Breaking the LNT Code: The First Detailed Evaluation of the Unpublished Technical Reports by the BEAR I Genetics...

The 1956 recommendation by the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation (BEAR) I Genetics Panel to transition from a threshold to a linear dose response model for hereditary effects had a profound impact on environmental/occupational risk assessment, affecting policies/practices of US regulatory agencies, having much influence on regulations worldwide to the present. The recommendation gained influence due to the authority of the NAS, the prestige of the Panel, and the claim of a striking degree of uniformity among six independent estimates of radiation-induced hereditary risk. This claim was orchestrated by panelist James Crow who removed conflicting findings from the nine panelists who submitted estimates, acting with the approval of the entire Panel. These misrepresentations were ensured by the US NAS President who refused to share the Panel's technical reports and related documents with the scientific community. Ironically, the mouse mutation rate data used by the panelists who calculated risk estimates for either mouse or Drosophila were incorrect due to falsification by panelist William Russell without their knowledge. This action led to greatly exaggerated mutation risks and enhanced their overall false impression of agreement/scientific convergence. The actions of Crow were such that the already grossly inflated and falsified risk estimates of the panelists were made to appear in reasonably good agreement. These massive and compounded errors and deceptions have significantly affected regulatory practices for cancer risk assessment in the US and globally to the present. The present paper provides for the first time in the scientific literature an assessment of the unpublished technical reports of each of the nine participating geneticists of the BEAR I Genetics Panel and provides the basis for the above critical conclusions.