Title: Comment on “Background Ionizing Radiation and the Risk of Childhood Cancer: A Census-Based Nationwide Cohort Study”
Abstract: Vol. 123, No. 8 CorrespondenceOpen AccessComment on “Background Ionizing Radiation and the Risk of Childhood Cancer: A Census-Based Nationwide Cohort Study”is a letter which has replyResponse to “Comment on ‘Background Ionizing Radiation and the Risk of Childhood Cancer: A Census-Based Nationwide Cohort Study’” (Response 2) Jeffry A. Siegel, Bill Sacks, retired, Ludwig E. Feinendegen, James S. Welsh, Krzysztof W. Fornalski, Mark Miller, Jeffrey Mahn, retired, Leo Gomez, retired, Michael G. Stabin, Patricia Lewis, Vincent J. Esposito, Andrzej Strupczewski, Charles W. Pennington, Jerry M. Cuttler, Chary Rangacharyulu, Chris Davey, and Shizuyo Sutou Jeffry A. Siegel Address correspondence to J.A. Siegel, Nuclear Physics Enterprises, 4 Wedgewood Dr., Marlton, NJ 08053 USA. E-mail: E-mail Address: [email protected] Nuclear Physics Enterprises, Marlton, New Jersey, USA Search for more papers by this author , Bill Sacks Search for more papers by this author , retired U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Washington, DC, USA Search for more papers by this author , Ludwig E. Feinendegen Heinrich-Heine-University, Dusseldorf, Germany Search for more papers by this author , James S. Welsh Stritch School of Medicine, Loyola University, Chicago, Illinois, USA Search for more papers by this author , Krzysztof W. Fornalski Polish Nuclear Society, Warsaw, Poland Search for more papers by this author , Mark Miller Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA Search for more papers by this author , Jeffrey Mahn Search for more papers by this author , retired Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA Search for more papers by this author , Leo Gomez Search for more papers by this author , retired Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA Search for more papers by this author , Michael G. Stabin Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA Search for more papers by this author , Patricia Lewis Free Enterprise Radon Health Mine, Boulder, Montana, USA Search for more papers by this author , Vincent J. Esposito University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA Search for more papers by this author , Andrzej Strupczewski National Centre for Nuclear Research, Warsaw, Poland Search for more papers by this author , Charles W. Pennington NAC International, Norcross, Georgia, USA Search for more papers by this author , Jerry M. Cuttler Cuttler & Associates, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada Search for more papers by this author , Chary Rangacharyulu University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada Search for more papers by this author , Chris Davey King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Thuwal, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia Search for more papers by this author , and Shizuyo Sutou Shujitsu University, Okayama, Japan Search for more papers by this author Published:1 August 2015https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1510111Cited by:1AboutSectionsPDF ToolsDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InReddit We read with interest the article by Spycher et al. The authors claim their results suggest an increased risk of cancer among children exposed to external dose rates of background ionizing radiation of ≥ 200 nSv/h, compared with those exposed to < 100 nSv/h. However, all that the data show is a positive correlation rather than a causal result, which the word “risk” implies. Besides, these dose rates correspond to annual exposure levels of approximately 1.8 and 0.9 mSv, respectively. Considering that the average natural background exposure rate in the world is on the order of 2 mSv annually, with regions that range up to as much as 260 mSv (Ghiassi-Nejad et al. 2002), these are very low doses.Importantly, the background exposure rates were based not on actual measurements at children’s homes but on a geographic model. The authors noted they could not “exclude biases due to inaccurate exposure measurement.” It comes as no surprise, therefore, that the various hazard ratios are for the most part extremely low, and most of the 95% confidence intervals include the value of unity. Essentially, for children putatively exposed to a background dose rate exceeding 200 nSv/h, only the confidence intervals for all cancers, leukemias, and acute lymphoblastic leukemias exclude unity.This, taken seriously, would suggest a markedly increased cancer risk for these children, based on those exposure rates, but only if one begins by assuming that these levels of radiation contribute to producing cancers. There are numerous studies that show that such levels, in fact, elicit protective biological responses that lower the risk of cancer (Doss and Little 2014; Luckey 2008). Furthermore, given the very low attributed exposure rates and the imprecision in the actual exposure estimates, it is more likely than not that this increased childhood cancer occurrence is due to causes other than the background radiation exposure.For example, it is of interest that those children experiencing the highest estimated background dose rates are those who live in rural areas and in neighborhoods of lowest socioeconomic status. The authors state that adjustments were made for these two confounding factors, but since not much detail was provided regarding the adjustments made, the adequacy of the removal of these factors as causative contributions cannot be independently verified. Nevertheless, it is far more likely that these two factors are more important causes of childhood disease than the extremely low background exposures involved.Moreover, if it were true that exposure rates above 200 nSv/h, low though they be, were to somehow result in such a markedly increased cancer risk for children, the only reasonable governmental policy action would be to evacuate those children living in rural areas and poor neighborhoods, and relocate them to areas with lower radiation exposure in order to save lives. Failure to act in this manner would leave the government liable for allowing its younger citizens to die at an alarming rate. Studies like this cannot be taken seriously without such public health policy implications being likewise taken seriously.All authors are members or associate members of SARI (Scientists for Accurate Radiation Information, http://radiationeffects.org). SARI, as an organization, has no expenses and thus no funders. SARI’s aim is to provide empirical evidence and scientific reasoning to counter the linear no-threshold paradigm followed by radiation-related regulatory agencies around the world.ReferencesDoss M, Little MP. 2014. Point/counterpoint: low-dose radiation is beneficial, not harmful.Med Phys 41(7):070601; doi:10.1118/1.488109524989368. Crossref, Medline, Google ScholarGhiassi-Nejad M, Mortazavi SM, Cameron JR, Niroomand-rad A, Karam PA. 2002. Very high background radiation areas of Ramsar, Iran: preliminary biological studies.Health Phys 82(1):87-9311769138. Crossref, Medline, Google ScholarLuckey TD. 2008. The health effects of low-dose ionizing radiation.J Am Phys Surg 13(2):39-42. Google ScholarFiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited by Sacks B, Meyerson G and Siegel J (2016) Epidemiology Without Biology: False Paradigms, Unfounded Assumptions, and Specious Statistics in Radiation Science (with Commentaries by Inge Schmitz-Feuerhake and Christopher Busby and a Reply by the Authors), Biological Theory, 10.1007/s13752-016-0244-4, 11:2, (69-101), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2016. Related articlesResponse to “Comment on ‘Background Ionizing Radiation and the Risk of Childhood Cancer: A Census-Based Nationwide Cohort Study’” (Response 2)1 August 2015Environmental Health Perspectives Vol. 123, No. 8 August 2015Metrics About Article Metrics Publication History Originally published1 August 2015Published in print1 August 2015 Financial disclosuresPDF download License information EHP is an open-access journal published with support from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health. All content is public domain unless otherwise noted. Note to readers with disabilities EHP strives to ensure that all journal content is accessible to all readers. However, some figures and Supplemental Material published in EHP articles may not conform to 508 standards due to the complexity of the information being presented. If you need assistance accessing journal content, please contact [email protected]. Our staff will work with you to assess and meet your accessibility needs within 3 working days.