A Critique of Recent Epidemiologic Studies of Cancer Mortality Among Nuclear Workers

The challenges of defining hormesis in epidemiological studies: The case of radiation hormesis

In the current radiation protection system, preventive measures and occupational exposure limits for controlling occupational exposure to ionizing radiation are based on the linear no-threshold extrapolation model. However, currently an increasing body of evidence indicates that this paradigm predicts very poorly biological responses in the low-dose exposure region. In addition, several in vitro and in vivo studies demonstrated the presence of hormetic dose response curves correlated to ionizing radiation low exposure. In this regard, it is noteworthy that also the findings of different epidemiological studies, conducted in different categories of occupationally exposed workers (e.g., healthcare, nuclear industrial and aircrew workers), observed lower rates of mortality and/or morbidity from cancer and/or other diseases in exposed workers than in unexposed ones or in the general population, then suggesting the possible occurrence of hormesis. Nevertheless, these results should be considered with caution since the identification of hormetic response in epidemiological studies is rather challenging because of a number of major limitations. In this regard, some of the most remarkable shortcomings found in epidemiological studies performed in workers exposed to ionizing radiation are represented by lack or inadequate definition of exposure doses, use of surrogates of exposure, narrow dose ranges, lack of proper control groups and poor evaluation of confounding factors. Therefore, considering the valuable role and contribution that epidemiological studies might provide to the complex risk assessment and management process, there is a clear and urgent need to overcome the aforementioned limits in order to achieve an adequate, useful and more real-life risk assessment that should also include the key concept of hormesis. Thus, in the present conceptual article we also discuss and provide possible approaches to improve the capacity of epidemiological studies to identify/define the hormetic response and consequently improve the complex process of risk assessment of ionizing radiation at low exposure doses.

Radiological risk assessment of the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard (HPNS)

Hunters Point Naval Shipyard in San Francisco, California was deemed a Superfund site by the USEPA in 1989 due to chemical and radiological contamination resulting from U.S. Navy operations from 1939 to 1974. During characterization and remediation efforts, over 50,000 radiological soil samples and 19,000 air samples were collected. This risk assessment, conducted in accordance with federal guidelines, represents the first comprehensive evaluation of past, present, and future health risks associated with radionuclides present at the site. The assessment indicated that before site remediation, most radionuclide soil concentrations were at or near local background concentrations. Had such low remedial goals not been established, significant remediation of surface soils would not have been necessary to protect human health. The pre-remediation lifetime incremental cancer morbidity risks for on-site workers and theoretical on-site residents due to radionuclide contamination were found to be 1.3 × 10^-6 and 3.2 × 10^-6, respectively. The post-remediation risks to future on-site residents were found to be 6.3 × 10^-8 (without durable cover) and 3.7 × 10^-8 (with durable cover), while post-remediation risks to on-site workers were found to be 2.6 × 10^-8 (without durable cover) and 1.6 × 10^-8 (with durable cover). Risk estimates for all scenarios were found to be significantly below the acceptable risk of 3 × 10^-4 approved by regulatory agencies. Upwind and downwind air samples collected during remediation indicate that remediation activities never posed a measurable risk to off-site residents. This risk assessment emphasizes the importance of establishing clear and scientifically rigorous soil remedial goals at sites as well as understanding local radionuclide background concentrations.

Interaction between occupational radon exposure and tobacco smoke: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

: The risk of lung cancer from radon exposure was small compared to tobacco smoking (BEIR VI), but the relationship between these two carcinogenic agents has yet to be quantitatively estimated. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the last evidences on the role of radon occupational exposures and tobacco smoke on lung cancer risk.

AREAS COVERED

: Thirteen articles were selected using two different databases, PubMed and Scifinder, and were limited to those published from 2010 to 2021. The reference list of selected studies was reviewed to identify other relevant papers.

EXPERT OPINION

: Seven papers included in this systematic review did not deal with the multiplicative or the additive type of interaction between radon exposure and smoking habit. Six papers discussed the nature of this interaction with a prevalence of the sub-multiplicative model compared to the additive one. Altogether, smoking adjustment did not change significantly lung cancer risk. The included studies might constitute a starting point for updating the models for risk assessment in occupational and residential scenarios, promoting concomitantly the exposure reduction to radon and other cofactors, as recently introduced by Italian Legislative Decree number 101 of 31 July 2020, an application of Euratom Directive 59/2013.

