U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

27–673PDF 2018

THE FUTURE OF LOW DOSE 

RADIATION RESEARCH 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

NOVEMBER 1, 2017 

Serial No. 115–34 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY K. WEBER, Texas 

STEPHEN KNIGHT, California 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

DRAIN LAHOOD, Illinois 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JIM BANKS, Indiana 

ANDY BIGGS, Arizona 

ROGER W. MARSHALL, Kansas 

NEAL P. DUNN, Florida 

CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana 

RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia 

JACKY ROSEN, Nevada 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

MARK TAKANO, California 

COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii 

CHARLIE CRIST, Florida 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

HON. RANDY K. WEBER, Texas, Chair 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

STEPHEN KNIGHT, California, Vice Chair 

DRAIN LAHOOD, Illinois 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

NEAL P. DUNN, Florida 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas, Ranking Member 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

JACKY ROSEN, Nevada 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

MARK TAKANO, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

November 1, 2017 

Page 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2 

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3 

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Randy K. Weber, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................................................................... 4 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 6 

Statement by Representative Bill Foster, Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .... 8 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 10 

Witnesses: 

Mr. John Neumann, Director, Science and Technology Issues, Government 

Accountability Office 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 11 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 14 

Dr. Gayle Woloschak, Professor, Radiation Oncology and Radiology, Northwestern University 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 27 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 30 

Dr. James Brink, Professor, Radiology, Harvard Medical School; Radiologistin-Chief, Massachusetts General Hospital 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 34 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 36 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 42 

Appendix I: Additional Material for the Record 

Statement submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking 

Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of 

Representatives .................................................................................................... 62 

Statement submitted by Ms. Laura I. Thevenoy, Cheif Executive Officer, 

American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO) ............. 64 

Letter submitted by Representative Bill Foster, Subcommittee on Energy, 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ....................................................................................................................... 65

(1) 

THE FUTURE OF LOW DOSE RADIATION 

RESEARCH 

Wednesday, November 1, 2017 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY, 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:38 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Randy Weber 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 
2 
3 
4 

Chairman WEBER. The Subcommittee on Energy will come to 

order. 

Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses of 

the Subcommittee at any time. 

Welcome to today’s hearing entitled ‘‘The Future of Low Dose Radiation Research.’’ I now recognize myself for five minutes for an 

opening statement. 

Good morning. Welcome to today’s Energy Subcommittee hearing. Today, we will examine the status of U.S. research in low dose 

radiation and explore the effects of the previous Administration’s 

agency-wide reduction in funding for this area of science. 

Last Congress, the Science Committee explored the Department 

of Energy’s decision to terminate the Low dose Radiation Research 

program, which, until its closure in 2016, was one of the largest 

and most effective programs in the world. In the course of staff 

briefings on this decision, a DOE employee was fired for speaking 

out in support of the Low Dose Radiation Research program. While 

this employee was eventually reinstated as a result of Committee 

oversight, the Department has yet to restart this important area of 

research. 

The DOE’s program explored the health impacts of low levels of 

radiation, allowing our Nation’s researchers, industry, and military 

to safely handle nuclear material, maintain the nation’s nuclear 

weapons program, and dispose of nuclear waste. 

Low dose radiation research can also inform the authorities who 

set nuclear safety standards for the public, enabling federal emergency response agencies to more accurately set evacuation zones 

from radiological incidents. 

This research is also particularly important to practicing physicians, who rely on knowledge about the impact of low doses of radiation to decide when and how to use diagnostics to detect cancer 

in patients. 

This use-inspired, basic research leads to scientific discoveries 

and long-term benefits for the energy industry and our national defense. 

Today’s hearing is yet another opportunity to evaluate whether 

we as a nation are doing everything we can to ensure that the regulations, guidelines, and protections we put in place are indeed 

grounded in sound science. 

We know a lot about the relationship between adverse health effects and high doses of radiation. At high doses, the dosage and 

risk are proportionally related. But the health risks associated with 

exposure to low doses of radiation are much more difficult to observe, and we are a long way away from understanding and accurately assessing this particular risk. 

In the absence of conclusive evidence, scientists use what’s called 

the linear-no-threshold (LNT) model to approximate the effects of 

low doses of radiation on the human body. This model takes what 

we know about high doses and applies it to low doses. Current federal dose limits and guidelines are based on the LNT model. Because this model is simply an assumption of the impact, not a validated mechanism for assigning risk, there is no definitive science 

to justify many of our nation’s nuclear safety procedures or to set 

guidelines for medical treatments. 
5 

In order to best serve our nation’s energy, medical and defense 

needs, we need foundational research in radiology and biology to 

directly define the impact of low doses of radiation. 

Here on the Science Committee, we hear a lot of enthusiasm for 

next-generation technologies but we cannot forget about the questions we have left unanswered. The United States should not rely 

on a best approximation when it comes to our nuclear regulatory 

policies. 

DOE must reprioritize basic research in low dose radiation so we 

know we are using the best available science to set these standards. 

I want to thank our accomplished panel in advance, our witnesses, for testifying today, and I look forward to a productive discussion about the future of American low dose radiation research. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Weber follows:] 
6 
7 
8 

Chairman WEBER. I now recognize the Ranking Member, the 

gentleman, for his comments. 

Mr. FOSTER. Thank you, Chairman Weber—— 

Chairman WEBER. I’m sorry. The—you’re right, the Ranking 

Member. 

Mr. FOSTER. Well, I’m the Ranking Member pro tem, I believe. 

Chairman WEBER. I think that’s what it is. 

Mr. FOSTER. Well, I guess representing 100 percent of the Ph.D. 

scientists in Congress. 

Chairman WEBER. There we go. 

Mr. FOSTER. Anyway, I want to thank you for holding this hearing on a really very interesting and important topic, and thank you 

to all our witnesses for being here to provide us with your testimony and your expertise. I’m Congressman Bill Foster. I’m a scientist and a businessman, so I understand the importance of regulatory costs and getting the answer right. 

This is an important issue because if you make the wrong decision or a decision not based on the best science, you know, frankly, 

people can die. If you set too conservative thresholds for chest Xrays, then patients may have non-diagnosed conditions because of 

X-rays that are not taken. If you, for example, set too conservative 

standards for nuclear workers, then it may impose—or nuclear bystanders—that may impose large costs on the nuclear industry and 

cause us to shift our energy balance, for example, to coal which we 

know kills tens of thousands of Americans each year. 

And so it’s important to get this answer right. The basis of our 

regulatory framework around radiation exposure has been the linear no-threshold model, which I’m sure we’ll hear all about today, 

and that says the risk of cancer and other bad effects increases 

with every incremental increase in radiation exposure. So this conservative approach to regulation is not fully justified by the current 

body of peer-reviewed scientific literature in the low dose regime 

and investing into this research in this field is not just about the 

development of regulations, it’s all about public understanding of 

an important issue. 

Federal investments in radiobiology research have resulted in 

significant progress in our understanding of the health effects to 

low dose radiation, in particular, how cells respond to radiation exposure on a molecular level. 

During the past 17 years, the Low Dose Radiation Research program at the Department of Energy has been responsible for several 

notable shifts in how scientists examine the impacts of radiation 

exposure including the impact on radiation not only on the cells directly deposited with energy but on the cells surrounding them, socalled bystander cells. There’s also a new technology that has become available. The use of Big Data, for example, to perform virtual experiments on large human populations to try to tease out 

the signal here, or for example, gene sequencing of blood samples 

to detect cancer and precancerous cells at a preclinical level. 

