Hypothesis Testing and the Choice of the Dose-Response Model

  • Christian Streffer
  • H. Bolt
  • D. Føllesdal
  • P. Hall
  • J. G. Hengstler
  • P. Jakob
  • D. Oughton
  • K. Prieß
  • E. Rehbinder
  • E. Swaton
Chapter
Part of the Wissenschaftsethik und Technikfolgenbeurteilung book series (ETHICSSCI, volume 23)

Abstract

Scientists have been debating the shape of dose-response curves for ionising radiation since exposures were found to be harmful to health. The initial assumption was that there was a threshold to the appearance of a health detriment, including cancer. But developments in the knowledge and aetiology of cancer led toxicologists to first suggest a non-threshold model during the early 1960s (Roderick 1992). Since that time a number of models have been suggested, and present work in health physics, toxicology and epidemiology is concerned with questions about both the shape of the dose-response curve and whether or not a threshold exists.

Keywords

Toxicity Lymphoma Radium Explosive Radionuclide 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barcellos-Hoff MH, Brooks AL (2001) Extracellular signaling through the microenvironment: a hypothesis relating carcinogenesis; bystander effects, and genomic instability. Radiat Res 156: 618–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Becker K (1997) On the low dose problem in radiation protection. Swedish Radiation Protection Institute, SSI News 1:7Google Scholar
  3. Black D (1984) Investigation of the possible increased incidence of cancer in Cumbria. HMSO, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Bland JM (1994) Cancer in nuclear test veterans — statistical analysis inappropriate. Brit Med J 308:339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Calabrese EJ, Baldwin LA (2003) Toxicology rethinks its central belief. Nature 421: 691–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Caldicott H (1994) Nuclear Madness (revised edition, 1st edition 1978). WW Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Chalmers AF (1982) What is this thing called Science? (2nd edition) Open University Press, Milton KeynesGoogle Scholar
  8. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment [CCME] (1997) Protocol for the derivation of Canadian tissue residue guidelines for the protection of wildlife that consume aquatic biota. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, Water Quality Guidelines Task Group, Winnipeg, also http://www.ec.gc.ca/ceqg-rcqe/English/Html/tissue_protocol.cfm Google Scholar
  9. Committee on the Medical Aspects of Radioactivity in the Environment [COMARE] (1988) Investigation of the possible increased incidence of leukaemia in young people near Dounreay Nuclear Establishment, Caithness, Scotland. HMSO, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Committee on the Medical Aspects of Radioactivity in the Environment [COMARE] (1989) Report on the incidence of childhood cancer in the West Berkshire and North Hampshire area, in which are situated the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment, Aldermaston and the Royal Ordnance Factory, Burghfield. HMSO, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Cook-Mozaffari P, Darby S, Doll R (1989) Cancer near potential sites of nuclear installations. Lancet 2(8672): 1145–1147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Craft AW, Parker L, Openshaw S, Charlton M, Newell J, Birch JM, Blair V (1993) Cancer in young people in the north of England, 1968–85: analysis by census wards. J Epidemiol Community Health 47(2): 109–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Crane JA (1987) Risk assessment as a social research. In: Durbin PT (ed) Technology and responsibility. Dordrecht Reidel, Boston, pp 279–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cranor C, Nutting K (1990) Scientific and legal standards of statistical evidence in toxic tort and discrimination suits. Law Philos 9: 115–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Darby SC, Kendall GM, Fell GP, O’Hagan JA, Muirhead CR, Ennis JR, Ball AM, Dennis JA, Doll R (1988) A summary of mortality and incidence of cancer in men from the United Kingdom who participated in the United Kingdom’s atmospheric nuclear weapons test and experimental programmes. Brit Med J 296:332–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Darby SC, Kendall GM, Fell TP, Doll R, Goodill AA, Conquest AJ, Jackson DA, Haylock RGE (1993) Further follow-up of mortality and incidence of cancer in men from the United Kingdom who participated in the United Kingdom atmospheric nuclear weapon tests and experimental programs. Brit Med J 307: 1530–1535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Day M (1992) The Sellafield leukaemia claims. Student Law Review, Spring 1992: 27–28Google Scholar
  18. Day M (1990) Suing the goliath. Legal Action, May: 7Google Scholar
  19. Doll R (1989) The epidemiology of childhood leukaemia. JR Statist Soc Ser A 152: 342–351Google Scholar
