Rethinking a tenet of cancer risk assessment for low radiation doses

The Health Physics Society, which is dedicated to radiation safety, produced a documentary that exposes a history of scientific errors, profound bias, professional self-interest, and scientific misconduct that established the fundamental tenet of cancer risk assessment for low doses of radiation whe...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Research outreach (Online) 2023 (137), p.44-47
Main Authors: Cardarelli II, John J, Calabrese, Edward J, Burk, Brett, Hamrick, Barbara, Sowers, Dan
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Bias
Birth defects
Cancer
Congenital defects
Drug dosages
Errors
Gamma rays
Health physics
Leadership
Medical research
Mutation
Nobel prizes
Population genetics
Professional misconduct
Radiation
Radiation dosage
Radiation effects
Radiation protection
Risk assessment
Science
Scientists
Self interest
World War II
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The Health Physics Society, which is dedicated to radiation safety, produced a documentary that exposes a history of scientific errors, profound bias, professional self-interest, and scientific misconduct that established the fundamental tenet of cancer risk assessment for low doses of radiation where most people live and work. Leadership within the Health Physics Society (HPS) are challenging such a keystone in cancer risk assessment, and have discovered scientific errors, profound bias, professional self-interest, and scientific misconduct at the highest levels that challenges the existing radiation protection philosophy in lowdose environments. There's more: the focus of Muller's research - fruit flies - may share many fundamental genetic and biological characteristics with other organisms, but they're certainly not humans. [...]the American human-population geneticist, James V Neel, published research showing no significant increase in birth defects or other genetic damage in the offspring of Japanese survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs, effectively challenging Muller's risk assessment interpretations. Muller, nonetheless, used his influence to prevent Neel's study from being reviewed by the 1956 US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) genetics panel that was charged to assess potential human health effects from radiation exposures, especially at low doses.
ISSN:2517-701X
2517-7028
2517-7028
DOI:10.32907/RO-137-4997203759