This work has informed our physicians and medical researchers 

as they try to design better treatments for cancer patients, and 

moreover, the implication of this research can be seen in the number and the breadth of different federal agencies that are investing 

in this work. In addition to the Department of Energy, there have 
9 

been federal investments in low dose radiation research at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the FDA, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Institutes of Health, NASA and the 

CDC. These agencies all see benefits from this work, and in their 

own areas of interest. 

Yet the leadership in DOE under the past Administration and I 

should note, under the current Trump Administration as well, has 

decided to no longer support this research, and I’m happy to join 

my Majority colleagues with our questioning of this position, and 

we are not alone in our concerns. The GAO’s report on this topic 

seemed very clear. They recommend that DOE take the lead in 

‘‘the development of a mechanism of interagency collaboration on 

research on low dose radiation’s health effects.’’ Though I must observe that one of the, you know, glaring omissions from this hearing is a witness from the Department of Energy. We’re reviewing 

a report from GAO that includes key recommendations for DOE, 

and it is sad that we’re here without a representative from the Department to provide us with their input on these recommendations, 

and it’s really a missed opportunity. I’m disappointed that we can’t 

have a more complete conversation here, and hopefully make real 

progress in our oversight of the Department in this crucial area of 

research. 

I hope the Majority will consider as we move forward with additional hearings on this topic or others directly under the purview 

of DOE the Department’s lack of a Senate-confirmed leadership 

really shouldn’t give us—give them immunity from Congressional 

oversight. 

And with that said, I’m looking forward to this bipartisan dialogue on an important topic, and thank you again, Mr. Chairman 

and our witnesses. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Foster follows:] 
10 
11 

Chairman WEBER. I thank the Ranking Member pro tem, and 

now I’m going to introduce our witnesses. 

Our first witness today is Mr. John Neumann, Director of 

Science and Technology Issues at GAO. He manages and oversees 

both federal R&D programs and federal efforts to support innovation. Mr. Neumann received a bachelor’s degree in political science 

from the State University of New York at Stony Brook, an MBA 

from American University, and a J.D. from Georgetown University. 

Our next witness is Dr. Gayle Woloschak—am I saying that 

right—a Professor of Radiation Oncology and Radiology at Northwestern University. Additionally, Dr. Woloschak is a Visiting Scientist at the Bundeswehr Institute for Radiobiology in Munich, 

Germany, and a lecturer at Rosalind Frank Medical School in 

North Chicago, and a Visiting Professor at Alexandria University 

in Alexandria, Egypt. And when do you sleep? She received a Ph.D. 

in microbiology at the Medical College of Ohio, Toledo, OH. 

Our last witness is Dr. James Brink, Professor of Radiology at 

Harvard Medical School, and Radiologist-in-Chief at Massachusetts 

General Hospital. Dr. Brink was elected an honorary member of 

the American Association of Physicists in Medicine and a member 

of the International Society for Strategic Studies in Radiology. Currently, he serves as the Scientific Vice President on the Board of 

Directors of the National Council for Radiation Protection. He received a bachelor’s degree from Purdue University and an M.D. 

from Indiana University. Dr. Brink joins us today to testify in his 

capacity as the Chairman of the American College of Radiology 

Board of Chancellors. 

I want to say thank you to you all for being here, and we will 

begin our testimony, Mr. Neumann, by recognizing you for five 

minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. JOHN NEUMANN, 

DIRECTOR, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ISSUES, 

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. NEUMANN. Chairman Weber, Ranking Member and Members 

of the Subcommittee, thank you so much for the opportunity to be 

here today to discuss GAO’s report on federal protections against 

the harmful effects of ionizing radiation and federal support for related research. 

To protect against cancer and other harmful effects associated 

with radiation exposure, the EPA, NRC, and other federal agencies 

have established requirements and guidance that apply to a range 

of settings in which exposure can occur. Agencies such as the Department of Energy have also funded research to determine how 

low doses of radiation affect human health. However, uncertainties 

remain about these effects. For example, in 2016, the Department 

of Energy’s Biological Environmental Research Advisory Committee 

reported that further research on low dose radiation could decrease 

uncertainty in cancer risk estimates. 

My statement today summarizes our report on low dose radiation, which examined two areas: first, how selected federal agencies have developed and applied radiation protection requirements 

and guidance for workers and the public, and secondly, the extent 
12 

to which federal agencies have funded and collaborated on research 

on the health effects of low dose radiation. 

In our review of how federal agencies developed and applied radiation protection requirements, we focused on four settings in which 

radiation exposure can occur: the operation and decommissioning of 

nuclear power plants, the cleanup of sites with radiological contamination, the use of medical equipment that produces radiation, 

and lastly, the accidental or terrorism-related exposure to radiation, and we found that to develop radiation protection requirements and guidance for these four settings, agencies generally relied on the advice of scientific advisory bodies, and this advice included the use of the linear no-threshold model, which assumes 

that the risk of cancer increases with every incremental increase 

in radiation. However, advisory bodies have also recognized challenges in accurately estimating cancer risks from very low doses of 

radiation. For example, much of the data on health effects of radiation exposure come from non-U.S. populations such as the Japanese atomic bomb survivors. These populations received a large exposure to radiation over a short time, and there is uncertainty 

about the extent to which the health effects for them can be extrapolated to a U.S. population that may be chronically exposed to low 

doses of radiation. 

In looking at federal agency support for research on the health 

effects of low dose radiation, we found that seven agencies obligated a total of about $210 million from fiscal year 2012 to 2016 

but their collective annual funding has decreased by almost 50 percent over that period. 

We also found that agencies collaborated on particular research 

projects but they did not collaborate to address overall research priorities such as the research needs that the scientific advisory bodies we met with had identified regarding low dose radiation health 

effects. Such research needs include areas related to uncertainties 

in the linear no-threshold model, and by extension in the agency’s 

dose limits and guidance levels that are based in part on that 

model. 

In the past the Department of Energy provided leadership in this 

area. However, its leadership role has decreased since 2012 as the 

Department phased out funding for its main research program on 

low dose radiation health effects. We found that no other agency 

has stepped forward to fill this role. 

Given these findings, we recommended that the Department of 

Energy take the lead in developing a mechanism for interagency 

collaboration on low dose radiation research. The Department disagreed with our recommendation, stating that it would be inappropriate for it to lead because other agencies have their own budget 

authorities and research priorities. However, given the Department’s past leadership role, we continue to believe that the Department of Energy is in the best position to lead agencies in developing such a mechanism for addressing shared research priorities. 

Such an action would be consistent with the Department’s responsibilities under the Atomic Energy Act to conduct research related 

to nuclear energy including the protection of health during activities that can result in radiation exposure. 
13 

This concludes my prepared remarks, and I’m happy to respond 

to any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Neumann follows:] 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Neumann. 

Dr. Woloschak, you are recognized for five minutes. Thanks. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. GAYLE WOLOSCHAK, 

PROFESSOR, RADIATION ONCOLOGY AND RADIOLOGY, 

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY 

Ms. WOLOSCHAK. Okay. Thank you. I’d like to mention that I 

used to work at Argonne National Laboratory, a DOE facility as 

well. I think that’s important to mention. 

