Manhattan Project genetic studies: Flawed research discredits LNT recommendations

• Published in: Environmental pollution (1987) Vol. 319; p. 120902
• Main Authors: Calabrese, Edward J., Agathokleous, Evgenios, Giordano, James, Selby, Paul B.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Elsevier Ltd 15.02.2023
• Subjects: animal models; Animals; dose response; Dose-rate; Dose-Response Relationship, Radiation; experimental design; genetics; History of science; Humans; Ionizing radiation; Linear Models; Manhattan project; Mice; Mutation; Neoplasms, Radiation-Induced; pollution; Radiation, Ionizing; Research Design; Risk Assessment; Ionizing radiation; Mutation; History of science; Manhattan project; Dose-rate; Risk assessment
• ISSN: 0269-7491; 1873-6424; 1873-6424
• DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2022.120902

This paper reexamines the technical report (∼ one page) of Uphoff and Stern (1949) in Science that was highly relied upon by the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation (BEAR) I Genetics Panel to support a linearity dose response for radiation risk assessment. The present paper demonstrates that research of Uphoff and Stern (1949) to evaluate whether total dose or dose rate best estimated radiation risks included two variables, thereby precluding the ability to accurately derive a reliable conclusion about this topic. Furthermore, the acute dose selected by Uphoff and Stern was given at a strikingly low dose rate that may have precluded the capacity to adequately test the total dose/dose rate hypothesis, even with a proper study design which also this research did not possess. The issue of total dose and dose rate was much later successfully addressed by Russell et al. (1958) using a murine model, yielding a dose-rate rather than a total dose conclusion. The failure to subject the experimental details of the Uphoff and Stern (1949) study to peer-review and publication in the open literature precluded a rigorous and necessary evaluation, profoundly and improperly impacting the adoption of the linear dose response model. [Display omitted] •Key historical study for cancer risk assessment was flawed.•Historical foundations for cancer risk assessment is challenged.•Linear dose response for cancer risk was founded on a scientific error.•The historical foundations of cancer risk assessment need revision.