On the biological effects of radiation

The electromagnetic radiations discussed here (X-rays and gamma rays) are highly penetrating radiations, and their biological effect is largely linked to the ionization of water. This ionization of water creates free radicals that damage macromolecules, particularly proteins and DNA, which can lead to cell death at a certain level of radiation. Cell death is primarily caused by DNA breaks that the cell was unable to repair. Cell death is the desired effect in radiotherapy.

At lower radiation doses, DNA damage can be compatible with cell survival. However, DNA alterations can be transmitted to daughter cells after cell division, and some of these alterations can contribute to the development of cancer. The carcinogenic effect will only affect one cell in a billion, but we have enough cells in our bodies for this effect to be concerning. It is evident that a cell that has been killed by radiation cannot develop cancer, so the carcinogenic effect cannot be understood by studying radiation at cytotoxic doses. Therefore, it is scientifically incomprehensible that there exists a unit, the Sievert, which claims to measure all the effects of ionizing radiation on humans.

Given the indisputable effect on DNA, the issue revolves around studying the dose-response relationship. However, in a unique manner in biology, a significant number of "scientists" in radiobiology do not consider the dose rate. Thus, the dose received in one second is treated on the same level as the same dose spread over a year, corresponding to natural background radiation. I do not believe there is a single field in biology or medicine where reasoning is done in this way, as if the free radicals produced by radiation persist indefinitely in the body. An equivalent proposition would be to say that since we tolerate two liters of alcohol in a year, we can easily consume two liters of pure alcohol in a single meal.

By not employing the rigor of biological sciences to analyze the dose-response relationship, radiobiology experts have resorted to modeling, where the parameters were not strongly based on observations. The main sources of data were the occurrence of cancers after atomic explosions. These data compel us to acknowledge that exposure to ionizing radiation is responsible for cancers, but they are largely insufficient to establish a dose-response relationship at the doses of interest to us, those used in imaging.

In practice, it would have been sufficient to focus on the literature data concerning imaging (as John Gofman did) to precisely define the risks of cancer caused by X-ray imaging. However, the results would have been too unfavorable for imaging. The data that form the basis of the currently used model, the Linear No-Threshold (LNT) model, which no one is currently able to defend, are missing data, as the confidence interval for the risk in individuals receiving low doses during atomic explosions is enormous. The LNT model is actually the result of a compromise between the desire of the nuclear lobby to set a very high threshold for the occurrence of cancers and Gofman's observations at doses used in medical imaging, which showed a high risk. However, a linear model does not correspond to what is generally observed in biology for dose-response relationships, most of which have the shape of a hyperbola. Yet, it is according to this model that radiobiologists judge the credibility of observations.

To summarize, X-rays are a proven source of DNA breaks and, therefore, cancer, and the modeling to assess the risk has been deliberately falsified.