I’m going to let some questions shape my discussion so the first 

question I’m going to ask is, what is low dose radiation? Before I 

describe what low dose versus high dose radiation means, I would 

like to remind everyone that ionizing radiation surrounds us daily. 

It is part of the natural background from sunlight and the Earth’s 

crust, and radioactive chemicals are present in what we eat, drink 

and breathe including this cup of water I just drank. All of this 

constitutes natural background radiation, doses of radiation characterized as low dose radiation are higher than natural background. Most often, low dose radiation exposures occur when we 

are close to a nuclear cleanup site, or they might result from occupational or accidental exposures or exposure to medical low dose diagnostic procedures such as CT scans. Any of those low dose exposures are thousands of times lower than the radiation therapy 

doses used to treat cancer patients. These therapy doses belong to 

the category of medium- and high-dose radiation. 

The next question is, what don’t we know and why don’t we understand low dose radiation? The most significant known risk from 

exposure to low dose radiation is considered to be cancer. If I ask 

a room of radiation biologists what is the risk for cancer formation 

from low dose radiation, I get every answer possible from a little 

bit of radiation is good for you, go sit in a radioactive spa and lap 

up those rays, to radiation risk for cancer deceases as the dose decreases, to risk from low doses is worse per unit dose than risk at 

high doses. 

So the question is, we don’t actually know the precise relationship between low dose radiation exposure and cancer induction. 

Why is there so much disagreement? Because we have contradictory data. One source of this problem is that many of the low dose 

studies done in the past were performed with cells in a test tube. 

A direct leap from cells to humans is never done in medicine because it is just not accurate. Before clinical trials of any sort with 

drugs or with radiation, we use—numerous animal studies are 

done in advance. In addition to the question of cancer risk, some 

of the recent low dose studies in Europe, Japan and China suggest 

that we may need to explore additional issues such as risk to unborn, risks to newborns that may have different effects for central 

nervous system or cardiovascular system. Until we have more research, questions will remain. 

My next question is, why is closing the gap in understanding of 

paramount importance? My response is, our radiation protection 

policies deal with low doses of radiation because that is precisely 

the level of environmental and occupational exposures that can and 

should be regulated. Radiation protection is designed for a healthy 

population with the view of preserving health. With regard to low 
28 

dose radiation, these policies are based on the assumptions we 

make about low dose radiation effects. It is a matter of course that 

citizens must be protected from dangers associated with radiation 

exposure, but overprotection may be wastefully expensive and deplete funds that could be used for other strategic goals for the Nation. 

Next question: What needs to be done in the research community 

to solve this issue? What was DOE’s role in funding discoveries in 

the field? Work resulting from the DOE Low Dose Program led to 

many significant findings. For example, some unique biological responses to low dose radiation were found that are not evident at 

high doses. This means that a simple extrapolation from high-dose 

to low dose effects would not be correct. Much of this work was in 

the discovery phase and thus was done with cells in culture and 

never made its way to be tested in whole animals. This limits our 

ability to apply this work to human beings, which of course is our 

end goal. Since the time when the DOE Low dose program was terminated, biomedical science has continued to progress. New technologies have been developed and new discoveries have been made. 

Fine-tuned models could be developed to set the stage for finetuned decisions and evidence-based protection policies. 

Before the DOE Low Dose Program, DOE was the leader in the 

radiation research science worldwide. Large-scale animal studies 

were done ranging from low dose occupational-type exposure to 

high-dose nuclear disaster-type exposures. I am in awe when I look 

at the volume, planning, design, and structure of these experiments 

done with animals for the entire duration of their lives. For reasons 

unknown to me, DOE terminated these studies without really completing a full analysis of the data. We are talking about data from 

50,000 mice, 30,000 rats, 25,000 dogs. 

Ultimately, this entire archive came to my laboratory at Northwestern, and it is the University that has supported it since the 

termination of the DOE Low Dose Program. What was the result 

of termination of the DOE Low Dose Program? I’m going to just go 

into the specifics here. For the U.S. radiation community, the loss 

of the DOE Low Dose Program has devastating effects. First of all, 

the radiation community for low dose has been decimated. Low 

dose radiation biologists participate in recommendations for radiation protection, for designing approaches to deal with radiation accidents, for dealing with population exposures. In the United States 

today, these committees are occupied predominantly by retired scientists. We are not able to train the next generation of radiation 

protection scientists in the United States and will be dependent on 

foreign support. 

Secondly, NASA has a need for low dose work with radiation 

types unique to space exposure. Complementary work must be done 

with Earth-type radiation exposures. NASA reported to the NASA 

Space Radiation Discipline Working Group, which I chaired, that 

they were looking for collaborators in Europe to facilitate their 

work. In the past DOE was their partner. 

We have lost much of the infrastructure to do low dose work in 

the United States. Many facilities are antiquated and have not 

been updated in some years. Some have even been decommis-
29 

sioned. In many cases, the capacity to perform this type of research 

would take time to rebuild. 

Finally, the United States is currently using low dose exposure 

effects data from science done in Europe, China, and Japan to support our regulatory policies. This is of concern because, one, other 

countries often have agendas in their research programs that are 

not consistent with our agendas. This is not to say that the research results are not correct, merely that the research design is 

set up to examine particular questions that may not be of equal 

priority in the U.S. Second, we do not have the capacity to reproduce any of those findings in the United States. And finally, in effect we are permitting other countries to set the radiation agenda 

for the world. 

Thank you. 

[The statement Ms. Woloschak follows:] 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, Doctor. 

Dr. Brink, you’re recognized for five minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. JAMES BRINK, PROFESSOR, 

RADIOLOGY, HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL; 

RADIOLOGIST-IN-CHIEF, 

MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL 

Dr. BRINK. Chairman Weber, Ranking Member pro tem Foster, 

and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, I want to thank 

you for holding this hearing today and for the opportunity to testify 

on this important topic. I am Dr. James Brink, Radiologist-in-Chief 

at Massachusetts General Hospital and the Juan M. Taveras Professor of Radiology at Harvard Medical School. I serve as Vice 

Chair of the National Academy’s Nuclear and Radiation Studies 

Board and as Scientific Vice President for Radiation Protection in 

Medicine for the National Council on Radiation Protection and 

Measurement. 

I am testifying today on behalf of the American College of Radiology as the current Chair of its Board of Chancellors. The American College of Radiology represents more than 36,000 radiologists, 

radiation oncologists, interventional radiologists, medical physicists, and nuclear-medicine physicians whose patients benefitted 

from diagnostic and therapeutic uses of radiation in medicine. 

Without doubt, the use of ionizing radiation to diagnose and 

treat disease has revolutionized the practice of medicine. Millions 

of patients every year benefit from the use of radiation in diagnostic imaging, image-guided procedures, radiation therapies, and 

other applications. 

The effects of high-level radiation exposure on the human body 

including the link between high-dose radiation and cancer are relatively well understood. Much of our knowledge is based on decades of atomic-bomb survivor data and the experiences of first responders to the Chernobyl disasters. Exposures to high doses of radiation have been associated with several types of cancer. 

