Medical Self-Care

Article Tools

Image Gallery

Print

E-mail

Comments

RSS

MIXED REACTION

Martell's groundbreaking research report was received—for the most part—with indifference, a reaction that he attributes to the unfamiliarity of the ideas contained in the study. "You have to remember," says the scientist, "that the entire field of study concerned with the health effects of low-level radiation is considered new and controversial . . . most cigarette/ cancer researchers are still working on the chemistry of smoking, and as yet very little attention has been paid to its radiochemistry."

Ted Howard, a spokesman for the Tobacco Institute (the cigarette industry's lobbying organization in Washington), says that "several reputable scientific studies" have shown the warm particle theory to be "ludicrous". He cites, in particular, a 1980 Australian project that reported "no significant levels of alpha activity" in smokers' lungs. The catch, of course, is the word "significant". Although the Australian scientists found lower levels of alpha activity than those noted by advocates of the warm particle theory, the levels they reported were still ten tines greater than the alpha activity of lung cells not exposed to cigarette smoke.

BEIR Committee Chairman Radford said, "Martell hasn't proved the warm particle theory . . . but no one has refuted it, either. It is controversial, but it must be taken seriously." Radford added that he does remain skeptical of Martell's ideas about the specific role of alpha radiation in causing atherosclerosis.

Also skeptical—but eager to see more information—is Dr. Samuel Epstein, author of The Politics of Cancer and one of the nation's leading authorities on carcinogenesis. Epstein says the warm particle theory is "interesting", but he also cautions that "the question of causality has not yet been resolved" . . . particularly in regard to the relation between the 210's and atherosclerotic fat deposits. For that reason, he urges more research, noting, "I'm surprised by the lack of experimentation in the area.

" Ed Radford, however, is not so surprised. He maintains that the inertia surrounding the warm particle theory is largely due to the combined influence of two vested interests.

"The tobacco lobby and the nuclear energy lobby are two of the largest and most powerful in Washington," he says. "They don't control research funding, but I'd say they have a disproportionate influence over it. The nuclear industry doesn't want the warm particle theory to gain credibility because it would prove, once and for all, that low-level radiation is dangerous. That, in turn, would mean substantial downward revisions in radiation exposure limits . . . revisions the nuclear industry cannot afford. The tobacco industry, of course, doesn't want cigarettes labeled as radioactive, either. So it's a case where two major lobbies have parallel interests.

" The BEIR Committee—which includes several pronuclear scientists—has yet to pass judgment on Dr. Martell's findings . . . but Radford, for one, firmly believes that the concept provides the most likely explanation offered thus far for the development of lung cancer in smokers. He predicts "growing interest in the warm particle theory" in the next few years.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Dr. Tom Ferguson's quarterly journal,Medical Self-Care, is available for $15 per year from Medical SelfCare, Dept. TMEN, P.O. Box 717, Inverness, California 94937. A sample issue costs $4.00. Dr. Ferguson's book, also titled Medical Self-Care, can be ordered—for $8.95 plus 95¢ for shipping and handling—from Mother's Bookshelf®; P.O. Box 70, Hendersonville, North Carolina 28791.

RSS | Comments | E-mail | Print