[Contents]   [Post]


RACHELS ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #693 . . ---April 20, 2000--- . . HEADLINES:
. . THE MAJOR CAUSE OF CANCER--PART 3 . . ========== . . Environmental Research
Foundation . . P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403 . . Fax (410) 263-8944; E-mail:
erf@rachel.org . . ========== . . All back issues are available by E-mail: send
E-mail to . . info@rachel.org with the single word HELP in the message. . . Back
issues are also available from http://www.rachel.org. . . To start your own free
subscription, send E-mail to . . listserv@rachel.org with the words . . SUBSCRIBE
RACHEL-WEEKLY YOUR NAME in the message. . . The Rachel newsletter is now also
available in Spanish; . . to learn how to subscribe, send the word AYUDA in an
. . E-mail message to info@rachel.org. . =================================================================


John Gofman is a medical doctor with a Ph.D. degree in nuclear and physical
chemistry. He is professor emeritus of molecular and cell biology at University
of California, Berkeley, and a member of the faculty at University of California
Medical School at San Francisco. During his long career, he has pursued two
separate fields of research -- heart disease, and the health effects of low-level
radiation. He has won several awards for original research into the causes of
atherosclerosis, which is the growth of fatty "plaque" inside the
blood vessels, often causing fatal heart attacks. In 1974, the American College
of Cardiology selected him as one of the 25 leading researchers in cardiology
of the past quarter-century.

In the early 1960s, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) asked Gofman to
develop a Biomedical Research Division at the AECs Livermore National Laboratory
(LNL) to evaluate the health effects of all types of nuclear activities. In
1970, he became convinced that radiation was more dangerous than previously
believed, and he spoke out against Project Plowshare, the AECs plan to explode
hundreds of nuclear weapons to release gas trapped in rock beneath the Rocky
Mountains and to excavate new harbors and canals by exploding nuclear bombs
above-ground. (See REHW #691.) He also called for a 5-year moratorium on the
AECs plan to develop 1000 commercial nuclear power plants. By 1974, his government
funding was cut. He then began a series of books on the dangers of radiation:
CAUSE OF THIS DISEASE (1995; second edition, 1996); and RADIATION FROM MEDICAL

Gofman is a superb teacher. In his books, he explains the raw data, where it
came from, its shortcomings, how it might be improved (or why we are stuck with
what we have got). Then he moves the reader step by step toward his conclusions,
explaining each step for the novice as well as the expert. When he is forced
to make assumptions, he explains why he thinks he is making the right ones.
He often describes alternative assumptions and the effect they would have on
his conclusions. Nothing of importance is omitted. As a result, Gofmans books
are lengthy -- typically 500 to 900 pages filled with tables of data accompanied
by detailed explanations. The reader gets a thorough education in the topic,
satisfactory for both novice and professional. I consider Gofman one of the
greatest teachers of the 20th century. His work has already changed the way
the world views the dangers of radiation, and his latest book will -- eventually,
after a long fight -- revolutionize the way the world looks at medical radiation.
Cumulatively his work will save tens of millions of lives.

In his latest (1999) book, Gofman presents strong evidence that medical radiation
is a major cause of cancer AND of atherosclerosis (coronary heart disease).[5]
By "medical radiation" Dr. Gofman is referring mainly to x-rays, including
fluoroscopy and CT ("cat") scans. The mechanism is simple to state:
radiation causes genetic mutations, which eventually give rise to disease.

What is Gofman saying? Does he mean that medical radiation is necessarily the
ONLY cause of cancer and coronary heart disease? Certainly not. Does he mean
that cancer is NOT caused by smoking, poor diet, genetic inheritance, pesticides,
diesel exhaust, dioxin, and toxic chemicals encountered on the job? Certainly
not. Cancer and heart disease both have multiple causes. For a cancer (or an
atherosclerotic plaque) to develop, a cell must undergo several (probably 5
to 10) separate gene mutations. Some of these mutations might be inherited but
most occur from exposure to gene-damaging substances in the environment.