There is much greater uncertainty as to the link between cancer 

and exposure to low dose radiation. While exposure to lower doses 

may damage or alter a cell’s genetic code, such exposure does not 

necessarily result in negative health consequences. This is because 

of the body’s innate ability to repair itself and recover from cellular 

damage. This response is akin to your car’s windshield wipers in 

the rain. In mild and moderate rainfall, your wipers keep everything relatively clear. In heavy and severe rainfall, your wipers can 

be overwhelmed and your vision blurred. 

The National Academy’s Board on Radiation Effects Research 

has played an integral role in the study of the biologic effects of 

ionizing radiation over the last several decades, having published 

a series of reports on this topic. These are frequently cited in the 

professional literature and in regulatory and policymaking documents. However, the most recent report was issued in 2006, and 

an update is needed to critically explore the latest research and 

provide a balanced perspective on its significance. 

As medical providers who use ionizing radiation in the diagnosis 

and treatment of disease, we value the role the National Academies 

has played in distilling volumes of research related to ionizing radi-
35 

ation. To that end, the American College of Radiology endorsed the 

Low dose Radiation Research Act of 2015 in the last Congress. As 

this Subcommittee knows, the legislation would have required the 

Director of the Department of Energy Office of Science to carry out 

a research program to enhance our scientific understanding and reduce uncertainties related to the health effects of low dose radiation. Further, it would have required the Director to enter into an 

agreement with the National Academies to conduct a study assessing the current status and development of a long-term strategy for 

low dose radiation research. We believe it is important for the National Academies to periodically assess the status and inform the 

development of a long-term strategy for low dose radiation research. 

We also believe the Department of Energy and other federal 

agencies must be adequately funded to support low dose radiation 

research activities. Accordingly, we urge that similar legislation be 

introduced and passed in the current Congress. This is so important because it is very likely that someone you know will undergo 

a medical procedure that uses low dose radiation, and this research 

is necessary to better inform the potential risks of those procedures. We at the American College of Radiology and in the radiology community hope to continue to be a resource to this Subcommittee moving forward. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today and for 

holding this hearing on such an important topic. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Brink follows:] 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, Doctor. 

I now recognize myself for questions for five minutes. 

Mr. Neumann, your report found that federal funding for low 

dose radiation research in the United States had declined by almost 50 percent from 2012 to 2016. I know some of the other testimony was about we had to depend on foreign research, as you 

heard from Dr. Woloschak, or was it Dr. Brink? What impact has 

that decrease in funding, in your opinion, had on the U.S. leadership in this area of research? 

Mr. NEUMANN. Well, certainly when talking to all the agencies 

that are involved in this type of research, they all agree that 

there’s a need to coordinate and better collaborate to identify and 

develop the research priorities to see that they are met, and so 

without this leadership, there’s a potential of some of these gaps 

not being filled. 

Chairman WEBER. Let me follow up on that. A couple of the testimonies said that there’s no collaborative mechanism, and so Dr. 

Woloschak, I’ll jump over to you real quick. What does a collaborative mechanism to you look like? 

Ms. WOLOSCHAK. So in the days of the DOE Low dose program, 

what they would do is, if there was an interest from, say, DOE and 

NASA, NASA would help fund the same project. They would give 

a bit of the funding and expect that they could take advantage of 

the data that resulted from it. That I think was a very good collaborative arrangement between two different agencies working together that had similar goals. That’s no longer possible. NASA’s 

working alone. They don’t have that sort of collaborative arrangement. I think similar arrangements between NIH and DOE actually existed for a period of time too. So I think those are the kinds 

of things that are very, very helpful. 

Chairman WEBER. Do you agree with that, Dr. Brink? 

Dr. BRINK. I do indeed. 

Chairman WEBER. Okay. Now, Dr. Woloschak makes a very interesting point in her testimony that we don’t have the next generation or whatever the term is of scientists. We’re not getting 

them trained. Since you have a college nexus there, why is that, 

do you think? 

Dr. BRINK. It’s an interesting question. We have noticed that 

there’s been a relative decline in what we call radiation professionals over the years, and it’s certainly been a concern of the National Council for Radiation Protection and others, and it’s not exactly obvious why there has been a decline but we’ve certainly 

made efforts to try and rebolster and reinvigorate interest in this 

field really for the sake of the Nation going forward. 

Chairman WEBER. Are you in possession of the numbers? Do you 

know what that looks like? Did we have a thousand scientists that 

have now gone to a hundred or fifty, or do you know what the—— 

Dr. BRINK. I don’t. I’d be happy to find some numbers for you 

and get those to you. 

Chairman WEBER. Well, I’m just curious because that’s interesting why we’re declining, and to your comments that we had to 

depend on foreign countries whose interests may not exactly align 

with ours. 
43 

Ms. WOLOSCHAK. I can comment on that as well. I mean, I know 

American Society for Therapeutic Radiation Oncology did a joint 

meeting at NIH about two or three years ago to try to talk about 

the decline, and I believe that the major result of that meeting 

was, was to say it’s declining because we don’t have people funded 

in low dose radiation research, so then to take students into the 

lab to do research and learn how to understand low doses, there 

were no training grounds. 

Chairman WEBER. So let me paraphrase that if I understand. If 

we were to take and we were to have a more better funded program, a more collaborative approach where we focused on this, 

then we could perhaps induce students to be interested. Is that 

what you’re saying? 

Ms. WOLOSCHAK. Oh, absolutely. I see it with my own students. 

Chairman WEBER. Okay. I’m going to change gears a little bit. 

You said in your testimony that there’s a lot of naturally occurring 

low dose radiation. You went through some examples. Do we have 

any facts and figures as to maybe for the both of you doctors, do 

we have any facts and figures on what percentage of that occurs 

due to medical exams? I mean, is it five percent in the general population? Is it three percent. What percentage actually occurs due 

to medical exams? 

Ms. WOLOSCHAK. We actually wouldn’t call medical exams part 

of natural background. 

Chairman WEBER. Well, I don’t mean natural but natural was 

one. You know, you go through airports, you go through screening. 

Ms. WOLOSCHAK. So medical exposures make up the highest percentage of human-made exposures that we have in the United 

States. 

Chairman WEBER. What percentage is that? 

Dr. BRINK. I think it’s about 45 percent. 

Chairman WEBER. 45 percent. Okay. And it’s even in the water 

you drink. Before you take another drink, I wanted to make sure 

you remember that. 

Okay. Another question. Dr. Woloschak, in your testimony you 

said you had considered that there were also risks to the unborn. 

Is that through the mother or is it through the medical exams? 

What do you—how do you consider that? 

Ms. WOLOSCHAK. Actually the data out of the E.U. right now is 

suggesting that there are effects during pregnancy that are probably coming through the mother in some way, and we don’t actually know the low dose mechanism but it looks as though the unborn maybe more sensitive, and even the data coming out of Hiroshima and Nagasaki studies suggest that the very young are more 

susceptible to cancer induction than very old from cleanup sites, 

from, you know, those sorts of things. 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you. That reminded me. Two quick 

questions. I’m a little over my time. 

Nagasaki, Hiroshima and the Japanese-related event, that population has to be going away because those survivors have to be diminishing almost daily. Do you know how many of those are left? 

Ms. WOLOSCHAK. I don’t know the exact numbers but you are exactly right. They are declining significantly. I was just there maybe 

6 months or 8 months ago, and they are continuing to study the 
44 

population as long as they can. But one thing to realize is most of 

that population got sort of higher dose, what we would consider to 

be low moderate dose, not the very low doses that we would get, 

say, from, you know, occupational exposures here. 

