT) model for ionizing radiation has led to sidelining of this promising therapy and thus unimaginable numbers of deaths in the United States.

Radiography and Clinical Decision-Making in Chiropractic

The concern over x-ray exposure risks can overshadow the potential benefit of radiography, especially in cases where manual therapy is employed. Spinal malalignment cannot be accurately visualized without imaging. Manual therapy and the load tolerances of injured spinal tissues raise different criteria for the use of x-rays for spinal disorders than in medical practice. Current regulatory bodies rely on radiography risk assessments based on Linear-No-Threshold (LNT) risk models. There is a need to consider radiography guidelines for chiropractic which are different from those for medical practice. Radiography practice guidelines are summaries dominated by frequentist interpretations in the analysis of data from studies. In contrast, clinicians often employ a pseudo-Bayesian form of reasoning during the clinical decision-making process. The overrepresentation of frequentist perspectives in evidence-based practice guidelines alter decision-making away from practical assessment of a patient's needs, toward an overly cautious standard applied to patients without regard to their risk/benefit likelihoods relating to radiography. Guidelines for radiography in chiropractic to fully assess the condition of the spine and spinal alignment prior to manual therapy, especially with high velocity, low amplitude spinal manipulation (HVLA-SM), should necessarily differ from those used in medical practice.

What Would Become of Nuclear Risk if Governments Changed Their Regulations to Recognize the Evidence of Radiation's Beneficial Health Effects for Exposures That Are Below the Thresholds for Detrimental Effects?

The 1953 Atoms for Peace Speech to the United Nations proposed applying nuclear energy to essential needs, including abundant electrical energy. The widespread fear of ionizing radiation from nuclear facilities and medical procedures began after the United States National Academy of Sciences performed a study of radiation dangers to the human genome. This study, initiated and managed by an oil industry benefactor, recommended in 1956 that the risk of radiation-induced mutations be assessed using the linear no-threshold dose-response model instead of the threshold model. It was followed by a study that wrongly linked low radiation to cancer among the atomic bomb survivors. The ensuing controversy resulted in a compromise. The National Committee on Radiation Protection adopted the precautionary principle policy in 1959, justified by fear of cancer and lack of knowledge. The United States and all other countries followed this recommendation, which remains unchanged 62 years later. Its impact on nuclear energy and medicine has been profound. Many costly regulations have been enacted to prevent very unlikely human or equipment failures-failures that would lead to radiation exposures that are below the dose thresholds for lasting harmful effects. Potential low-dose radiation therapies, against inflammation, cancer, autoimmune, and neurodegenerative diseases, are shunned.

Radiophobia Overreaction: College of Chiropractors of British Columbia Revoke Full X-Ray Rights Based on Flawed Study and Radiation Fear-Mongering

Fears over radiation have created irrational pressures to dissuade radiography use within chiropractic. Recently, the regulatory body for chiropractors practicing in British Columbia, Canada, the College of Chiropractors of British Columbia (CCBC), contracted Pierre Côté to review the clinical use of X-rays within the chiropractic profession. A "rapid review" was performed and published quickly and included only 9 papers, the most recent dating from 2005; they concluded, "Given the inherent risks of radiation, we recommend that chiropractors do not use radiographs for the routine and repeat evaluation of the structure and function of the spine." The CCBC then launched an immediate review of the use of X-rays by chiropractors in their jurisdiction. Member and public opinion were gathered but not presented to their members. On February 4, 2021, the College announced amendments to their Professional Conduct Handbook that revoked X-ray rights for routine/repeat assessment and management of patients with spine disorders. Here, we highlight current and historical evidence that substantiates that X-rays are not a public health threat. We also point out critical and insurmountable flaws in the single paper used to support irrational and unscientific policy that discriminates against chiropractors who practice certain forms of evidence-based X-ray-guided methods.