Health Physics

Mahathy, Mike

doi: 10.1097/hp.0000000000001825pmid: 38568168

Borrego, David; Nagata, Jonathan S.; Boyd, Michael A.; DeCair, Sara D.; Matakas, Lauren R.; Wang, Ellen W.; Pawel, David J.; Ansari, Armin J.

doi: 10.1097/hp.0000000000001831pmid: 38568162

Abstract The process to arrive at the radiation protection practices of today to protect workers, patients, and the public, including sensitive populations, has been a long and deliberative one. This paper presents an overview of the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (US EPA) responsibility in protecting human health and the environment from unnecessary exposure to radiation. The origins of this responsibility can be traced back to early efforts, a century ago, to protect workers from x rays and radium. The system of radiation protection we employ today is robust and informed by the latest scientific consensus. It has helped reduce or eliminate unnecessary exposures to workers, patients, and the public while enabling the safe and beneficial uses of radiation and radioactive material in diverse areas such as energy, medicine, research, and space exploration. Periodic reviews and analyses of research on health effects of radiation by scientific bodies such as the National Academy of Sciences, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, and the International Commission on Radiological Protection continue to inform radiation protection practices while new scientific information is gathered. As a public health agency, US EPA is keenly interested in research findings that can better elucidate the effects of exposure to low doses and low dose rates of radiation as applicable to protection of diverse populations from various sources of exposure. Professional organizations such as the Health Physics Society can provide radiation protection practitioners with continuing education programs on the state of the science and describe the key underpinnings of the system of radiological protection. Such efforts will help equip and prepare radiation protection professionals to more effectively communicate radiation health information with their stakeholders.

Reed, Rodican P.

doi: 10.1097/hp.0000000000001803pmid: 38568154

Abstract The linear no-threshold (LNT) model may be useful as a simple basis for developing radiation protection regulations and standards, but it bears little resemblance to scientific reality and is probably overly conservative at low doses and low dose rates. This paper is an appeal for a broader view of radiation protection that involves more than just optimization of radiation dose. It is suggested that the LNT model should be replaced with a risk-informed, targeted approach to limitation of overall risks, which include radiation and other types of risks and accidents/incidents. The focus should be on protection of the individual. Limitation of overall risk does not necessarily always equate to minimization of individual or collective doses, but in some cases it might. Instead, risk assessment (hazards analysis) should be performed for each facility/and or specific job or operation (straightforward for specialized work such as radiography), and this should guide how limited resources are used to protect workers and the public. A graded approach could be used to prioritize the most significant risks and identify exposure scenarios that are unlikely or non-existent. The dose limits would then represent an acceptable level of risk, below which no further reduction in dose would be needed. Less resources should be spent on ALARA and tracking small individual and collective doses. Present dose limits are thought to be conservative and should suffice in general. Two exceptions are possibly the need for a lower (lifetime) dose limit for lens of the eye for astronauts and raising the public limit to 5 mSv y−1 from 1 mSv y−1. This would harmonize the public limit with the current limit for the embryo fetus of the declared pregnant worker. Eight case studies are presented that emphasize how diverse and complex radiation risks can be, and in some cases, chemical and industrial risks outweigh radiation risks. More focus is needed on prevention of accidents and incidents involving a variety of types of risks. A targeted approach is needed, and commitments should be complied with until they are changed or exemptions are granted. No criticism of regulators or nuclear industry personnel is intended here. Protection of workers and the public is everyone’s goal. The question is how best to accomplish that.

Wilson, Charles; Adams, Grace G.; Patel, Pooja; Windham, Kiran; Ennis, Colby; Caffrey, Emily

doi: 10.1097/hp.0000000000001808pmid: 38568156

Abstract The linear no-threshold (LNT) model has been the regulatory “law of the land” for decades. Despite the long-standing use of LNT, there is significant ongoing scientific disagreement on the applicability of LNT to low-dose radiation risk. A review of the low-dose risk literature of the last 10 y does not provide a clear answer, but rather the body of literature seems to be split between LNT, non-linear risk functions (e.g., supra- or sub-linear), and hormetic models. Furthermore, recent studies have started to explore whether radiation can play a role in the development of several non-cancer effects, such as heart disease, Parkinson’s disease, and diabetes, the mechanisms of which are still being explored. Based on this review, there is insufficient evidence to replace LNT as the regulatory model despite the fact that it contributes to public radiophobia, unpreparedness in radiation emergency response, and extreme cleanup costs both following radiological or nuclear incidents and for routine decommissioning of nuclear power plants. Rather, additional research is needed to further understand the implications of low doses of radiation. The authors present an approach to meaningfully contribute to the science of low-dose research that incorporates machine learning and Edisonian approaches to data analysis.