Chairman WEBER. All right. And then finally, I think it was you, 

Dr. Brink, who talked about Chernobyl. Do I remember right? 

Dr. BRINK. Yes. 

Chairman WEBER. So let’s jump over to that population. When 

was that event, and how many were affected? Do you know that 

offhand? 

Dr. BRINK. I don’t know that off the top of my head. I’m sorry. 

Chairman WEBER. So it’s a more recent study. 

Ms. WOLOSCHAK. The event was about 30 years ago. The problem 

with the Chernobyl studies is that the dosimetry is a little bit off. 

There’s a lot of work being done with dosimetry. 

Chairman WEBER. Right. 

Ms. WOLOSCHAK. It’s hard to analyze easily. 

Chairman WEBER. Okay. Well, thank you. I’m over my time, so 

appreciate you all, and I now recognize Mr. Foster. 

Mr. FOSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I’m trying to puzzle out why it’s been difficult to sustain an interagency collaboration on this. There has—you know, there’s sort 

of—there’s a bad reason this could happen, which is that bureaucracies under financial stress will often try to get rid of programs, 

shared programs, that they don’t view as along their core line of 

business, and it’s a natural thing. I think the only solution to that 

is to have the Congress say hey, this is something important that’s 

slipping through the cracks between our agencies and basically 

knock heads to make sure that, you know, those are maintained. 

There’s another potential technical reason are the real differences in the type of radiation exposures that are of interest to 

different agencies. You know, if you’re worried about healthcare, 

it’s probably different than if you’re worried about space-based exposure versus ingestion of radioisotopes from nuclear accidents and 

so on. So how much of that difficulty has to do with when you sit 

down to write the specifications of what you want to learn that you 

find different agencies have different specifications. Does anyone 

want to—— 

Ms. WOLOSCHAK. Yeah, you’re exactly right in that different 

agencies do have different needs but a lot of times they overlap. So 

for instance, while NASA is going to care about space radiation and 

DOE is going to care about Earth-based types of radiation, you actually almost always need to use the Earth-based radiation as a 

control to understand space radiation. So they should actually be 

cooperating. They did for years. You asked the question why they 

stopped, and I have absolutely no clue. Probably you’re right, having somebody from DOE at the table would have been useful. 

Mr. FOSTER. Any other comments on sort of the technical differences between the types of exposures? 

Mr. NEUMANN. Well, in talking the range of agencies that we met 

with, they all agree that there were some common areas of research that would be of use to each of the agencies, so that’s why 

they would sometimes jointly fund some of these ongoing studies 
45 

the Million Person Study and other studies—where they can get research that would be useful to their particular settings. 

Dr. BRINK. Just I agree with Gayle that there’s a fair amount of 

overlap too which makes it a little bit puzzling but certainly there’s 

obvious distinctions, NASA being very interested in cosmic radiation and so forth, but otherwise there’s a fair amount of overlap 

in just how we address these. 

Mr. FOSTER. Now, the other sort of big question here is, let’s say 

that you’re able to go to a less conservative, you know, zero intercept model for what you thought the human danger was. Is there 

anyone who’s done, you know, an exhaustive, high-quality study of 

what the health and economic impact of that would be? Just assume that we declare a higher level of, you know, a de minimis exposure to be actually safe. What would be the economic impact? 

What would be the indirect health impact in terms of more, you 

know, more allowable chest X-rays, a shift in our energy mix, presumably towards nuclear and so on. 

Dr. BRINK. It’s an interesting question. I’m not aware of any such 

analyses but certainly as practicing physicians, most practicing 

physicians are still very much recognizing that the benefits typically outweigh the risks and so I don’t know that there’s been a 

huge reduction in the use of medical imaging, for example, because 

of whether there’s the linear no-threshold intercepting the origin of 

the axis or whether they’re considering there’s a threshold effect or 

even a hormetic effect. Most physicians are still focusing on the 

benefits and practicing appropriately. 

Mr. FOSTER. But there’s still some limit. I mean, they reach a 

point at which, you’ve already had, you know, five X-rays this 

month and maybe we shouldn’t have another one. Is there a sound 

scientific basis for that kind of decision? 

Dr. BRINK. In my opinion, no, there’s not, and when I’m faced 

with patients who are worried about those kind of thresholds, I’m 

going right back to the benefits and saying, you know, what is the 

reason why your physician needs these studies. Because the benefits are clear-cut. The risks are very much uncertain, and typically 

in almost all cases when there’s a real sound medical reason to do 

the study, we’re going to favor doing the study over a theoretical 

risk. 

Mr. FOSTER. But it’s your suspicion that, you know, to the extent 

that doctors are limiting, you know, things like X-ray or PET scans 

and so on that it’s probably the conservatism, you know, related to 

radiation doses probably nets out harmful for patients? 

Dr. BRINK. Well, we certainly will favor imaging tests that don’t 

use ionizing radiation when we can so, for example, MRI or 

ultrasound don’t have the same risks, and we certainly—and when 

we do need to use ionizing radiation, we’re promoting using as low 

as reasonably achievable doses. But in terms of an economic 

threshold or economic benefit to a threshold, I’m just not familiar 

with any of those studies. 

Ms. WOLOSCHAK. Yeah, where I would say where the economic 

threshold would probably come in, and I don’t actually know the 

numbers, would be in how far do we have to clean up our nuclearwaste sites. It’s probably a difference of trillions, at least billions 

of dollars if we accept the linear non-threshold or if we have a 
46 

lower threshold for cleanup. That’s where I would think that 

there’d be a big savings in money. 

Mr. FOSTER. I recall a paper by Richard Wilson of Harvard Physics Department who you may know. He was actually I believe one 

of the first Westerners allowed at Chernobyl and a real expert on 

this. He calculated the optimal radius of evacuation from 

Fukushima because you can mess up either way. If you—you know, 

there are two effects obviously. People suffer from exposure to radiation if they’re too close. On the other hand, there’s a well-documented probability of having people die, particular the elderly, if 

you move them, just relocate them, and so this allows you to calculate an optimal radius of evacuation. It was the conclusion of his 

paper at least that actually the Japanese evacuated too large a radius and ultimately had a negative health effect from that decision. 

And so this is just another example where getting the science right 

here is so important. 

And now I’m over time myself so I’m happy to yield back. 

Chairman WEBER. Okay. Thank you. 

I now recognize the gentleman from Oklahoma. 

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Woloschak, one of the tendencies whether it’s in Congress or 

the Executive Branch or, for that matter, anywhere out in the real 

world is, sometimes if we don’t want the answer, we don’t ask the 

question. So from that guise, let me quiz you and ask you for your 

opinion. The way that this research was determined to no longer 

be conducted, is that an example perhaps of someone not wanting 

the answers that would come from it? And if I look at this in the 

overall context, I mean, we’ve discussed health issues, we’ve discussed terrorism issues, we discussed the space program. From the 

perspective of my constituents back in Oklahoma, it seems that not 

knowing this information or taking the research to its ultimate conclusion puts us in a position to make perhaps decisions based on 

inaccurate facts. Could you expand on that a moment, I mean, from 

the perspective, say, of NASA? If we’re going to the Moon or if 

we’re going to Mars, we need to know these things, correct? 

