Has Radiation Protection Become a Health Hazard
Author: Gunnar WalinderISBN: 9780944838969 ISBN10: 0944838960
Published: 2000 | 166 pp | Softcover
Price: $ 19.95 was 39.95
Health Physics | Vol. 80, No. 2, February 2001
This book is the second edition of a book published by the Swedish Nuclear Training and Safety Center. The author began his career as a physicist and health physicist before taking up biological and medical studies leading to a Ph.D. in radiobiology, a field in which he conducted research for over 30 years. In good scientific manner, the first chapter is a statement of the problem. "Could a complex biological phenomenon, such as the dose-response of radiogenic cancer, really be adequately described by an equation of the first degree, or, in other words, by an expression that geometrically describes a straight line?" and Does the simplification of complex phenomena "result in recommendations and measures which could lead to considerably greater health hazards than those which one sought to avoid in the first place?" He notes that severe mental and psychosomatic diseases following the Chernobyl accident have already surpassed the estimates for late effects of radiation exposure for people living in the Ukraine and Byelorussia.
Chapter 2, the largest chapter, is a discussion of the biological effects of ionizing radiation and the biological complexity of the human being. Genetic effects, radiation-induced effects in the fetus, and cancer are the main topics of this chapter. In the latter topic, the complexity of carcinogenesis is highlighted as a "process which includes a series of genetic, epigenetic and adaptive cell changes. Therefore it is affected by a hereditary propensity for tumor formation, for physiological-organismic conditions, and external factors (living habits, food, carcinogenic substances and promoters in our environment, etc.)." He cites an experiment where the thyroid glands of mice were exposed to a certain radiation dose. It was possible, by merely changing the composition of the mice's diet, to determine whether or not tumors will arise in the thyroid gland, whether the tumor will be benign or malignant, and even the malignancy of the tumor. The author suggests that in light of current knowledge, the old Target Theory is limited in that the basic theory may be correct but that reality is more complex than theory. "A low radiation doses cannot, on its own, cause a malignant cell transformation but, together with other carcinogenic factors, contribute to such a process. Malignant conversion of a cell is not a stochastic effect of radiation but a highly conditional one=8AIt is impossible to predict, by means of a mathematical expression, the specific outcome of a low radiation dose."
Chapter 3 is a short discussion of epidemiology and pitfalls that often occur when trying to seek "proof" of a causal relationship in a biological context.
"Chapter 4 shows the breadth of this book in that it contains an excellent discussion of epistemology. Mathematicians and physicists seem to have understood the distinction between what it is possible to know and what it is impossible to know. No corresponding analysis seems to have been carried out by biologists and medical scientists within their disciplines. It is suggested that a dose response relationship cannot be determined solely on the basis of taking reductionism to its furthest extreme, i.e., to the level of what happens in individual genetic molecules. Quantitative determination of the effects of non-dominant radiation does or non-dominant concentrations of carcinogenic substances cannot be made.
"Chapter 5 discusses the biological premises of the recommendations of the International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP). The author feels that in ICRP report #26, the ICRP was cautious in warning against a too literal interpretation of the assumption of a linear dose relationship in the low dose range, but that this caution was abandoned in ICRP report #60. The ICRP view of radiogenic cancer is in conflict with important features of modern oncology highlighting the complexity of the onset of cancer. This is followed by an interesting discussion on the inhibitory effects of doctrines. The author highlights how long it took to correct the value of the charge of the electron because determination of original value had lead to a Nobel Prize. Many noticed a slight difference, but tended to feel their value was in error because it did not agree with the accepted value. A similar phenomenon occurred with the determination of the number of chromosomes in the human cell. It took a long time to correct the number from 48 to 46. The current doctrine of radiation protection philosophy is that ionizing radiation does induce cancer, even at very low doses. If a study reveals any evidence to the contrary, something has to be wrong with the study. Most health physicists are well aware of many studies that do not support the linear non-threshold hypothesis, but these studies, including those suggesting hormesis, are dismissed by many because they do not fit the prevailing doctrine.
"Chapter 6 is titled "Consequences of the Official Approach to
Radiation Risk". Use of very cautious approaches to radiation lead
the public to the view that if we have to be so extremely cautious,
radiation must be much more dangerous than anything else we can be
exposed to. High risk figures computed from small doses to large
populations contribute to the anxiety the ICRP has said it wished to
avoid. By 1994, 1,250 people who had been initial responders to the
Chernobyl accident had committed suicide. Also, following the
Chernobyl accident, the International Atomic Energy Agency estimates
100,000 to 200,000 abortions were carried out in western Europe as
the result of advice from physicians who were so ignorant about
elementary radiation biology that they gave completely disastrous
advice to an anxious people. The author concludes that we must
openly admit we cannot have any scientific-based knowledge of the
negative or positive effects of low levels of ionizing radiation.
What can be known is that "a non-dominant radiation dose does not
involve a greater risk than what is the case when we subject
ourselves to many of the living and working conditions which are
necessary for life and which society already accepts and often
demands of us. It has obviously been recognized that the assertion
of knowledge about the effects of extremely low radiation doses will
probably lead to more harm than protection."
The book does suffer from a number of editorial flaws, which could be
corrected by good technical editing. That notwithstanding, it is
excellent reading for those who wish to expand their views regarding
the response of humans to low-level doses of ionizing radiation.
By A. John Ahlquist
1625 Geary Road
Walnut Creek, CA 94596