An Open Letter To Journal Editors Regarding Cancer Risks From Low Dose Radiation
Dear Editors,
Though there has been a considerable amount of published data that do not support the linear no-threshold
(LNT) model for radiation-induced cancers [1-3], the LNT model continues to be widely promulgated. The atomic
bomb survivor data, for example, have been used to support the LNT model of cancer risk in the influential BEIR VII
report [4] and in many peer-reviewed publications, e.g. [5]. Even in the latest update to the atomic bomb survivor
data [6], the authors have claimed that zero dose is the best estimate for a dose threshold for solid cancer mortality,
apparently supporting the LNT model. However, their dose-threshold analysis should be considered faulty since it
restricted the possible functional forms of the dose-response relationship a priori. An analysis that used a more general
functional form to fit the data has demonstrated that the presence of a dose threshold cannot be excluded [7]. In
addition, a recent analysis of the atomic bomb survivor data using artificial neural networks has revealed the presence
of a threshold dose that varied with organ, gender, etc. and the reduction of some cancers at low doses [8].
Another study used to justify carcinogenic concerns from low doses of radiation in the BEIR VII report and
other publications [5] is the 15-country study of radiation workers [9, 10]. A re-analysis of the cancer mortality data of
the Canadian nuclear workers [11] has resulted in a negation of the original conclusion of the entire 15-country
radiation worker study regarding cancer risks from low doses of radiation [12]. Also, a Bayesian analysis of the
15-country study data has shown there is too much scatter in the data to make a definitive conclusion about the cancer
risk from low doses of radiation, and that the dismissal of reduction in overall cancers in the radiation workers is
unjustified [13, 14].
Thus, the main arguments in the BEIR VII report (and other publications) supporting the LNT model and
increased cancer risks from low doses of radiation cannot be considered valid. Further, studies supporting alternate
(non-LNT) models and the beneficial effects of low doses of radiation (i.e. radiation hormesis) have been published
since the time of the BEIR VII report BEIR VII report [15-20]. Unfortunately, awareness of these newer studies has
been overshadowed by continued promulgation of the LNT model of radiation-induced cancer risk.
This lack of awareness has significant societal implications, particularly with regard to radiation protection
policies and public perception regarding radiation risk. For example, use of the LNT model has led to substantial
casualties in real-life situations because of the ensuing fear of low doses of radiation among the general public, and the
actions taken by governments when handling radiological emergencies, e.g. in Fukushima [21]. The unwarranted
concerns regarding low doses of radiation have discouraged study of the use of low dose radiation for the prevention
and treatment of cancer, even though animal and human studies have demonstrated its positive potential [16]. Such
concerns have also discouraged the study of low dose radiation for reducing neurodegenerative diseases for which
presently there are no methods of prevention or control, even though animal studies have shown promise [22, 23].
Finally, unwarranted concerns about the low doses of radiation used in medical imaging have led some patients to
forego medically appropriate examinations, even when such exams are necessary for accurate diagnosis or therapeutic
planning [24].
We strongly recommend that you share the above information with your reviewers, particularly those
who are reviewing submissions dealing with potential cancer risks from low doses of radiation. Also, we ask that
you and your reviewers scrutinize closely any manuscript that raises concerns regarding radiation-induced cancer from
low doses of radiation based solely or primarily on the BEIR VII Report, the atomic bomb survivor data, or the
15-country radiation worker data. Continued publication of such articles perpetuates the belief among scientists,
physicians and the public that low doses of radiation increase cancer risk, preventing an unbiased and speedy
resolution of the current scientific disagreements on the long term health effects of low doses of ionizing
radiation [25].
We would be happy to discuss this matter with you or provide additional references for your consideration.
Thank you for your kind attention to this important issue.
Sincerely,
Mohan Doss, Fox Chase Cancer Center, USA (E-mail: mohan.doss@fccc.edu)
Wade Allison, Oxford University, UK
Mervyn D. Cohen, Indiana University School of Medicine, USA
Jerry Cuttler, Cuttler & Associates, Canada
Ludwik Dobrzynski, National Center for Nuclear Research, Poland
-2Ludwig E. Feinendegen, Heinrich-Heine University, Germany
Krzysztof W. Fornalski, Polish Nuclear Society, Poland
Leo S. Gomez, Leo S. Gomez Consulting, USA
Marek K. Janiak, Military Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology, Poland.
Patricia Lewis, Free Enterprise Radon Health Mine, USA
Cynthia H. McCollough, Mayo Clinic, USA
Mark L. Miller, Sandia National Laboratories, USA
SMJ Mortazavi, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Iran
Steven S. Payne, GET-NSA Contractor, USA
Charles W. Pennington, Executive Consultant, USA
Bobby R. Scott, Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute, USA
Yehoshua Socol, Falcon Analytics, Israel
Brant Ulsh, M. H. Chew & Associates, USA
Alexander Vaiserman, Institute of Gerontology, Ukraine
Ruth F. Weiner, University of Michigan, USA
James S. Welsh, NIU Institute for Neutron Therapy at Fermilab, USA
Note: All signers of this letter are members or associate members of SARI (Scientists for Accurate Radiation
Information, http://radiationeffects.org/). The above letter represents the professional opinions of the signers, and does
not necessarily represent the views of their affiliated institutions.
References:
1.
Cohen BL. Cancer risk from low-level radiation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179:1137-43.
doi:10.2214/ajr.179.5.1791137. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12388487
2.
Feinendegen LE. Evidence for beneficial low level radiation effects and radiation hormesis. Br J
Radiol 2005;78:3-7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15673519
3.
Tubiana M. Dose-effect relationship and estimation of the carcinogenic effects of low doses of
ionizing radiation: the joint report of the Academie des Sciences (Paris) and of the Academie Nationale de
Medecine. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005;63:317-9. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16168825
4.