Ms. WOLOSCHAK. Yes. In fact, when I ask astronauts, they say 

exactly that, that they care about the risks for cancer. They don’t 

care as much about the risk of blowing up on a Launchpad which 

puzzles me. 

Mr. LUCAS. Launchpad is instantaneous; cancer takes a long 

time. 

Ms. WOLOSCHAK. That’s what they say. 

Mr. LUCAS. I appreciate their point. 

Ms. WOLOSCHAK. But I think you’re exactly right. The thing is, 

I can’t actually speculate for why people don’t want to know the answers to these questions or why it’s been sort of stopped, but I will 

say it’s been a pattern at least from my experience within DOE because we had a very large-scale program. I believe it was one of 

the best in the world for these—with these animals. They just terminated it, you know, spontaneously. Then they start up the Low 

Dose program and then again they terminated it very, very rapidly. 

I don’t know what the reason for that is. It could just be something 

sporadic. Again, probably from DOE could answer that better than 

I could. 
47 

Mr. LUCAS. One of our responsibilities in Congress and most assuredly in our oversight capacities is to assess these situations and 

compel the right actions to take place to help provide guidance to 

the Executive Branch. I always remind my constituents in town 

meetings, no matter what anyone says at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, we write the laws. No matter what anyone says, the 

responsibility is for those laws to be implemented accurately and 

efficiently. So I find this a very concerning issue to me in a variety 

of ways. We have debated on this Committee as the Chairman 

knows and in Congress for years about how to store waste, whether 

a facility underneath a giant mountain in the West should be used, 

or it’s better to store things down the street from me that I may 

not know about because that’s where it was created or where we 

go ultimately with NASA. 

Now, I appreciate your observations and the willingness to try 

and preserve as much of this research as could be done. Do any of 

your colleagues on the panel wish to address that question about 

what the background might or might not be that led to the decisions that have brought us to this point? 

Mr. NEUMANN. Let me add the best answer we can get from DOE 

was that they had other research priorities in the bioenergy and 

environmental research that they wanted to fund. What was curious to us is that in 2016, the advisory committee report identified 

a number of areas that DOE thought would be useful to reduce the 

risk of cancer and understand better the low dose risk and also 

supported convening workshops between agencies to collaborate on 

a research agenda. But then the report ultimately concluded not to 

continue the research. So we couldn’t get a better answer than 

that. It’s just there were other research priorities. 

Dr. BRINK. I have nothing to add to this one. 

Mr. LUCAS. I think perhaps I’ve made my point, and I appreciate 

that, and I’ll yield back the remainder of my time, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman WEBER. Which is by the way why we need a single collaborative mechanism to make that decision. 

I recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our witnesses for joining us today. I’m happy to see the Committee actively engaging on what I believe is a bipartisan issue where scientific research has an important role to play. Basic research on 

low dose radiation is of vital importance with far-reaching consequences for human health, future technology, certainly for 

human exploration and national security. So there’s still a great 

deal in this field we do not fully understand, and I heard, I believe 

from just about all of you, that we need more attention to the research piece. Is that an agreement across the board that more research commitment is required? Mr. Neumann, I think you’re—I 

see two heads nodded yes and—— 

Mr. NEUMANN. I would just say yes, that we identified—the 

agencies identified for us the research priorities, that there was obviously a number of areas that still had a great deal of uncertainty, 

and they believed there would be benefits to continuing that research. 

Mr. TONKO. Okay. Now let’s get into the GAO report. Mr. Neumann, the primary recommendation in the report is that DOE lead 
48 

the, and I quote, ‘‘development of a mechanism for interagency collaboration on research on low dose radiation’s health effects.’’ Now, 

DOE disagreed with your recommendation saying that it would not 

be appropriate for the Department to lead such an interagency initiative. Do you think it would be inappropriate for DOE to lead this 

interagency effort? 

Mr. NEUMANN. Not at all. In fact, we thought they were in the 

best position to lead this effort given this past leadership as well 

as their responsibilities under the Atomic Energy Act, and it’s also 

consistent with GAO best practices that we’ve identified for interagency collaboration that if you don’t have someone leading such 

a mechanism, it’s difficult for agencies across the government to coordinate and make more-effective decisions. 

Mr. TONKO. Is there a particular precedent you would point to 

for DOE to take on this role? 

Mr. NEUMANN. Well, I think Dr. Woloschak also pointed out in 

one of her responses that DOE did do that in the past, and I think 

that’s what we also saw. 

Mr. TONKO. And your testimony mentions GAO’s previous work 

has shown that collaborative mechanisms can serve multiple purposes, to develop sound science and technology policies. Can you 

further elaborate on the specific projects that GAO has examined 

to support this conclusion? 

Mr. NEUMANN. Well, I can get back to you with specific examples 

but there’s been a range of examples in the past in various settings 

where there are multiple agencies involved in research areas that 

by having collaborative mechanism they can be more effective in 

achieving those goals. And without that leadership, those efforts 

are likely to not be as successful. 

Mr. TONKO. And DOE has already responded that they do not 

concur with GAO’s recommendation. So are there alternative options that GAO considers or should consider or have considered 

when examining this issue that this Committee should be aware 

of? 

Mr. NEUMANN. Well, I think we did consider whether or not 

other agencies would be in a position but we came to a conclusion 

based on the evidence that DOE was in that best position. Obviously additional direction from Congress might also encourage 

them to take a leadership role. 

Mr. TONKO. And in the event that DOE does not implement your 

recommendation, are there other coordinating bodies or mechanisms outside of DOE such as OSTP that could potentially fill this 

void? 

Mr. NEUMANN. In some of other work looking at OSTP, they usually are not in the position to direct agencies in some of these 

science efforts. They bring agencies together but then rely on the 

agencies to determine amongst themselves how to lead various efforts. So I would say that having an agency lead would be very effective. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. 

And Dr. Woloschak and Dr. Brink, most of the conversation in 

this field is about the detrimental effects of radiation exposure. 

Some researchers have indicated that there may be positive benefits from exposure to low doses of radiation but there’s still much 
49 

more that we need to learn. So my question is, what is your perspective on the possibility that there could be positive health effects 

as a result of exposure to low doses of radiation, and what could 

some of these positive effects be? Dr. Woloschak? 

Ms. WOLOSCHAK. Yeah, so we for sure know that low doses of radiation boost the immune response, can actually add to health of 

people. The problem is, how do you balance that with potential 

risks of cancer and other effects. So the risk of cancer is something 

that’s very questionable at low doses but there certainly are many 

studies that have shown that low doses also do boost an immune 

response, so it’s that balance that I think is going to be hard to understand. 

Mr. TONKO. Okay. Thank you. 

And Dr. Brink? 

Dr. BRINK. So the idea that radiation could actually be somewhat 

beneficial at low doses is called the hormetic effect, and it’s yet another step beyond where we are today which is just accepting that 

there might be a threshold rather than the no-threshold hypothesis. So I tend to, as I alluded to in my windshield wiper analogy, 

that I tend to think that naturally occurring processes in many examples in nature do have non-linear responses whether they be 

that one or many others we can think of. And so to my way of 

thinking just getting to the point of acknowledging or understanding if there’s a threshold through additional research that 

might show that would be the first step before even getting to the 

hormetic effect. 

