Destroying the Linear No-threshold Basis for Radiation Regulation: A Commentary.

This article suggests five classes of effort that scientists can undertake to destroy the linear no-threshold hypothesis as the basis of radiation regulation in the United States. These are (1) pressure on regulators such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, (2) presidential messages, (3) Congressional pressure, (4) educate physicians about low-dose radiation, and (5) work with journalists and media people.

Scientifically, the linear no-threshold (LNT) hypothesis of radiation damage is dead. The LNT hypothesis assumes no repair of radiation damage, that such damage is a function of the total radiation dose regardless of the rate at which the radiation is received, that all such radiations are harmful down to zero dose, but the lower the dose the less likely the harm, and that one such radiation event on DNA can cause a fatal cancer. To refute these ideas, to date over 150 genes have been recognized so far that are involved in defense of the organism against noxious agents, including radiation, and on October 8, 2015, three scientists were awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry for discovering mechanisms of DNA repair. This dispels the LNT assumption of no repair. The practice of radiation oncology, in use for over a century, is based on the idea that radiation doses in multiple relatively small quantities will permit more repair in normal tissues than in cancer tissues, and that, excess killing of cancer cells will occur. The total radiation dose is too high to be given in one treatment, which would likely preclude repair. Many animal studies have shown dose rate effects for damage, low-dose rates showing repair but high-dose rates showing little or no repair. This dispels the LNT assumption of radiation rate independence. A huge number of studies have shown hormesis at low doses rather than low but definite harm. This dispels harm expected from doses down to zero. A recent article by Vogelstein and Kinzler in the New England Journal of Medicine states that “Genome-sequencing data exclude the possibility of spontaneous tumors; a normal adult cell cannot suddenly transform into a cancer cell.”[1] Another good review of mutation in cancer and normal cells was recently published by Martincorena and Campbell in Science.[2] This dispels the LNT assumption of one “hit” causing a fatal cancer.

Faced with overwhelming evidence against the validity of the LNT, we are now hearing the ultimate “cop-out”: “Well, we know that the LNT is not true, but it remains a good basis for radiation protection because it’s conservative.” In the first place, known bad science is not a good basis for anything, including radiation regulation. In the second place, the LNT is not “conservative.” It is downright hazardous. Forced evacuations in Fukushima have caused some 1600 premature deaths; forced evacuees from Chernobyl have a higher death rate than the “babooshkas” who returned to the area despite government policy against it. Patients are refusing diagnostic nuclear medicine and radiology procedures that are needed for diagnosis and disease management. Parents are refusing to let their children undergo needed diagnostic nuclear medicine and radiology studies. They have no valid concept of risk versus benefit.[3] Misinformed members of the public are pushing to close down nuclear power plants and block low-level and high-level radiation waste sites, opting instead for electrical power produced by fossil fuels, which appear to be contributing to global warming and its associated problems. The cost of complying with “conservative” LNT regulations, including nonsensical requirements such as “as low as reasonably achievable” (ALARA) requirements are gigantic, and that money could go to better things like medical care, education, or infrastructure repair. So how do we go about destroying the LNT as a basis for radiation regulation?

Pressure on Regulators Such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

My petition, and similar ones, is a start. Other petitions based on cellular data and animal data would help. Meetings and presentations to the commissioners would help. Most are lawyers without established personal excellence in basic radiation and nuclear sciences, nuclear medicine, nuclear engineering, or medical physics. The staff at Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) controls what the commissioners think by the judicious selection of what information they share with the commissioners and what information they hide. It is known as a “bottom-up” agency. Dealing with the staff and management is basically unsatisfying. Having had many years of dealing with the staff, management, and commissioners and having spent 2 terms on their Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes, this author has had a great deal of experience trying to change their minds. The staff and management fear for their jobs if the LNT goes.

What if large numbers of licensees went on an ALARA strike? Suppose, we say that it is not “reasonable” to lower doses from a level that provides hormesis or no hazard to a level that provides less hormesis or no less hazard and that therefore, we won’t have an ALARA program? If large numbers of licensees do this, it would be hard for the NRC to fight it. The NRC would look ridiculous, as it should. If it tries to hurt licensees who will not have an ALARA program, we need to take it to the Administrative Law Judges, and if that accords no relief, we need to take it to court. Basing regulation on known lies is unsupportable.

