1. Deconstructing Linearity Kenneth L. Mossman Professor of Health Physics Director, Office of Radiation Safety Arizona State University Tempe, AZ

2. Deconstructing Linearity Nature of the debate Dose extrapolation Uncertainties in risk estimates Other predictive theories Problems / Solutions

3. The LNT Debate Economic costs –environmental clean up (>$100 billion) –regulatory compliance (>$10 billion/y) Fear of radiation –abortions following Chernobyl –mammography

4. Cost ($) Per Life Saved Cost of Regulation Viscusi, 1992 1990 US dollars Nuclear regulations not cost effective

5. The LNT Debate LNT Proponents Risk conservatism justified because of uncertainty in risk Precautionary principle LNT supported by LSS and other human data LNT is simple, easily explained to public LNT Opponents Regulatory compliance costs are excessive Fear of radiation at low doses LNT not supported by LSS and other human data Radiogenic risk is lower than predicted by LNT

6. The LNT Debate Very large extrapolation factors Very large uncertainties in risk at low doses Uncoupling regulatory decision making from predictive theories What is a “safe dose” Precautionary principle

7. Extrapolating Health Risks

8. Risk Uncertainty at Low Doses Lifetime cancer risk ~ 5%/Sv CL: ?? BEIR V: lower limit of risk includes zero at natural background levels Lifetime cancer risk ~ 5%/Sv 90% CL: 1.15-8.08%/Sv Dose Extrapolation Factor ~ 100 Probability of Radiogenic Cancer Dose (mSv) 0 10 20 30 200 400 600 800 1000

9. Uncertainties in Risk (NCRP 126) Population of all ages:5%/Sv Work population:4%/Sv 90% CL:1.15% - 8.08%/Sv

10. Sources of Uncertainty (NCRP 126) DDREF (40%) Population transfer (19.9%) Statistical uncertainties (4.2%) Dosimetric uncertainties (4.2%) Misclassification of cancer deaths (0.6%) Lifetime projection (0.5%) Unspecified uncertainties (30.6%) Uncertainty due to dose extrapolation (?)

11. Extrapolating To Low Dose And Low Dose Rate NCRP 126 Tumor incidence in animals exposed at HDR and LDR Curve A: Linear fit at HDR Curve B: Curvilinear fit to experimental data Curve C: Linear fit at LDR

12. LNT: To Be Or Not To Be? Evidence for LNT Uranium miner data Domestic radon exposure Total solid cancers in LSS Evidence against LNT Leukemia in A-bomb survivors Ecological studies of lung cancer from domestic radon exposure Total solid cancers in LSS

13. Hypotheses, Models and Theories Data Observations Theory Hypothesis Testing Conceptual Model

14. Models Lead to Theories ModelTheory Billiard balls collide and Kinetic theory of gases bounce off one another Bohr model of the atomQuantum theory Target model of radiation actionLinear no-threshold theory

15. LSS Data Supports Mutually Exclusive Theories TheorySource of DataComment Linear no-thresholdPierce et al., 1996The dose response for cancer mortality is linear down to 50 mSv Curvilinear or Little and MuirheadUpward curvature in dose response for threshold 1996 leukemia incidence and mortality; no curvature observed for solid cancers; evidence for threshold in non-melanoma skin cancer Curvilinear orHoel and Li, 1998A-bomb cancer incidence data agree more with thresholda threshold or nonlinear dose-response curve than a purely linear one although the linear dose-response is statistically equivalent SupralinearityPierce et al., 1996Excess relative risk per Sv increases with decreasing dose HormesisKondo, 1991Cancer mortality is reduced in male survivors of the Nagasaki bomb below ~50 mGy

16. LSS Data Supports Mutually Exclusive Theories RERF - LSS data Dose-response for pooled non- cancer disease mortality

17. Radon-Induced Lung Cancer Mortality: Support for LNT? Lubin and Boice, 1997 Meta-analysis of 8 indoor radon studies pooled analysis of uranium miner studies Cohen’s ecological study

18. Resilience of the Linear No-Threshold Theory External correction factors –e.g. DDREF Anomolous results explained –e.g. Radon ecological studies

19. The LNT Debate Problems High cost of environmental cleanup (one radioactive atom might cause cancer?) Radon gas in homes causes about 16,000 deaths/year according to EPA (support from epidemiology?) Radiophobia: IAEA estimates 100,000-200,000 Chernobyl related induced abortions in Western Europe (insignificant risk from small doses? threshold?) Solutions Continue epidemiological studies (LSS) recognizing limitations Mechanistic studies to clarify shape of dose-response curve (eliminate competing theories) Wingspread and Airlie Conferences –bridge policy and science –coherent system of regulations –use of best science available –Sen. Domenici - $18M to DOE

20. If Not LNT, Then What? No legal requirement to base regulations on predictive theories Avoid use of predictive theories Base exposure limits on annual average natural background levels in U.S. Base exposure limits on lowest dose at which statistically significant risk is observed