Mr. TONKO. I thank you all very much, and with that, Mr. Chair, 

I yield back. 

Chairman WEBER. I thank the gentleman. 

The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you all for being 

here. I appreciate your work and appreciate your testimony today. 

Last Congress, the House unanimously passed legislation that I 

had sponsored. It was H.R. 35 to authorize a Low Dose Radiation 

Program. I was also glad this was included in the Committee’s 

unanimously passed Energy Research and Innovation Act earlier 

this January. Hopefully we can see that get over the finish line in 

the Senate and a lot of other things too. 

But coming from a state where more than half of our energy 

comes from zero-emission nuclear energy, the safe handling and 

storage of nuclear material is vital. The University of Chicago will 

be also celebrating the 75th anniversary of Chicago Pile-1 next 

month, so we’ve got the longest record of work in this space. Regulations based on science are necessary so that we’re doing what’s 

needed while not overburdening our research facilities and clean 

energy industry. 

Dr. Woloschak, if I could address my first question to you. In 

your prepared testimony, you discuss new technologies that could 

be applied to this research. What are some of these new technologies, and in your opinion, how promising are these potential 

applications? 

Ms. WOLOSCHAK. Yes. So actually the acting—Mr. Foster had 

mentioned that there are large-scale data analyses that are quite 

possible, and we actually are trying to take advantage of that now 
50 

looking at data sets from the United States, combining them with 

data sets from the E.U. in fact so we can look at 150,000 mice, 

being able to look at 31,000 dogs. That sort of data on a large-scale 

analysis was not even possible years ago. So statistical analyses 

have changed. Computational approaches have changed. That’s one 

thing that’s going to make a very big change. 

The second thing is, is that as was noted before, we can do single-cell sequencing of cells so I think that that technology is going 

to be extremely important. We can also make new kinds of mice 

that we couldn’t make before so if we wanted to try to create an 

animal with particular types of genetic susceptibilities, we can look 

at those with a far fewer number of animals. So there are a lot of 

new technologies that didn’t exist when this program was even terminated 5 or six years ago. I mean, science is moving really fast. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Dr. Brink, in March of 2013, Dr. Paul Cabot 

from Harvard Medical School cosigned a letter to the former 

Science Advisor, Dr. Holdren, detailing the gaps in knowledge on 

low dose radiation and the continuing need for this research. Do 

you know what response he received on that? 

Dr. BRINK. I’m sorry, I do not, but I’d be happy to investigate and 

get back to you about that. 

Mr. HULTGREN. That would be great if you would. 

Dr. Woloschak, if I could, you testified that you have accumulated the archive of referenced animal tissue samples from DOE’s 

closed Low Dose Program in your lab at Northwestern. What so far 

have you been able to determine? You kind of referenced that, but 

what else are you seeing? How do you plan to curate the data to 

make it publicly accessible to? And if DOE does restart the program, will that also make it so that your data—it’ll be easier for 

you to make that public as well? 

Ms. WOLOSCHAK. Yes, so these data are amazing. I mean, these 

were single—I mean, who does a 50,000-mouse experiment anymore? I mean, nobody—we don’t have the capacity to do that. 

Twenty-one thousand dogs. I mean, so rather than throw it out, we 

actually took the data sets, and because of DOE’s support through 

the Low Dose program, we were able to put much of that data up 

on a publicly available website now. The rat data are still not up 

on the website. Not all the dogs are up. We’re trying to make it 

be publicly available so anybody can study it. That has been our 

goal. But the problem is keeping the data without having the tissues to go back to verify is a problem and that’s why we have tried 

to keep the tissues as well, and I’m thankful to my university who 

has supported us through the hard times. 

Mr. HULTGREN. That’s great. Also Dr. Woloschak, a 21st century 

science workforce is something this Committee has been focused. 

We spend a lot of time discussing it, and I want to make sure that 

we’re ensuring that we have it. In your testimony, you identified 

workforce issues in the field that the majority of radiation scientists are retired and that there are not enough young scientists 

to replace them. How do you recommend that our Nation and our 

world address this developing issue? 

Ms. WOLOSCHAK. The reason why students don’t want to go into 

radiation biology is because there’s no funding so they feel like 

they’re going into a dead-end position, and honestly, today, I can’t 
51 

recommend for my students to go into that field. I also work in 

nanotechnology, and I push them in that direction because there’s 

funding there. I believe that more funding for the field would really 

enhance capabilities to generate a workforce. 

Mr. HULTGREN. That’s great. In my last few seconds here, again, 

Dr. Woloschak, the National Council on Radiation Protection has 

been writing a commentary on recent research implications for the 

linear no-threshold model of radiation protection and expects to put 

a report out soon. Based on your review, what have been some of 

the major recent studies in radiobiology over the last five years and 

what impact, if any, are they likely to have on the current linear 

no-threshold model? 

Ms. WOLOSCHAK. Right. So the report’s not out. I’m actually on 

the board for the NCRP, and I don’t—the report’s not quite out so 

I’m not at liberty to say what they’re going to say but certainly 

there have been—I believe they’re going to still—they’re using the 

human data as their primary mode for saying LNT is still the 

safest with today’s current today. They will say that more data 

would be useful. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Well, thanks again. Thank you all for being here. 

I yield back. 

Chairman WEBER. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from 

Florida is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. DUNN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I want to 

thank our panelists. I was fortunate enough to capture them on the 

way into the room and had a chance to talk to them earlier, and 

I’m grateful for that. I appreciate the work that you do. 

And also Mr. Neumann, we didn’t get a chance to talk but I welcome you because I understand that you are the one person in the 

room who’s most able to direct the Department of Energy to restart 

this research, and that’s exactly what we would like to see you do. 

I think you’ve gathered that from all of us. 

Congressman Foster suggested that we adopt a standard that 

has been called, I think Dr. Brink said it as low as reasonably 

achievable radiation, and I think that that is a great model for us 

to be thinking about. I can tell you as a practicing surgeon that we 

had a lot of pressure on us to limit radiation exposure even at the 

risk of being ignorant of the patients’ underlying pathologies. So 

this work is very, very important. 

My question—and this will be part Dr. Woloschak on the therapeutic side but part to Dr. Brink on the diagnostic side. So have 

we gone overboard in stressing the risks associated with the proper 

use of diagnostic radiation and therapeutic radiation? 

Dr. BRINK. May I jump in first? I do think that as you probably 

experienced in practice that sometimes patients—there’s been quite 

a lot of press that patients will be exposed to about the potential 

risk and sometimes they’ll confound potential versus actual and 

will provide a lot of concern about even getting the necessary imaging that they need. And so very commonly I’ll work hard to try and 

convince a patient that the benefit of what they would see from undergoing the test would greatly exceed the potential risk that they 

might face, and I imagine you’ve faced that in your practice as 

well. 
52 

Mr. DUNN. Every—it was just very, very commonly, and I think 

there’s a sense of alarmism actually among the patients and they’re 

getting this information from whatever sources that we’re over-radiating them dangerously, and you’re looking at somebody who 

might have something as simple as a kidney stone but if they’re 

obstructed and they’re infected beyond the obstruction, that’s a potentially fatal problem. 

Dr. Woloschak? 

