Muller misled the Pugwash Conference on radiation risks

References

• Albert RE. 1994. Carcinogen risk assessment in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Crit Rev Toxicol. 24(1):75–85. doi:10.3109/10408449409017920.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anonymous. 1957. Pugwash statement. Science 126:199–200.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Calabrese EJ. 2009. The road to linearity: why linearity at low doses became the basis for carcinogen risk assessment. Arch Toxicol. 83(3):203–225. doi:10.1007/s00204-009-0412-4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calabrese EJ. 2011a. Key studies to support cancer risk assessment questioned. Environ Mol Mutagen. 52(8):595–606. doi:10.1002/em.20662.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calabrese EJ. 2011b. Toxicology rewrites its history and rethinks its future: giving equal focus to both harmful and beneficial effects. Environ Toxicol Chem. 30(12):2658–2673. doi:10.1002/etc.687.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calabrese EJ. 2013. Origin of the linearity no threshold (LNT) dose-response concept. Arch Toxicol. 87(9):1621–1633. doi:10.1007/s00204-013-1104-7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calabrese EJ. 2015. On the origins of the linear no-threshold (LNT) dogma by means of untruths, artful dodges, and blind faith. Environ Res. 142:432–442. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2015.07.011.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calabrese EJ. 2017a. Flaws in the LNT single-hit model for cancer risk: an historical assessment. Environ Res. 158:773–788. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2017.07.030.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calabrese EJ. 2017b. The threshold vs LNT showdown: dose rate findings exposed flaws in the LNT model. Part 1. The Russell-Muller debate. Environ Res. 154:435–451. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2016.12.006.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calabrese EJ. 2017c. The threshold vs LNT showdown: dose rate findings exposed flaws in the LNT model. Part 2. How a mistake led BEIR I to adopt LNT. Environ Res. 154:452–458. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2016.11.024.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calabrese EJ. 2018. From Muller to mechanism: how LNT became the default model for cancer risk assessment. Environ Pollut. 241:289–302. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2018.05.051.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calabrese EJ. 2019a. The linear no-threshold (LNT) dose response model: a comprehensive assessment of its historical and scientific foundations. Chem Biol Interact. 301:6–25. doi:10.1016/j.cbi.2018.11.020.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calabrese EJ. 2019b. EPA adopts LNT: new historical perspectives. Chem Biol Interact. 308:110–112. doi:10.1016/j.cbi.2019.05.027.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calabrese EJ. 2020. The Muller-Neel dispute and the fate of cancer risk assessment. Environ Res. 190:109961. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2020.109961.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Calabrese EJ. 2021a. LNT and cancer risk assessment: its flawed foundations. Environ Res. 197:111025. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2021.111025.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calabrese EJ. 2021b. LNT and cancer risk assessment: its flawed foundations. Part 2: how unsound LNT science became accepted. Environ Res. 197:111041. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2021.111041.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calabrese EJ. 2022a. Key historical study findings questioned in debate over threshold versus linear non-threshold for cancer risk assessment. Chem Biol Interact. 359:109917. doi:10.1016/j.cbi.2022.109917.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calabrese EJ. 2022b. Linear non-threshold (LNT) fails numerous toxicological stress tests: implications for continued policy use. Chem Biol Interact. 365:110064. doi:10.1016/j.cbi.2022.110064.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calabrese EJ, Agathokleous E, Giordano J, Selby PB. 2023. Manhattan project genetic studies: flawed research discredits LNT recommendations. Environ Pollut. 319:120902. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2022.120902.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calabrese EJ, Selby PB. 2022. Cover up and cancer risk assessment: prominent US scientists suppressed evidence to promote adoption of LNT. Environ Res. 210:112973. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2022.112973.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campos LA. 2006. Radium and the secret of life [Dissertation]. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University.
   Google Scholar
• Carlson EA. 1981. Genes radiation and society: the life and work of H.J. Muller. Ithaca (NY): Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cosgrove GE, Selby PB, Upton A, Mitchell TJ, Steele MH, Russell WL. 1993. Lifespan and autopsy findings in the first generation offspring of X-irradiated male mice. Mutat Res. 319(1):71–79. doi:10.1016/0165-1218(93)90032-9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Crow JF, Abrahamson S. 1997. Seventy years ago: mutations become experimental. Genetics. 147(4):1491–1496. doi:10.1093/genetics/147.4.1491.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DuShane G. 1957. Loaded dice. Science. 125(3255):963–963. doi:10.1126/science.125.3255.963.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glad J. 2003. Hermann J, Muller’s 1936 Letter to Stalin. MQ. 43(3):305–319. doi:10.46469/mq.2003.43.3.4.