How about a petition to get rid of licensing? We have the law and the Code of Regulations—why do we need licensing? The origin of licensing is that after the Second World War, all radionuclides came from Atomic Energy Commission reactors, and they couldn’t just give away government property. So, they “licensed” it. Licensing has grown into an abomination of deceitful extra requirements and loss of rights under the Code of Federal Regulations. Let’s get rid of it and unbudget all those staff and management who depend on it for a living.

There are many licensees whose radiation protection activities involve significant expenditures of money but do not protect anyone from anything even approaching hazardous. Why should they have a Radiation Safety Officer (RSO) or a Radiation Safety Committee (RSC) when radiation safety is not an issue in their company, practice, or institution? Most RSOs spend a large percentage of their time producing paper for inspectors to inspect, and they and their staffs cost plenty of money that could be spent on something of value. Perhaps, we need a petition insisting that only licensees with clearly hazardous radiation activities need RSOs or RSCs. We need to keep the NRC perpetually busy with attacks on its preposterous bureaucracy and its LNT-based nonsense.

Presidential Messages

There are five commissioners at the NRC, with one going off each June 30th and another coming in on July 1st. According to the Atomic Energy Act, no more than three commissioners may be of one political party. The president recommends a candidate for a commission vacancy or anticipated vacancy. The senate votes for confirmation. Commissioners serve for five years and may be reappointed for a second term. The president should be highly pressured not to recommend candidates for reasons of political payback or diversity, and the president must be strongly pressured to only recommend accomplished, educated, experienced radiation, and nuclear professionals. Most lawyers and many scientists and engineers do not fall into this category. Put up your own candidates, get support letters from relevant organizations, and help out the Office of Presidential Personnel in finding appropriate candidates.

Congressional Pressure

It is critical to obtain congressional support. Connect with politicians on the committees that perform NRC oversight. Meet with them and their staffs, over and over again. Contribute to their campaigns or have your organizations do so. Explain the problems of NRC requirements and ask the senator or representative to question NRC on these issues. Help the senator or representative or their staffs to write the questioning letters. Keep up this behavior.

The same is true for Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) radiation activities. In addition, EPA is not an independent agency, and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) can disallow their regulations. But, you have to work with the CBO to accomplish this (although NRC is an independent agency, the CBO can disallow a regulation, and NRC can override them, but there is a substantial paperwork requirement on the NRC to do so, and NRC hates it). The EPA’s radon abatement program needs to be ended, and its absurd LNT-based emergency response requirements need to go. We will have another Fukushima here if we forcibly evacuate citizens from their homes and businesses to avoid doses of radiation that are either hormetic or have no risk associated with them.

Educate Physicians About Low-Dose Radiation

Our medical students, interns, and residents learn almost nothing about low-dose radiation. Even physicians who use radiation, such as those in nuclear medicine, diagnostic radiology, and radiation oncology, learn little about low-dose radiation. Most of them blindly accept what the NRC, EPA, and Food and Drug Administration say. This needs to change. They need appropriate education in medical school, internship, and residency, and there need to be enlightening articles in the New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association as well as in specialty journals. Then knowledgeable physicians can effectively educate patients, and as most people are patients at some point in their lives, the word will spread.

Work With Journalists and Media People

There are many journalists and media people who are not committed to the government party line on radiation risk and who are educable. Find them and educate them. When your newspaper publishes anything with irrational radiation fear in it, write a letter to the editor and try to clarify the issue. Get on the radio or on TV if you can. Some environmentalists who want to decrease our carbon footprint are looking at nuclear to fill the gap (we can’t run this industrial nation on sunshine!). We have to work with them to support nuclear power, and we have to start by pointing out the absurdity of our regulatory climate and the government “party line.”

In conclusion, let me say that not too many people read Dose Response, but a lot of people watch TV, listen to the radio, and read the newspaper. They need to hear the truth, and we need to tell it.