NRC. Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation : BEIR VII Phase 2, National
Research Council (U.S.). Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Level of Ionizing
Radiation. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press; 2006.
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11340
5.
Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography--an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J
Med 2007;357:2277-84. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18046031
6.
Ozasa K, Shimizu Y, Suyama A, Kasagi F, Soda M, Grant EJ, et al. Studies of the mortality of
atomic bomb survivors, report 14, 1950-2003: an overview of cancer and noncancer diseases. Radiat Res
2012;177:229-43. doi:10.1667/RR2629.1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22171960
7.
Doss M. Linear No-Threshold Model vs. Radiation Hormesis. Dose Response 2013;11:480-97.
doi:10.2203/dose-response.13-005.Doss. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24298226
8.
Sasaki MS, Tachibana A, Takeda S. Cancer risk at low doses of ionizing radiation: artificial neural
networks inference from atomic bomb survivors. J Radiat Res 2014; In Press. doi:10.1093/jrr/rrt133.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24366315
9.
Cardis E, Vrijheid M, Blettner M, Gilbert E, Hakama M, Hill C, et al. Risk of cancer after low doses
of ionising radiation: retrospective cohort study in 15 countries. BMJ 2005;331:77.
doi:10.1136/bmj.38499.599861.E0. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15987704
10.
Cardis E, Vrijheid M, Blettner M, Gilbert E, Hakama M, Hill C, et al. The 15-Country Collaborative
Study of Cancer Risk among Radiation Workers in the Nuclear Industry: estimates of radiation-related
cancer risks. Radiat Res 2007;167:396-416. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17388693
OL-v1.06
Feb 14, 2014
-311.
CNSC. INFO-0811. Verifying Canadian Nuclear Energy Worker Radiation Risk: A Reanalysis of
Cancer Mortality in Canadian Nuclear Energy Workers (1957-1994) Summary Report, Canadian Nuclear
Safety Commission. 2011;Accessed Sep 1, 2013. http://goo.gl/m4NW3p Published June 2011.
12.
Zablotska LB, Lane RS, Thompson PA. A reanalysis of cancer mortality in Canadian nuclear workers
(1956-1994) based on revised exposure and cohort data. Br J Cancer 2014;110:214-23.
doi:10.1038/bjc.2013.592. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24231946
13.
Fornalski K, Dobrzynski L. Ionising radiation and the health of nuclear industry workers.
International Journal of Low Radiation 2009;6:57-78. doi:10.1504/IJLR.2009.026240.
http://www.inderscience.com/info/inarticle.php?artid=26240
14.
Fornalski KW, Dobrzynski L. The healthy worker effect and nuclear industry workers. Dose
Response 2010;8:125-47. doi:10.2203/dose-response.09-019.Fornalski.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20585442
15.
Tubiana M, Diallo I, Chavaudra J, Lefkopoulos D, Bourhis J, Girinsky T, et al. A new method of
assessing the dose-carcinogenic effect relationship in patients exposed to ionizing radiation. A concise
presentation of preliminary data. Health Phys 2011;100:296-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21595074
16.
Sakamoto K. Radiobiological basis for cancer therapy by total or half-body irradiation. Nonlinearity
Biol Toxicol Med 2004;2:293-316. doi:10.1080/15401420490900254.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19330149
17.
Feinendegen LE, Pollycove M, Neumann RD. Hormesis by Low Dose Radiation Effects: Low-Dose
Cancer Risk Modeling Must Recognize Up-Regulation of Protection. In: Baum RP, editor. Therapeutic
Nuclear Medicine: Springer; 2013. http://goo.gl/qD8yIG
18.
Thompson RE. Epidemiological Evidence for Possible Radiation Hormesis from Radon Exposure: A
Case-Control Study Conducted in Worcester, MA. Dose Response 2011;9:59-75. doi:10.2203/doseresponse.10-026.Thompson. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21431078
19.
Cohen B. The Cancer Risk from Low-Level Radiation. In: Tack D, Gevenois P, editors. Radiation
Dose from Adult and Pediatric Multidetector Computed Tomography. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 2007. p. 3349. http://rd.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-68575-3_3
20.
Farooque A, Mathur R, Verma A, Kaul V, Bhatt AN, Adhikari JS, et al. Low-dose radiation therapy
of cancer: role of immune enhancement. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2011;11:791-802.
doi:10.1586/era.10.217. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21554054
21.
Ichiseki H. Features of disaster-related deaths after the Great East Japan Earthquake. Lancet
2013;381:204. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60091-4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23332962
22.
Wei LC, Ding YX, Liu YH, Duan L, Bai Y, Shi M, et al. Low-dose radiation stimulates Wnt/betacatenin signaling, neural stem cell proliferation and neurogenesis of the mouse hippocampus in vitro and in
vivo. Curr Alzheimer Res 2012;9:278-89. doi:CAR-EPUB-20120123-014 [pii].
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22272614
23.
El-Ghazaly MA, Sadik NA, Rashed ER, Abd El-Fattah AA. Neuroprotective effect of EGb761(R)
and low-dose whole-body gamma-irradiationin a rat model of Parkinson's disease. Toxicol Ind Health 2014;
In Press. doi:10.1177/0748233713487251. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23696346
24.
Hendee WR, O'Connor MK. Radiation risks of medical imaging: separating fact from fantasy.
Radiology 2012;264:312-21. doi:10.1148/radiol.12112678. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22821690
25.
Doss M. Correcting Systemic Deficiencies in Our Scientific Infrastructure. Dose Response 2014; In
Press. doi:10.2203/dose-response.13-046.Doss. http://doseresponse.metapress.com/link.asp?id=11h3l8t067886g08
OL-v1.06
Feb 14, 2014