Video Review

Although this is not a book, this video is sold by Medical Physics Publishing and appears in their 2002 Spring-Summer Catalog. It is a video lecture that was prepared for a Medical Effects of Ionizing Radiation ~MEIR! Course at the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute ~AFRRI! in August 2001. Along with the video there is a 12-page supplement. This consists of a hard copy of the slides shown in the video, a three-page article by Cameron, ‘‘Is radiation an essential trace energy?’’ and a short abstract, ‘‘Promoting Understanding of Radiation in the Radiology Clinic,’’ both unpublished, but each with a short reference list. These articles cover most of the material in the video. It would have been helpful to know the subject matter of the other lectures and the context in which they were presented. Cameron’s thesis is that a little radiation rather than being harmful is, in fact, of benefit, especially to older people. This is opposite to contemporary wisdom so that this video needs to be shown at the same time that that the opposite view point is given and with a moderator to facilitate discussion of questions raised by the contrast between the two. One can only hope that this was done when the video was used for its original purpose. Unfortunately the Medical Physics Publishing catalog seems to promise more than was contained in the video. The catalog says, ‘‘... he ~Cameron! challenges the generally accepted linear no threshold ~LNT! hypothesis and presents the results of several studies to back his argument.’’ However, the linear no threshold theory is not mentioned or alluded to once in the video, nor as far as I could see, in the supplementary material. This is not a balanced presentation giving the strengths and weakness of both viewpoints. This is the presentation of an evangelist preaching his gospel of safe radiation. Certainly Cameron has the right to his viewpoint and the right to present it and indeed there might be some validity to what he says, but there are too many flaws in this presentation to come to any other conclusion than to say that it is an interesting idea. Cameron presents the results of several studies to back up his argument. Only one of these studies has been published in a peer reviewed scientific publication. That is the study of the mortality of British radiologist from 1900 to 1980 by Smith and Doll published in the British Journal of Radiology in 1981. This data is interesting and perhaps it is surprising that no one, as far as I know, has seriously followed this up. It does on the surface seem to support Cameron’s viewpoint. So does the study of nuclear shipyard workers in which Cameron participated. Again this is a long-term study of workers exposed to radiation versus those who were not but it has never been published in a peer reviewed scientific journal, although the report is apparently available from the Department of Energy ~Matanoski et al., DOE DE-AC02-79 EV10095!. Unfortunately Cameron makes much in his lecture on the variation of natural background radiation in the U.S. and cancer rates. He shows a slide of the background radiation in the U.S: Lower in the coastal Gulf and East coast regions and higher in the middle part of the country. He then shows the cancer mortality rates across the U.S: Higher in the coastal Gulf and East coast regions and lower in the middle part of the country. Cameron would have us believe that this proves his case. He says nothing about the fact that much of the county’s oil refineries, chemical