Cancer risk assessment, its wretched history and what it means for public health

Edward J. Calabrese
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2024.2311300
2024-03-09
Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene
Abstract:EJC acknowledges longtime support from the US Air Force (AFOSR FA9550-19-1-0413) and ExxonMobil Foundation (S18200000000256). The U.S. Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute for governmental purposes notwithstanding any copyright notation thereon. The views and conclusions contained herein are those of the author and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing policies or endorsement, either expressed or implied. Sponsors had no involvement in study design, collection, analysis, interpretation, writing, and decision to and where to submit for publication consideration.
environmental sciences,public, environmental & occupational health
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
The paper primarily explores the history of cancer risk assessment and its significance for public health. The author, Edward J. Calabrese, points out in the text that the currently used Linear Non-Threshold (LNT) model has serious issues. This model assumes that any dose of radiation will increase cancer risk, even at extremely low doses. Professor Calabrese provides a detailed review of the development of cancer risk assessment over the past 100 years, specifically mentioning some key figures and events, such as Hermann J. Muller's views on radiation risk in his 1946 Nobel Prize speech, and how subsequent research has both challenged and supported these views. The article notes that some research findings by Muller and other scientists were misinterpreted or deliberately ignored to support the LNT model, whereas these studies actually do not prove that low-dose radiation also increases cancer risk. Additionally, the paper mentions the presence of bias, misleading information, and even dishonest behavior in certain scientific studies, often related to personal interests, political factors, and the power structure within the scientific community. For example, the article describes in detail a study by Ernst Caspari, which showed no observed genetic mutation effects at lower radiation doses, contradicting the LNT model. However, Caspari's mentor, Curt Stern, did not accept these findings and instead attempted to salvage the LNT model through other means. In summary, this paper attempts to reveal the issues present in the history of cancer risk assessment and calls on the scientific community and regulatory agencies to re-examine the existing LNT model to ensure that public health policies are based on more reliable and objective scientific evidence.