Deficiencies of advisory bodies
1. Advisory bodies did not follow basic scientific methods and principles
The advisory bodies accepted the unverified LNT hypothesis in the 1950s as a justification for recommending radiation safety policies such as: keep radiation doses as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA). The ALARA principle prevented prospective testing of the alternative radiation hormesis hypothesis when it was proposed in 1980 (Book: Hormesis with Ionizing Radiation, T.D. Luckey). This derailed the scientific method since the invalid hypothesis could not be rejected through testing. (Many retrospective studies were indeed performed, but due to their limitations, a definitive conclusion could not be reached on the subject, and after more than fifty years of intense study, there is still no agreement in the scientific community on even the basic question: Does low-dose radiation increase or decrease cancers?) Advisory bodies, with their recommendation of ALARA which discouraged study of low-dose radiation health effects and so violated the scientific method, are primarily responsible for this lack of scientific progress in this field. See (Doss, 2013).
The advisory bodies also violated the scientific principles by accepting the LNT hypothesis without data at low doses, but based on data at high doses only (Doss, 2014), (Calabrese, 2009).
2. Advisory bodies were not diligent in scrutinizing publications prior to using them
BEIR VII report quoted (Cardis, 2005) data as supportive evidence for the radiation cancer risk factors recommended by the report. This is a study of radiation workers from 15 countries that showed a slightly increased risk of cancer among the workers. On inspection of the data (see graph below) it would be obvious even to a casual observer that the Canadian data is inconsistent with other data and so should be re-evaluated:
In fact, in the text of the (Cardis, 2005) publication, it stated that if Canadian data were excluded, there was no significant excess risk of cancers in the radiation workers (All combined). Hence, BEIR VII committee should have asked for further investigation of the reason for the discrepancy of the Canadian data and not used the data. However, BEIR VII report chose to use these data.
CNSC investigated the discrepancey and reported in 2011 that problems had been identified in the Canadian data (CNSC, 2011), and CNSC withdrew the data from use. Hence, the conclusion of (Cardis, 2005), that there is increased cancer risk from low-dose radiation, would no longer be valid. The use of these data by BEIR VII report shows inadequate scrutiny in their evaluation of data.
3. Advisory bodies did not use the correct model for cancer and for the effect of low-dose radiation on cancer.
BEIR VII report (2005) also ignored the importanct role immune system plays in preventing cancers which has been known since the 1970s, e.g. (Allison, 1970) and (Hoover, 1973). It also ignored publications that showed stimulation of the immune system and reduction of cancers following low-dose radiation exposures, e.g. (Sakamoto, 2004), (Hashimoto, 1999), (Yu, 2004). Since the time of BEIR VII report, more evidence has accumulated for the importance of immune system in preventing cancers (Corthay, 2014) and the stimulation of the immune system by low-dose radiation (Yang, 2014).
4. Advisory bodies did not modify their recommendations when evidence contradicting the LNT model appeared