Lapointe, Michel R.; Laframboise, Taylor; Pirkkanen, Jake; Tai, T.C.; Lees, Simon J.; Santa Maria, Sergio R.; Tharmalingam, Sujeenthar; Boreham, Douglas R.; Thome, Christopher

doi: 10.1097/hp.0000000000001804pmid: 38568172

Allison, Wade

doi: 10.1097/hp.0000000000001795pmid: 38568161

Abstract The harm that society expects from ionizing radiation does not match experience. Evidently there is some basic error in this assumption. A reconsideration based on scientific principles shows how simple misunderstandings have exaggerated dangers. The consequences for society are far-reaching. The immediate impact of ionizing radiation on living tissue is destructive. However, this oxidative damage is similar to that produced during normal metabolic activity where the subsequent biological reaction is not only protective but also stimulates enhanced protection. This adaptation means that the response to oxidative damage depends on past experience. Similarly, social reaction to a radiological accident depends on the regulations and attitudes generated by the perception of previous instances. These shape whether nuclear technology and ionizing radiation are viewed as beneficial or as matters to avoid. Evidence of the spurious damage to society caused by such persistent fear in the second half of the 20th century suggests that these laws and attitudes should be rebased on evidence. The three stages of radiological impact—the initial physical damage, the subsequent biological response, and the personal and social reaction—call on quite different logic and understanding. When these are confused, they lead to regulations and public policy decisions that are often inept, dangerous, and expensive. One example is when the mathematical rigor of physics, appropriate to the immediate impact, is misapplied to the adaptive behavior of biology. Another, the tortured historical reputation of nuclear technology, is misinterpreted as justifying a radiological protection policy of extreme caution. Specialized education and closed groups of experts tend to lock in interdisciplinary misperceptions. In the case of nuclear technology, the resulting lack of independent political confidence endangers the adoption of nuclear power as the replacement for fossil fuels. In the long term, nuclear energy is the only viable source of large-scale primary energy, but this requires a re-working of public understanding.

Scott, Bobby R.

doi: 10.1097/hp.0000000000001791pmid: 38568174

Abstract The system of radiological protection has been based on linear no-threshold theory and related dose-response models for health detriment (in part related to cancer induction) by ionizing radiation exposure for almost 70 y. The indicated system unintentionally promotes radiation phobia, which has harmed many in relationship to the Fukushima nuclear accident evacuations and led to some abortions following the Chernobyl nuclear accident. Linear no-threshold model users (mainly epidemiologists) imply that they can reliably assess the cancer excess relative risk (likely none) associated with tens or hundreds of nanogray (nGy) radiation doses to an organ (e.g., bone marrow); for 1,000 nGy, the excess relative risk is 1,000 times larger than that for 1 nGy. They are currently permitted this unscientific view (ignoring evolution-related natural defenses) because of the misinforming procedures used in data analyses of which many radiation experts are not aware. One such procedure is the intentional and unscientific vanishing of the excess relative risk uncertainty as radiation dose decreases toward assigned dose zero (for natural background radiation exposure). The main focus of this forum article is on correcting the serious error of discarding risk uncertainty and the impact of the correction. The result is that the last defense of the current system of radiological protection relying on linear no-threshold theory (i.e., epidemiologic studies implied findings of harm from very low doses) goes away. A revised system is therefore needed.

Socol, Yehoshua

doi: 10.1097/hp.0000000000001775pmid: 38568175

This note deals with epidemiological data interpretation supporting the linear no-threshold model, as opposed to emerging evidence of adaptive response and hormesis from molecular biology in vitro and animal models. Particularly, the US–Japan Radiation Effects Research Foundation’s lifespan study of atomic bomb survivors is scrutinized. We stress the years-long lag of the data processing after data gathering and evolving statistical models and methodologies across publications. The necessity of cautious interpretation of radiation epidemiology results is emphasized.

Fellman, Alan; Wiedis, Dave

doi: 10.1097/hp.0000000000001799pmid: 38568160

Abstract As the basis of radiation safety practice and regulations worldwide, the linear no-threshold (LNT) hypothesis exerts enormous influence throughout society. This includes our judicial system, where frivolous lawsuits are filed alleging radiation-induced health effects caused by negligent companies who subject unwitting victims to enormous financial and physical harm. Typically, despite the lack of any supporting scientific basis, these cases result in enormous costs to organizations, insurance companies, and consumers.

doi: 10.1097/hp.0000000000001806pmid: N/A