“The collected data strongly suggest that low-level radiation is not harmful, and is, in fact, frequently ‘apparently beneficial’ for human health.” —Kondo, 1993
Media reports of deaths and devastation produced by atomic bombs convinced people around the world that all ionizing radiation is harmful. This concentrated attention on fear of miniscule doses of radiation. Soon the linear no threshold (LNT) paradigm was converted into laws. Scientifically valid information about the health benefits from low dose irradiation was ignored. Here are studies which show increased health in Japanese survivors of atomic bombs. Parameters include decreased mutation, leukemia and solid tissue cancer mortality rates, and increased average lifespan. Each study exhibits a thresh- old that repudiates the LNT dogma. The average threshold for acute exposures to atom- ic bombs is about 100 cSv. Conclusions from these studies of atomic bomb survivors are:
• • •
One burst of low dose irradiation elicits a lifetime of improved health. Improved health from low dose irradiation negates the LNT paradigm. Effective triage should include radiation hormesis for survivor treatment.
Keywords: atomic bomb, cancer, health, lifespan, LNT, mutation
Most people believe the LNT (linear no threshold) paradigm for radi- ation and its corollary: all ionizing radiation is harmful. The devastation and harm from atomic bombs in Japan dominated the media and con- firmed the LNT dogma for people around the world. The LNT dogma must be true: it is in our texts; it is taught in schools and universities; it is constantly assumed in the media; and it is the law in many countries.
However, there is a fallacy. As the French philosopher, Jean de la Bruyere (1645-1696), noted: “The exact contrary of what is generally believed is often the truth.” (Bruyere, 1688). In order to make them believe the LNT dogma, radiobiologists have consistently misled students, physicians, professors, the media, the public, government advisory boards, and heads of nations. About thirty specific examples of this deception have been presented (Luckey, 2008a).
Address correspondence to Sir Samurai Thomas D. Luckey, PhD, 1719 Brandon Woods Dr., Lawrence KS, 66047, USA; Phone: 785-865-3860, Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
T. D. Luckey
This report reviews unpublicized studies of low dose exposures from atomic bombs in Japanese survivors. The consistent benefits from low dose exposures to radiation from atomic bombs negate the LNT para- digm and indicate a single exposure to low dose irradiation produces a lifetime of improved health.
Focus on harm from miniscule doses of ionizing radiation has blind- ed people to the benefits of low doses of ionizing radiation. For over a century it has been known that exposure of whole organisms to low doses of ionizing radiation consistently induces biopositive effects. These are recorded in over 3,000 reports (Luckey 1980, 1991, Muckerheide, 2002). No statistically valid scientific report was found in which low doses of ion- izing radiation showed harm for genetically normal humans or laborato- ry animals. Thus, the LNT dogma has no scientific support from whole body exposures in humans or laboratory animals. The elite committee of the French Academies of Sciences and the National Academy of Medicine agreed: “In conclusion, this report doubts the validity of using LNT in the evaluation of the carcinogenic risk of low doses (<100 mSv) and even more for very low doses (10 mSv).” (Auringo et al, 2005).
Knowledge about health benefits in Japanese survivors of uranium (Hiroshima), plutonium (Nagasaki), and hydrogen (fishermen) bombs resolves the hiatus between common knowledge and scientific data. Doses were estimated from position and shielding for each person in Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the time the bombs exploded. Except for the fishermen, the major doses were direct results from the bomb explosions and do not include radiation from fallout during travel thereafter. Exposures from air and the ingestion of food and water were ignored. Note: exposures from the papers of Shimizu et al. (1990, 1992a, 1992b) were estimated from ranges provided for each exposed cohort. Unfortunately, some of the early papers used cGy with the assumption that a neutron was equivalent to 1 cGy; however, the estimates for Nagasaki are valid. Control populations were sometimes poorly designat- ed. “In city” controls were taken from populations within 3 km of the epi- center of each bomb. “Not in city’ controls were taken from villages more than 3 km from the bomb epicenter. This has a large margin of error; the fallout was 20 cGy in a town over a small mountain and 3 km east of Nagasaki (Kondo, 1993).
A total of 86,543 persons were in the exposed cohorts of the two cities; 45,148 received up to 1 cSv and served as “in city controls”. These sur- vivors were sometimes more healthy than outside controls. Over 90% of the exposed cohorts received less than 50 cSv.
From the depths of devastation by atomic bombs, many Japanese sci- entists learned to accept the complete dose-response effects of ionizing radiation as a beneficial, required agent (Luckey 2007). Dr. Hattori, a leader in radiation hormesis, noted: “If radiation hormesis exists, our
Atomic bomb health benefits
daily activities in radiation management have been extremely erroneous.” (Hattori, 1994). Japan now leads the world in using atoms for peace. This includes more than nuclear power. Japan has several low dose radiation therapy clinics.
Atomic bomb destruction in Japan has been much publicized. This bias confirmed the LNT dogma for most people. Little or no publicity was given to the biopositive effects of atomic bombs in Japanese survivors. This review shows that benefits from atomic bombs consistently produced thresholds. Each threshold negates the LNT dogma.