  20. Doll R, Evans HJ, Darby SC (1994) Parental exposure not to blame. Nature 367: 678–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Draper GJ, Stiller RA, Cartwright RA, Craft AW, Vincent TJ (1993) Cancer in Cumbria and in the vicinity of the Sellafield nuclear installation 1963–1990. Brit Med J 306: 89–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Edwards R 1996. Written out of history. New Scientist, 18th May, 2030: 14Google Scholar
  23. European Commission (2002) Stakeholder Conference on Protection of the Environment, 2–3. December, 2002, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  24. European Commission (1996) Technical Guidance document in support of Commission Directive 93/67/EEC on risk assessment for new notified substances and Commission Regulation no 1488/94 on risk assessment for existing substances. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, LuxemburgGoogle Scholar
  25. Filyushkin IV (1991) Concept of a «lifetime dose» of 350 mSv. Health Phys 61: 401–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Føllesdal D, Walløe L, Elster J (1996) Argumentasjonsteori, Språk og Vitenskapsfilosofi (6th edition) (in Norwegian). Universitetsforlaget, OsloGoogle Scholar
  27. Feinendegen LE, Pollycove M (2001) Biologic response to low doses of ionizing radiation: Detriment versus hormesis. Part 1: Dose responses of cells and tissues. J Nucl Med 42: 17N–25NGoogle Scholar
  28. Gardner MJ, Snee MP, Hall AJ, Powell CA, Downes S, Terrell J (1990a) Results of case-control study of leukaemia and lymphoma among young people near Sellafield nuclear planet in West Cumbria. Brit Med J 300: 423–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gardner MJ, Hall AJ, Snee MP, Downes S, Powell CA, Terrell J (1990b) Methods and basic data of case control study of leukaemia and lymphoma among young people near Sellafield nuclear plant in West Cumbria. Brit Med J 300: 429–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Goodman N (1961) Safety, Strength, Simplicity. Philos Sci 28: 150–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Health and Safety Executive [HSE] (1993) Health and safety executive investigation of leukaemia and other cancers in the children of male workers at Sellafield. Health and Safety Executive, LondonGoogle Scholar
  32. Heasman MA, Kemp IW, Urquhart JD, Black R (1986) Childhood leukaemia in Northern Scotland. Lancet 1(8475): 266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hinton T (2000) Strong inference, science fairs and radioecology. J Environ Radioactiv 51: 277–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Howarth S (1992) High court claims “totally unfounded”. BNFL News, August 1992, British Nuclear Fuels plc, Manchester, p 13Google Scholar
  35. International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] (2001) Summary report of the specialists meeting on environmental protection from the effects of ionizing radiation: international perspectives, held from 26 to 29 November 2001, Vienna. Ref.: 723-J9-SP-1114.3. IAEA, Department of Nuclear Safety, Division of Radiation and Waste Safety, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  36. International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] (2002) Ethical considerations in protection of the environment from the effects of ionizing radiation. IAEA-TECDOC-1270, IAEA, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  37. International Commission on Radiological Protection [ICRP] (1977) ICRP Publication 26. Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Annals of the ICRP 1(3), Pergamon Press, Oxford, reprinted with additions 1987Google Scholar
  38. International Commission on Radiological Protection [ICRP] (1990) ICRP Publication 60. Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Annals of the ICRP 21(1–3), Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1991Google Scholar
  39. International Commission on Radiological Protection [ICRP] (2002) ICRP Publication 91. A Framework for Assessing the Impact of Ionising Radioation on Non-human Species. Pergamon Press, Oxford 2003Google Scholar
  40. International Union of Radioecology [IUR] (2000) Doses and effects in non-human systems. Work of the IUR Environmental Transfer Action Group 1997–1999. IUR, OsterasGoogle Scholar
  41. International Union of Radioecology [IUR] (2002) Protection of the environment from radiation: present status and future work. IUR, OsterasGoogle Scholar
  42. Ishimaru T, Ichimaru M, Mikami M (1981) Leukemia incidence among individuals exposed in utero, children of atomic bomb survivors, and their controls, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 1945–79. Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF), Technical Report No. 11–81Google Scholar
  43. Jaworowski Z (1999) Radiation risk and ethics. Phys Today 52(9): 24–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Jeffrey R (1956) Valuation and acceptance of scientific hypothesis. Philos Sci 23: 237–246 (Paper reprinted in Jeffrey 1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Jeffrey R (1992) Probability and the Art of Judgement. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Joiner MC, Lambin P, Malaise EP, Arrand JE, Skov KA, Marples B (1996) Hypersensitivity to very low single radiation doses: its relationship to the adaptive response and induced radioresistant. Mut Res 358: 171–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Joiner MC, Lambin P, Marples B (1999) Adaptive response and induced resistance. CR Acad Sci, Ser. III, Life Sciences 322: 167–175Google Scholar