   Google Scholar
• Joint Committee on Atomic Energy (JCAE) of the Congress of the United States. 1957. Hearings of the nature of radioactive fallout and its effects on man. Washington (DC): Government Printing Office.
   Google Scholar
• Lefevre G, Jr. 1949. A comparison of x-ray induced genetic effects in germinal and somatic tissue of Drosophila melanogaster [Degree of Doctor of Philosophy]. Graduate School of the University of Missouri.
   Google Scholar
• Lefevre G, Jr. 1950. X-ray induced genetic effects in germinal and somatic tissue of Drosophila melanogaster. Am Nat. 84:341–365.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis EB. 1957. Leukemia and ionizing radiation. Science. 125(3255):965–972. doi:10.1126/science.125.3255.965.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muller HJ. 1927. Artificial transmutation of the gene. Science. 66(1699):84–87. doi:10.1126/science.66.1699.84.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Muller HJ. 1928a. The problem of genic modification. Zeitchr Indukt Abstam U Vererbungsl Suppl. 1:234–260.
   Google Scholar
• Muller HJ. 1928b. The production of mutations by X-rays. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 14(9):714–726. doi:10.1073/pnas.14.9.714.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Muller HJ. 1946. Nobel Prize Lecture. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/1946/muller/lecture/.
   Google Scholar
• Muller HJ. 1956. The relation between chromosome changes and gene mutations. Brookhaven Symp Biol. 8:126–147.
   Google Scholar
• Muller HJ. 1957. Potential hazards of radiation. Lilly Library, University of Indiana, Muller File Manuscript of Pugwash Conference.
   Google Scholar
• National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council (NAS/NRC). 1956. Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation (BEAR). Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• National Academy of Sciences/Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NAS/NRC). 1972. Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR I). Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• Neel JV, Schull WJ. 1956a. The effect of exposure to the atomic bombs on pregnancy termination in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Vol. 461. Washington (DC): NAS/NRC., Publ.
   Google Scholar
• Neel JV, Schull WJ. 1956b. Studies on the potential genetic effects of the atomic bombs. Acta Genet Stat Med. 6(2):183–196. doi:10.1159/000150821.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rabinowitch E. 1957. Pugwash-history and outlook. Bull Atomic Sci. 13(7):243–248. doi:10.1080/00963402.1957.11457568.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ray-Chaudhuri SP. 1939. The validity of the Bunsen-Roscoe Law in the production of mutation by radiation of extremely low intensity [dissertation]. University of Edinburgh.
   Google Scholar
• Rotblat J. 2001. The early days of Pugwash. Phys. Today. 54(6):50–55. doi:10.1063/1.1387592.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russell WL. 1951. X-ray-induced mutations in mice. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol. 16(0):327–336. doi:10.1101/sqb.1951.016.01.024.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Russell WL. 1957. Shortening of life in the offspring of male mice exposed to neutron radiation from an atomic bomb. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 43(4):324–329. doi:10.1073/pnas.43.4.324.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russell LB, Russell WL. 1996. Spontaneous mutations recovered as mosaics in the mouse specific-locus test. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 93(23):13072–13077. doi:10.1073/pnas.93.23.13072.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwart LE. 1967. Perspective on Pugwash. Intern Affairs. 43:498–515.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Selby PB. 2020. The Selby-Russell dispute regarding the nonreporting of critical data in the mega-mouse experiments of Drs William and Liane Russell that spanned many decades; what happened, current status, and some ramifications. Dose Response. 18(1):1559325819900714. doi:10.1177/1559325819900714.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Selby PB, Calabrese EJ. 2023. How self-interest and deception led to the adoption of the linear non-threshold dose response (LNT) model for cancer risk assessment. Sci Total Environ. 898:165402. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.165402.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stadler LJ. 1954. The gene. Science. 120(3125):811–819. doi:10.1126/science.120.3125.811.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Timofeeff-Ressovsky NW, Zimmer KG, Delbruck M. 1935. Nachrichten von der gesellschaft der wissenschaften zu Gottingen. Uber die nature der genmutation und der genstruktur Biologie Band 1, Nr. 13.
   Google Scholar