Dose-Effects Models for Space Radiobiology: An Overview on Dose-Effect Relationships

Space radiobiology is an interdisciplinary science that examines the biological effects of ionizing radiation on humans involved in aerospace missions. The dose-effect models are one of the relevant topics of space radiobiology. Their knowledge is crucial for optimizing radioprotection strategies (e.g., spaceship and lunar space station-shielding and lunar/Mars village design), the risk assessment of the health hazard related to human space exploration, and reducing damages induced to astronauts from galactic cosmic radiation. Dose-effect relationships describe the observed damages to normal tissues or cancer induction during and after space flights. They are developed for the various dose ranges and radiation qualities characterizing the actual and the forecast space missions [International Space Station (ISS) and solar system exploration]. Based on a Pubmed search including 53 papers reporting the collected dose-effect relationships after space missions or in ground simulations, 7 significant dose-effect relationships (e.g., eye flashes, cataract, central nervous systems, cardiovascular disease, cancer, chromosomal aberrations, and biomarkers) have been identified. For each considered effect, the absorbed dose thresholds and the uncertainties/limitations of the developed relationships are summarized and discussed. The current knowledge on this topic can benefit from further in vitro and in vivo radiobiological studies, an accurate characterization of the quality of space radiation, and the numerous experimental dose-effects data derived from the experience in the clinical use of ionizing radiation for diagnostic or treatments with doses similar to those foreseen for the future space missions. The growing number of pooled studies could improve the prediction ability of dose-effect relationships for space exposure and reduce their uncertainty level. Novel research in the field is of paramount importance to reduce damages to astronauts from cosmic radiation before Beyond Low Earth Orbit exploration in the next future. The study aims at providing an overview of the published dose-effect relationships and illustrates novel perspectives to inspire future research.

Analysis of Indoor Radon Data Using Bayesian, Random Binning, and Maximum Entropy Methods

Three statistical methods: Bayesian, randomized data binning and Maximum Entropy Method (MEM) are described and applied in the analysis of US radon data taken from the US registry. Two confounding factors-elevation of inhabited dwellings, and UVB (ultra-violet B) radiation exposure-were considered to be most correlated with the frequency of lung cancer occurrence. MEM was found to be particularly useful in extracting meaningful results from epidemiology data containing such confounding factors. In model testing, MEM proved to be more effective than the least-squares method (even via Bayesian analysis) or multi-parameter analysis, routinely applied in epidemiology. Our analysis of the available residential radon epidemiology data consistently demonstrates that the relative number of lung cancers decreases with increasing radon concentrations up to about 200 Bq/m³, also decreasing with increasing altitude at which inhabitants live. Correlation between UVB intensity and lung cancer has also been demonstrated.

Le cancer radio-induit, le kangourou, et le petit lapin. Ou « la déclinaison radiobiologique du mythe de la Licorne Rose »

La relation linéaire sans seuil (RLSS), devenue un véritable dogme, conduit à affirmer l’existence de la nocivité des faibles doses de rayonnements ionisants faute de pouvoir démontrer leur innocuité. Il semble important de comprendre comment on en est arrivé à rendre dogmatique une non-théorie scientifique. Nous nous proposons dans cet article, après avoir montré combien la RLSS relève du mythe et non d’une approche scientifique, d’en exposer les origines et la genèse, indispensables à la compréhension de son actuel caractère de soi-disant vérité incontestable, puis d’illustrer les conséquences pratiques et épistémologiques préoccupantes que cette référence à la RLSS entraîne. Nous nous appuyons pour cela sur l’analyse critique de quelques-unes des études épidémiologiques qui prétendent la démontrer ou la confirmer.

Replacing LNT: The Integrated LNT-Hormesis Model

Many scientists and regulators utilize the linear no-threshold (LNT) relationship to estimate the likelihood of carcinogenesis. The LNT model is incorrect and was adopted based upon false pretenses. The use of the model has been corrupted by many to claim that even the smallest ionizing radiation dose may initiate carcinogenesis. This claim has resulted in societal harm.

Epidemiologic Studies Cannot Reveal the True Shape of the Dose-Response Relationship for Radon-Induced Lung Cancer

A long-standing controversy is the correct shape of the dose-response relationship for lung cancer induction by inhaled radon (eg, residential radon) at low levels. A probabilistic approach is used in this commentary to show that cohort and case-control epidemiologic studies cannot reveal the true shape of the dose-response relationship for radon-induced lung cancer. Using the indicated approach, it is found that while the dose response for radon-induced lung cancer is expected to be threshold-increasing, the dose-response curve for the cancer incidence when cancers caused by smoking and other carcinogens are included is expected to be threshold-decreasing (ie, threshold-hormetic), as low-level radon can protect from cancer induction by other carcinogens via stimulating the body's natural defenses against cancer. These defenses include DNA damage repair, removal of aberrant cells via apoptosis, suppression of cancer promoting inflammation, and anticancer immunity.

