Literature DB >> 25600588

Cancer risk assessment foundation unraveling: new historical evidence reveals that the US National Academy of Sciences (US NAS), Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation (BEAR) Committee Genetics Panel falsified the research record to promote acceptance of the LNT.

Edward J Calabrese1.   

Abstract

The NAS Genetics Panel (1956) recommended a switch from a threshold to a linear dose response for radiation risk assessment. To support this recommendation, geneticists on the panel provided individual estimates of the number of children in subsequent generations (one to ten) that would be adversely affected due to transgenerational reproductive cell mutations. It was hoped that there would be close agreement among the individual risk estimates. However, extremely large ranges of variability and uncertainty characterized the wildly divergent expert estimates. The panel members believed that sharing these estimates with the scientific community and general public would strongly undercut their linearity recommendation, as it would have only highlighted their own substantial uncertainties. Essentially, their technical report in the journal Science omitted and misrepresented key adverse reproductive findings in an effort to ensure support for their linearity recommendation. These omissions and misrepresentations not only belie the notion of an impartial and independent appraisal by the NAS Panel, but also amount to falsification and fabrication of the research record at the highest possible level, leading ultimately to the adoption of LNT by governments worldwide. Based on previously unexamined correspondence among panel members and Genetics Panel meeting transcripts, this paper provides the first documentation of these historical developments.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25600588     DOI: 10.1007/s00204-015-1455-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Toxicol        ISSN: 0340-5761            Impact factor:   5.153


  4 in total

Review 1.  Radiobiology in Cardiovascular Imaging.

Authors:  Pat Zanzonico; Lawrence Dauer; H William Strauss
Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2016-12

2.  Model Uncertainty via the Integration of Hormesis and LNT as the Default in Cancer Risk Assessment.

Authors:  Edward J Calabrese
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2015-12-10       Impact factor: 2.658

3.  Commentary on Inhaled (239)PUO2 in Dogs - A Prophylaxis Against Lung Cancer?

Authors:  Jerry M Cuttler; Ludwig E Feinendegen
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2015-05-04       Impact factor: 2.658

4.  It Is Time to Move Beyond the Linear No-Threshold Theory for Low-Dose Radiation Protection.

Authors:  John J Cardarelli; Brant A Ulsh
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2018-07-01       Impact factor: 2.658

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.