Here is a way to understand multiple causation. Gofman gives the following
hypothetical example of 100 cases of cancer:

** 40 cancers caused by co-action of x-rays + smoking + poor diet;

** 25 cancers caused by co-action of x-rays + poor diet + inherited genetic

** 25 cancers caused by co-action of x-rays + smoking + inherited genetic mutations;

** 10 cancers caused by co-action of smoking + poor diet + inherited genetic

In the first case, the 40 cancers are caused by genetic mutations that are,
in turn, caused by x-rays, smoking, and poor diet. Each of these three factors
is necessary for the cancer to occur; if any one of the three factors is missing,
the cancer will not occur.

We can see that, in this example, x-rays contribute to 40 + 25 + 25 = 90 cases
out of 100. In this example, if x-rays were not present, 90% of the cancers
would not occur. Now, in the same example, look at "poor diet." Poor
diet contributes to 40 + 25 + 10 = 75 of the 100 cases. If poor diet were not
present, 75% of the cancers in this example would not occur.

You can see that, in this example, we have x-rays "causing" 90% of
the cancers -- "causing" in the sense that the cancers wouldnot occur
in the absence of x-rays. But we also have poor diet "causing" 75%
of the same cancers, meaning that 75% of the cancers wouldnot occur in the absence
of poor diet.

Thus we can see that, when Gofman says x-rays are responsible for a large proportion
of all cancers in the U.S., he is NOT saying that x-rays are the ONLY cause
of those cancers. However, he IS saying that most of those cancers would not
occur in the absence of x-rays.

It is important to point out that Gofman is not opposed to medical x-rays.
Rather he is opposed to UNNECESSARY EXPOSURES from x-rays. He has shown over
the years -- and he is definitely not alone in this -- that medical x-ray exposures
in the U.S. could be cut by at least 50% with no loss of medical information.
The careful use of modern x-ray equipment and techniques can reduce x-ray exposures
by half (or more) without sacrificing any medical benefits. Thus at least half
the cancers caused by medical x-rays are completely unnecessary.

How many unnecessary cancers are we talking about? Gofman calculates that in
1993, 50% of all cancers in women and 74% of all cancers in men were attributable
to x-rays. In other words, about 60% of all cancers in the U.S. in 1993 were
attributable to x-rays. About 500,000 people die of cancer each year in the
U.S. If 60% of these deaths are attributable to x-rays and half are unnecessary,
we are talking about 150,000 unnecessary cancer deaths each year in the U.S.

Gofman calculates that the proportion of coronary heart disease (CHD) attributable
to x-rays is slightly higher than the proportion of cancers. Among men in 1993,
63% of CHD deaths were attributable to x-rays and among women, 78%. So, in rough
numbers, 70% of CHD deaths are attributable to x-rays, Gofman believes. Since
CHD caused roughly 460,000 deaths in the U.S. in 1993, if Gofman is right then
70% (or 322,000) of these deaths are attributable to x-rays and half of these,
or 161,000 are unnecessary. Thus we can see that x-rays are responsible for
about 150,000 + 161,000 = 311,000 unnecessary deaths each year in the U.S.,
if Gofman is right.

Gofmans study takes a novel approach, avoiding certain difficulties inherent
in all data linking medical radiation to health. Here are the difficulties:
there are no reliable estimates of the average per-capita radiation dose that
the U.S. population receives now from medical x-rays, or has received in the
past. (Gofman explains why in chapter 2.) Secondly, there are no reliable estimates
of the cancer risk per unit dose from medical x-rays because no one is sure
of the precise exposures received by various groups that have been studied for
cancer effects. (Again, see Gofmans chapter 2.)

