The threshold vs LNT showdown: Dose rate findings exposed flaws in the LNT model part 1. The Russell-Muller debate.

This paper assesses the discovery of the dose-rate effect in radiation genetics and how it challenged fundamental tenets of the linear non-threshold (LNT) dose response model, including the assumptions that all mutational damage is cumulative and irreversible and that the dose-response is linear at low doses. Newly uncovered historical information also describes how a key 1964 report by the International Commission for Radiological Protection (ICRP) addressed the effects of dose rate in the assessment of genetic risk. This unique story involves assessments by two leading radiation geneticists, Hermann J. Muller and William L. Russell, who independently argued that the report's Genetic Summary Section on dose rate was incorrect while simultaneously offering vastly different views as to what the report's summary should have contained. This paper reveals occurrences of scientific disagreements, how conflicts were resolved, which view(s) prevailed and why. During this process the Nobel Laureate, Muller, provided incorrect information to the ICRP in what appears to have been an attempt to manipulate the decision-making process and to prevent the dose-rate concept from being adopted into risk assessment practices.

[1]  E. Calabrese.  Key studies used to support cancer risk assessment questioned , 2011, Environmental and molecular mutagenesis.

[2]  E. Caspari,et al.  The Influence of Chronic Irradiation with Gamma-Rays at Low Dosages on the Mutation Rate in DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER. , 1948, Genetics.

[3]  E. Calabrese.  Cancer risk assessment foundation unraveling: New historical evidence reveals that the US National Academy of Sciences (US NAS), Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation (BEAR) Committee Genetics Panel falsified the research record to promote acceptance of the LNT , 2015, Archives of Toxicology.

[4]  Edward J Calabrese,et al.  LNTgate: How scientific misconduct by the U.S. NAS led to governments adopting LNT for cancer risk assessment. , 2016, Environmental research.

[5]  B. Dale,et al.  DNA damage and repair in human oocytes and embryos: a review , 2010, Zygote.

[6]  E. Calabrese.  Muller's Nobel Prize Lecture: when ideology prevailed over science. , 2012, Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[7]  Edward J. Calabrese,et al.  Origin of the linearity no threshold (LNT) dose–response concept , 2013, Archives of Toxicology.

[8]  Edward J. Calabrese,et al.  The road to linearity: why linearity at low doses became the basis for carcinogen risk assessment , 2009, Archives of Toxicology.

[9]  W. Russell.  Genetic hazards of radiation. , 1963 .

[10]  T. C. Carter,et al.  Recessive lethal mutation induced in the mouse by chronic γ-irradiation , 1957, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B - Biological Sciences.

[11]  E. Calabrese.  The threshold vs LNT showdown: Dose rate findings exposed flaws in the LNT model part 2. How a mistake led BEIR I to adopt LNT , 2017, Environmental research.

[12]  W. Russell.  X-ray-induced mutations in mice. , 1951, Cold Spring Harbor symposia on quantitative biology.

[13]  C. Stern,et al.  Experiments to Test the Validity of the Linear R-Dose/Mutation Frequency Relation in Drosophila at Low Dosage. , 1948, Genetics.

[14]  W. Russell.  Effect of radiation dose rate on mutation in mice. , 1961, Journal of cellular and comparative physiology.

[15]  Gilbert F. Whittemore.  The national committee on radiation protection, 1928-1960 : from professional guidelines to government regulation , 1986 .

[16]  E. Friedberg.  A brief history of the DNA repair field , 2008, Cell Research.

[17]  H. Muller.  Radiation damage to the genetic material. , 1950, American scientist.

[18]  W. Russell,et al.  Radiation Dose Rate and Mutation Frequency , 1958, Science.

[19]  E. Calabrese.  Muller’s Nobel lecture on dose–response for ionizing radiation: ideology or science? , 2011, Archives of Toxicology.

[20]  H. Scherthan,et al.  DNA Double Strand Break Response and Limited Repair Capacity in Mouse Elongated Spermatids , 2015, International journal of molecular sciences.

[21]  E. Calabrese.  On the origins of the linear no-threshold (LNT) dogma by means of untruths, artful dodges and blind faith. , 2015, Environmental research.

[22]  E. Calabrese.  An abuse of risk assessment: how regulatory agencies improperly adopted LNT for cancer risk assessment , 2015, Archives of Toxicology.

[23]  D. Uphoff,et al.  The Genetic Effects of Low Intensity Irradiation. , 1948, Science.

[24]  W. Russell.  Comparison of X-Ray-Induced Mutation Rates in Drosophila and Mice , 1956, The American Naturalist.

[25]  W. L. Russell,et al.  The effect of radiation dose rate and fractionation on mutation in mice. , 1963 .

[26]  W. Russell.  Reminiscences of a mouse specific‐locus test addict , 1989, Environmental and molecular mutagenesis.

[27]  J. C. Jolly.  Thresholds of uncertainty : radiation and responsibility in the fallout controversy , 2003 .