John Dale Dunn MD JD
401 Rocky Hill Road
Diplomate ABEM, ABLM Admitted but inactive, Texas and Louisiana Bars Lecturer, Emergency Medicine Residency Program Carl R. Darnall Army Medical Center, Fort Hood, TX Medical Officer, Brown County Sheriff Lake Brownwood, Texas 76801 Phone 325 784-6697 E-mail jddmdjd@web-access.net
Summary of presentation for the American Nuclear Society - Health Physics Society Joint Topical Conference Sept. 30 to Oct 3, 2018 in Tri-Cities, Washington State. My paper will have three themes that are pertinent to the question of Linear No Threshold Radiation Biophysics risk management. One—the historical basis for the no threshold claims in matters of radiation biophysics was not scientifically valid and a thorough investigation of the matter by Dr. Calabrese creates a serious question of ideology driving scientific claims rather than evidence. The focus of the discussion will be evidence of misconduct by Dr. Muller, who was a major player in the general adoption of no threshold linear radiation toxicology since his research was seminal and won a Nobel prize and he built on that a very strong influence on the BEAR committees that established LNT as the paradigm for radiation biophysics—then it became the general toxicology template for no good reason. As a physician required to know toxicology and pharmacology I am amazed that LNT is considered good scientific theory by the non-medical scientific community—medical science always, always aims for the sweet spot in pharmacology between no effect and toxic effect. All of our toxicology work assumes thresholds for toxic effect and even recognizes hormetic effects in some ranges for toxics. Dr. Muller suppressed contemporaneous research by Dr. Stern as discovered by Dr. Calabrese because Stern found a threshold. That effort by Muller to suppress the work of Dr. Stern that disproved his Nobel Prize work was probably not unprecedented, but definitely an important game changer in toxicology and in the history of modern science. Two—the idea that radiation or any other toxin or harmful substance has no threshold for effect as a cause of cancer in particular, but other harmful effects, ignores the evidence. The one hit theory of radiation biophysical effects that has been expanded irresponsibly to all areas of toxicology, is based on an incorrect and unscientific assumption that a small radiation impact can cause cancer by damaging genetic material and oncological science shows that most cancers are the result of telomeric dysfunction that creates polypoid/muliploid malignant cell lines that even a first year medical student can identify microscopically because the nuclei of the cancer cells is loaded up with genetic material. That is not consistent with the carcinogenic mechanism of the mutation by a hit. In fact it makes the one hit theory look quite improbable. Moreover, evidence is abundant that individuals subjected to increased radiation exposure above ambient levels demonstrate hormetic beneficial effects, evidence that dismantles and discredits the linear no threshold model. Three—the widespread acceptance of linear no threshold toxicity/oncology has created a risk management protocol that is irrational and unscientific and does not serve the public well while causing incredible increases in costs for those processes that use the substances that are accused of carcinogenicity, since there is a regulators annuity—no safe level. The adoption of cumulative
1
lifetime radiation exposure as a measure of risk ignores the real time nature of radiation exposures and evidence of cumulative effect does not exist. Cancer is a disease of the aged for well-known reasons, cell replication and immune system declines are coincident to whatever might be proposed as a “cumulative� radiation effect causing cancer. Conclusions My paper and presentation will dissect the historical misconduct that begat the LNT, expose the elements of LNT that cannot possible prove up the case for the LNT claims, and show that continued use of LNT toxicology is expensive and unscientific.
2