Low-dose radiation from A-bombs elongated lifespan and reduced cancer mortality relative to un-irradiated individuals

The US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) presented the linear no-threshold hypothesis (LNT) in 1956, which indicates that the lowest doses of ionizing radiation are hazardous in proportion to the dose. This spurious hypothesis was not based on solid data. NAS put forward the BEIR VII report in 2006 as evidence supporting LNT. The study described in the report used data of the Life Span Study (LSS) of A-bomb survivors. Estimation of exposure doses was based on initial radiation (5%) and neglected residual radiation (10%), leading to underestimation of the doses. Residual radiation mainly consisted of fallout that poured down onto the ground along with black rain. The black-rain-affected areas were wide. Not only A-bomb survivors but also not-in-the-city control subjects (NIC) must have been exposed to residual radiation to a greater or lesser degree. Use of NIC as negative controls constitutes a major failure in analyses of LSS. Another failure of LSS is its neglect of radiation adaptive responses which include low-dose stimulation of DNA damage repair, removal of aberrant cells via stimulated apoptosis, and elimination of cancer cells via stimulated anticancer immunity. LSS never incorporates consideration of this possibility. When LSS data of longevity are examined, a clear J-shaped dose-response, a hallmark of radiation hormesis, is apparent. Both A-bomb survivors and NIC showed longer than average lifespans. Average solid cancer death ratios of both A-bomb survivors and NIC were lower than the average for Japanese people, which is consistent with the occurrence of radiation adaptive responses (the bases for radiation hormesis), essentially invalidating the LNT model. Nevertheless, LNT has served as the basis of radiation regulation policy. If it were not for LNT, tremendous human, social, and economic losses would not have occurred in the aftermath of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant accident. For many reasons, LNT must be revised or abolished, with changes based not on policy but on science.

A critical evaluation of the NCRP COMMENTARY 27 endorsement of the linear no-threshold model of radiation effects

Regulatory policy to protect the public and the environment from radiation is universally based on the linear, no-threshold model (LNT) of radiation effects. This model has been controversial since its inception over nine decades ago, and remains so to this day, but it has proved remarkably resistant to challenge from the scientific community. The LNT model has been repeatedly endorsed by expert advisory bodies, and regulatory agencies in turn adopt policies that reflect this advice. Unfortunately, these endorsements rest on a foundation of institutional inertia and numerous logical fallacies. These include most significantly setting the LNT as the null hypothesis, and shifting the burden of proof onto LNT skeptics. Other examples include arbitrary exclusion of alternative hypotheses, ignoring criticisms of the LNT, cherry-picking evidence, and making policy judgements without foundation. This paper presents an evaluation of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements' (NCRP) Commentary 27, which concluded that recent epidemiological studies are compatible with the continued use of the LNT model for radiation protection. While this report will likely provide political cover for regulators' continued reliance on the LNT, it is a missed opportunity to advance the scientific discussion of the effects of low dose, low dose-rate radiation exposure. Due to its Congressionally chartered mission, no organization is better positioned than the NCRP to move this debate forward, and recommendations for doing so in future reviews are provided.

Overview of Biological, Epidemiological, and Clinical Evidence of Radiation Hormesis

The effects of low-dose radiation are being increasingly investigated in biological, epidemiological, and clinical studies. Many recent studies have indicated the beneficial effects of low doses of radiation, whereas some studies have suggested harmful effects even at low doses. This review article introduces various studies reporting both the beneficial and harmful effects of low-dose radiation, with a critique on the extent to which respective studies are reliable. Epidemiological studies are inherently associated with large biases, and it should be evaluated whether the observed differences are due to radiation or other confounding factors. On the other hand, well-controlled laboratory studies may be more appropriate to evaluate the effects of low-dose radiation. Since the number of such laboratory studies is steadily increasing, it will be concluded in the near future whether low-dose radiation is harmful or beneficial and whether the linear-no-threshold (LNT) theory is appropriate. Many recent biological studies have suggested the induction of biopositive responses such as increases in immunity and antioxidants by low-dose radiation. Based on recent as well as classical studies, the LNT theory may be out of date, and low-dose radiation may have beneficial effects depending on the conditions; otherwise, it may have no effects.