Avoiding these difficulties, Gofman developed a novel approach: he found disease
statistics for the entire U.S. population, broken down into 9 census districts
(1940 to 1990 for cancer, and 1950 to 1990 for coronary heart disease). Then
he correlated these disease statistics, year by year, to the number of physicians
per 100,000 population in each of the 9 census districts. The density of physicians
per 100,000 population provides a RELATIVE measure of the medical radiation
per 100,000 population in the 9 districts, year by year.

Gofman shows that cancer death rates RISE in lock-step with increasing density
of physicians in a census district, while non-cancer deaths DECLINE in lock-step
with increasing density of physicians per 100,000 population EXCEPT in the case
of coronary heart disease (CHD), which follows the rising pattern of cancer.
Thus Gofmans hypothesis that CHD is linked to medical radiation "fell
out of the data." Because he had decades of experience researching the
causes of CHD (he has written three books on heart disease), and because he
knows the radiation literature so well, Gofman was able to put 2 and 2 together:
radiation induces mutations in the coronary arteries, giving rise to what he
calls "dysfunctional clones" (mini-tumors) in the smooth muscle lining
the arteries.

Interestingly, using his "physician density" method Gofman estimates
that medical radiation caused 83% of female breast cancer in the U.S. in 1993.
Using a completely different method, Gofman in 1995 had estimated that medical
radiation was responsible for 75% of U.S. breast cancer. The two estimates,
by two completely different methods, are remarkably similar.

It will not be easy to convince physicians to take special care to minimize
radiation to their patients. Familiarity breeds contempt and many physicians
and dentists treat x-rays as if they are entirely harmless. Recently I broke
a tooth. My dentist, who is first-rate, needed to document the injury for insurance
purposes. "I will just snap an x-ray," he said. I asked, "Is there
some other way?" He nodded and immediately scribbled a note: "I broke
my tooth and I dont want an X-ray." "Sign this," he said. "The
insurance company is required to accept it." One unnecessary x-ray avoided.

Next time someone says they are going to give you an x-ray, dont put them on
the spot but mention that you are curious what dose of radiation you will get.
If your experience is anything like mine, the person giving the x-ray will not
know the answer and you will be told, "Dont worry. Its completely safe."

But its not. --Peter Montague


[1] John W. Gofman, RADIATION & HUMAN HEALTH (San Francisco: Sierra Club
Books, 1981); ISBN 0-87156-275-8.

[2] John W. Gofman and Egan O\92Connor, X-RAYS -- HEALTH EFFECTS OF COMMON
EXAMS (San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1985); ISBN 0-87156-838-1.

ANALYSIS (San Francisco: Committee for Nuclear Responsibility, 1990; ISBN 0-932682-89-8.

[4] John W. Gofman (edited by Egan O Connor), PREVENTING BREAST CANCER (San
Francisco: Committee for Nuclear Responsibility, second edition, 1996); ISBN

[5] John W. Gofman (edited by Egan O Connor), RADIATION FROM MEDICAL PROCEDURES
for Nuclear Responsibility, 1999). ISBN 0-932682-98-7. Available for $27.00
from Committee for Nuclear Responsibility; telephone/fax: (415) 776-8299. E-mail:

Descriptor terms: radiation; x-rays; cancer; john gofman; heart disease;

################################################################ NOTICE In
accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 this material is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research
and educational purposes. Environmental Research Foundation provides this electronic
version of RACHELS ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY free of charge even though
it costs the organization considerable time and money to produce it. We would
like to continue to provide this service free. You could help by making a tax-deductible
contribution (anything you can afford, whether $5.00 or $500.00). Please send
your tax-deductible contribution to: Environmental Research Foundation, P.O.
Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403-7036. Please do not send credit card information
via E-mail. For further information about making tax-deductible contributions
to E.R.F. by credit card please phone us toll free at 1-888-2RACHEL, or at (410)
263-1584, or fax us at (410) 263-8944. --Peter Montague, Editor ################################################################

  [Posted by RACHELS ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY on 12/2/2004] Reply to this message