  48. Kashparov VA, Oughton DH, Protsak VP, Zvarisch SI, Protsak VP, Levchuk SE (1999) Kinetics of fuel particle weathering and 90Sr mobility in the Chernobyl 30 km exclusion zone. Health Phys 76:251–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Katz DL (2001) Clinical epidemiology and evidence based medicine: fundamental principles of clinical reasoning and research. Sage Publishing, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  50. Kinlen LJ (1989) The relevance of population mixing to the aetiology of childhood cancer. In: Crosbie WA, Gitrus JH (eds) Medical response to effects of ionising radiation. Elsevier, London, pp 272–278Google Scholar
  51. Kinlen LJ (1993) Can parental preconceptional irradiation account for the increase of leukaemia and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in Seascale? Brit Med J 306: 1718–1721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kuhn T (1970) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  53. Kyburg H (1961) Probability and the logic of rational belief. Wesleyan University Press, Middle-town, CT, pp 196–199Google Scholar
  54. Lakatos I (1970) Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In: Lakatos I Musgrove A (eds) Criticism and the growth of knowledge. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  55. Lewis EB (1957) Leukaemia and ionizing radiation. Science 125: 2355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lindell B, Malmfors T (1994) Comprehending radiation risks. In: Lindell B, Malmfors T, Lagerlöf E, Thedéen T, Walinder G (eds) Radiation and society: comprehending radiation risk. Proc Int Conf (Vol. 1) IAEA, Vienna, pp 7–18Google Scholar
  57. McGovern D, Valori R, Levi M, Summerskill W (2001) Key topics in evidence-based medicine. BIOS Scientific Publishers, Milton ParkGoogle Scholar
  58. McLaughlin JR, King WD, Anderson TW, Clarke EA, Ashmore JP (1993) Parental exposure and leukaemia in offspring: the Ontario case control study. Brit Med J 307: 959–965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Meeran R (1992) Scientific and legal standards of proof in environmental personal injury cases. Lancet 339(8794): 671–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Michaels J, Keller B, Haaf G, Kaatsch P (1992) Incidence of childhood malignancies in the vicinity of West German nuclear power plants. Cancer Cause Control 3: 255–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Mossman KL, Goldman M, Masse F, Mills WA, Schiager KJ, Vetter RJ (1996) Health Physics Society position statement: radiation risk in perspective. Health Physics Society (HPS) Newsletter 14(3): 3Google Scholar
  62. Muller HJ (1927) Artificial transmutation of the gene. Science 66: 84–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Organisation for Economic Co-opration and Development [OECD] (2003) Radiological Protection of the Environment: The Path forward to a New Policy? Workshop Proceedings, Taormina, Sicily, Italy 12–14 February 2002. OECD Publications, Washington, pp 29–32Google Scholar
  64. Neel JY, Schull WJ (1991) The children of the atomic bomb survivors: a genetic study. National Academy Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  65. Nozick R (1993) The nature of rationality. Princeton University Press. Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  66. Nussbaum RH (1998) The linear no-threshold dose-effect relation: is it relevant to radiation protection regulation? Med Phys 25: 291–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Nussbaum RH, Köhnlein W (1994) Inconsistencies and open questions regarding low -dose health effects of ionising radiation. Environ Health Persp 102: 656–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. O’Riordan MC (ed) (1996) Becquerel’s legacy: a century of radioactivity. Proceedings of a conference, London, February 29 & March 1 1996. Radiat Prot Dosim 68 (1/2), Nuclear Technology Publishers, AshfordGoogle Scholar
  69. Oughton DH (2003) Protection of the environment against ionising radiation: ethical issues. J Environ Radioactiv 66(1–2): 3–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Oughton DH, Salbu B, Brand TL, Day JP, Aarkrog A (1993) Under-determination of strontium-90 in soils containing particles of irradiated uranium oxide fuel. Analyst 118: 1101–1105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Pampfer S, Streffer C (1989) Increased chromosome aberration levels in cell form mouse fetuses after zygote x-irradiation. Int J Radiat Biol 55(1): 85–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Parker L, Craft AW, Smith J, Dickinson H, Wakeford R, Binks K, McElveney D, Scott L, Slovak A (1993) The geographical distribution of preconceprual radiation doses of fathers employed at the Sellafield nuclear installation, West Cumbria. Brit Med J 307: 966–971CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Parker L, Pearce MS, Dickinson HO, Aitkin M, Craft AW (1999) Stillbirths among offspring of male radiation workers at Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant. Lancet 354: 1407–1414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Patterson HW (1997) Setting standards for radiation protection: the process appraised. Health Phys 72: 450–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Pentreath RJ (1998) Radiological protection for the natural environment. Radiat Prot Dosim 75: 175–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Pentreath RJ (1999) A Ssystem for radiological protection of the environment: some initial thoughts and lieas. J Radiol Prot 19 117–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Pochin E (1983) Nuclear radiation: risks and benefits. Oxford Science Publications, Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  78. Pollycove M, Feinendegen LE (2001) Biologic response to low doses of ionizing radiation: detriment versus hormesis. Part 2: dose responses of organisms. J Nucl Med 42: 26N–32NGoogle Scholar
  79. Popper K (1998) Science: conjectures and refutations. In: Klemke ED, Hollinger R, Wyss Rudge D (eds) Introductory readings in the philosophy of science. Promtheus Books, Amherst pp 38–47Google Scholar
  80. Pugh C, Day M (1992) Toxic torts. Cameron May, LondonGoogle Scholar
  81. Reay/Hope v. British Nuclear Fuels plc. (1993) 1990 R No 860, 1989 H No 3689; Med L Rev 1Google Scholar
  82. Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu [RIVM](1999): Environmental Risk Limits in the Netherlands. Part I Procedure. RIVM, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment. 601640001Google Scholar
  83. Rodricks JV (1992) Calculated risks: the toxicity and human health risks of chemicals in our environment. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  84. Roman E, Beral V, Carpenter L, Watson A, Barton C, Ryder H (1987) Childhood leukaemia in relation to nuclear establishments. Brit Med J 294: 597–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Roman E, Watson A, Beral V, Buckle S, Bull D, Baker K, Ryder H, Barton C (1993) Case-control study of leukaemia and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma among children aged 0–4 years living in West Berkshire and North Hampshire health districts. Brit Med J 306: 615–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Ruse M (1993) Is the theory of punctuated equilibrium a new paradigm? In: Ruse M (ed) The Darwinian paradigm, essays on its history, philosophy, and religious implications. Routledge, London, pp 118–145Google Scholar
  87. Sheffler I (1982) Science and Subjectivity. 2nd edition. Hackett, Indianapolis, IN Shrader-Frechette KS (1985) Risk analysis and scientific method. Reidel, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  88. Shrader-Frechette KS (1991) Risk and rationality. University of California Press, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  89. Shrader-Frechette KS (1994) Ethics of scientific research. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MDGoogle Scholar
  90. Simmonds J, Watt D (1999) Radiation protection dosimetry: a radical reappraisal. Medical Physics Publishing, Madison, WIGoogle Scholar
  91. Strand P, Larsson CM (2001) Delivering a framework for the protection of the environment from ionizing radiation. In: Bréchignac F, Howard BJ (eds) Radioactive pollutants, impact on the environment, Collection IPSN, EDP Sciences, les Veix, pp 131–145Google Scholar
  92. Strand P, Oughton DH (ed) (2002) Radiation Protection in the 21st Century: Consensus Conference on Protection of the Environment, NKS/IUR, OsterasGoogle Scholar
  93. Streffer C, Bücker J, Cansier A, Cansier D, Gethmann CF, Guderian R, Hanekamp G, Henschler D, Pöch G, Rehbinder E, Renn O, Slesina M, Wuttke K (2000) Umweltstandards: kombinierte Expositionen und ihre Auswirkungen auf die Umwelt. Wissenschaftsethik und Technikfolgenbeurteilung, Bd. 5. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  94. Thomson JJ (1986) Rights, restitution, and risk. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  95. Tubiana M (1998) The report of the French Academy of Sciences: problems associated with the effects of low doses of ionising radiation. J Radiol Prot 18: 243–248 (see also letter in New Scientist, 2nd December 1995)Google Scholar
  96. United Nations [UN] (1992) Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. A/CONF.151/26 (Vol. I) United Nations General Assembly, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  97. United Nations [UN] (2002) World Summit on Sustainable Development, JohannesburgGoogle Scholar
  98. US Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] (1998) Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA Report, EPA/630/R-95/002F. Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  99. Yoshimoto Y, Neel JV, Schull WJ, Kato H, Soda M, Eto R, Mabuchi K (1990) Malignant tumours during the first two decades of life in the offspring of atomic bomb survivors. Am J Hum Genet 46: 1041–1052Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian Streffer
    • 1
  • H. Bolt
  • D. Føllesdal
  • P. Hall
  • J. G. Hengstler
  • P. Jakob
  • D. Oughton
  • K. Prieß
  • E. Rehbinder
  • E. Swaton
  1. 1.EssenGermany

Personalised recommendations