Ms. WOLOSCHAK. Yeah, I think for therapeutic radiation oncology 

where you’re treating patients with cancer, most often they don’t 

really worry about what the risks are going to be but where it 

comes to play is, because you’re giving a dose all over the body, secondary cancers can come about as a result of the radiation exposure. So after they’ve been treated, then they’re worrying either 

about am I going to have a recurrence or am I going to have a secondary cancer. So it becomes an issue after the fact. I don’t think 

it influences therapy but certainly the one thing that does influence 

therapy is how can we make that treatment location be as small 

as possible to minimize dose to the rest of the body. So we do actually understand quite a bit about low doses because of the scatter 

of the radiation when we give therapeutic doses. 

Mr. DUNN. So that’s actually interesting subject for us. I mean, 

we obviously worry about bladder and rectal cancer following prostate radiation. 

Ms. WOLOSCHAK. Absolutely. 

Mr. DUNN. Can you give us a sense of how common that is—— 

Ms. WOLOSCHAK. Yeah, I mean—— 

Mr. DUNN. —rectal and bladder. 

Ms. WOLOSCHAK. Yeah, I’m not really a radiation oncologist. I’m 

a radiobiologist that teaches radiation oncologists, but the worry 

is—there is a considerable risk, and in fact, that’s what’s affected 

the way that we deliver. So as you know, we’re now using seed 

therapies, for instance, because of worries about radiation damage 

to the bladder and rectum mostly from late tissue toxicities that 

might result. Secondary cancers, there are quite a few studies that 

have been done looking at what percentage that you’ll find in the 

field and then outside of the field, and there is a pretty considerable risk not as much to the rectum but to the other abdominal 

areas associated with particular prostate cancer. 

Mr. DUNN. And finally, if I could—and one of the confusions is 

when we’re talking about radiation, doses of radiation, we think 

we’re measuring it in one type of measurement, and I’d like you to 

address a little bit either what measure we should be using or how 

confusing that subject is. 

Dr. BRINK. That’s a great question. You know, there’s so many 

things that need to be investigated in research on low dose radiation and not the least of which is just how to measure it. There’s 

much literature that reports the measurement to the entire body, 

the organism, the effective dose and others that really focus on the 

specific organ that’s irradiated, and this alone actually creates a 

great deal of confusion, and some just owing to the uncertainty of 

the best way to measure the dose from any particular study or 

therapy. 

Mr. DUNN. Any follow-up on that? 
53 

Ms. WOLOSCHAK. Yeah, and I would agree with that, and also 

add in that it’s a big issue for discussion. I mean, at the National 

Council on Radiation Protection, we talk about what’s the best way 

to try to calculate dose and figure out dose. It’s controversial, and 

believe me, people—you could fill a room talking about it for days. 

Mr. DUNN. So my time has run out but I hope, Mr. Neumann, 

what you take away from all of this is that we all are cheering for 

you to go, you know, get on this horse and ride it home. Thank you 

so much. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman WEBER. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Foster, you’re recognized. 

Mr. FOSTER. If I could just—a point of clarification. In my remarks, I did not specifically advocate for ALARA, a low as reasonably achievable which is, you know, the rule under which I worked 

for many years at a national lab. You know, I view ALARA as 

largely an expression of our ignorance. It’s what you do when you 

say since I do not know whether or not this may be dangerous, in 

the absence of better numbers, let us do as much as reasonably 

achievable, whatever that means, to minimize dose, and so it’s an 

example of a real cost of not having the real numbers on this. 

Chairman WEBER. You said it’s the result of ignorance. Doesn’t 

that apply to a lot of what Congress does? I’m just asking. 

Mr. FOSTER. Well, it’s also true that we work in the U.S. Capitol, 

which has—because of the stone that’s used has radiation levels 

that would not be allowed for incorporation into a nuclear facility. 

Chairman WEBER. Well, see, that explains what I’m talking 

about. 

We’re going to do a round two, and I don’t know if the gentleman 

from Florida wants to hang for that, but at least Mr. Foster—are 

you good, Neal? Thank you. 

So we would love to have the DOE in here as part of this discussion. We’d love to have the Under Secretary for Science from the 

DOE but we’re waiting on him to get confirmed. So if we can make 

that happen, that would be helpful. 

I did note in the testimony today that the Atomic Energy Act— 

and this is for you, Mr. Neumann. When the DOE said that they 

didn’t think that they wanted to take that purview, the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, did they cite reasons from the Atomic Energy Act, 

or do you remember why they turned it down? 

Mr. NEUMANN. They did not cite that. We pointed that out in our 

response to them, that they do have these responsibilities but—— 

Chairman WEBER. I saw that. Of course, it is at this point 63 

years old so I guess the political question may be in part, do we 

need to revisit that Act? Do we need to clarify what their role 

might be in this instance? 

Mr. NEUMANN. The language is pretty plain in the Atomic Energy Act that they’re responsible to lead, you know, radiation research given—— 

Chairman WEBER. Which would include low dose? 

Mr. NEUMANN. Right, which would include a range of—so, you 

know, you could always have more specificity but the language is 

pretty plain. 
54 

Chairman WEBER. Okay. Dr. Woloschak, you said that low dose 

radiation could boost the immune response. 

Ms. WOLOSCHAK. There’s certainly some studies that have demonstrated that in the literature, and it looks to be—that that’s true. 

Chairman WEBER. Okay. 

Ms. WOLOSCHAK. The problem is, it may also cause cancer, and 

so do you want to tell somebody to go sit in a radioactive spa and 

enjoy and boost your immune system if at the same time they’re 

at risk for cancer, and it’s those unknowns that make it be so difficult for what to do with low dose radiation. 

Chairman WEBER. Right. And is that probably true? One of the 

difficult parts of this in that research is because everybody’s DNA 

makeup is different. How do you decide, you know, how everybody’s 

going to be affected by that. Is there a time in a person’s life generally speaking and an age—I think some of the testimony, I don’t 

remember if it was you or Dr. Brink that said cells repair themselves. I think it was yours. 

Ms. WOLOSCHAK. Oh, cells always repair themselves. 

Chairman WEBER. Right. 

Ms. WOLOSCHAK. So the question is, how much can they repair. 

Chairman WEBER. But if they repair themselves inappropriately—I forget the terminology—then there’s a—I guess they mutate and they create a problem in that regard. Is there an age— 

I mean, do you find that when a person gets older, midlife? Is it 

30 years old, 50 years, 80 years old, or no? Do you have that research? 

Ms. WOLOSCHAK. There’s a lot of work that says that as people 

get older, their repair capacity decreases. 

Chairman WEBER. Well, I know that’s true. 

Ms. WOLOSCHAK. Yes. We all know that. But the other thing is 

that in general, the young are more susceptible for cancer induction than the old because they’re going to live longer. 

Chairman WEBER. Okay. And then Dr. Brink, you brought up a 

new term for me. You said the idea of the beneficial low dose is 

called the hormetic effect. 

Dr. BRINK. Yes. 

Chairman WEBER. Spell that. 

Dr. BRINK. H-o-r-m-e-t-i-c. 

Chairman WEBER. Okay. Would you elaborate on that, please? 

Dr. BRINK. It’s a theory that I think was being alluded to earlier 

which is that low dose radiation could in fact be beneficial either 

through stimulating the immune system or what have you, and it’s 

very much a theory at this point. 

Chairman WEBER. So how did it come about and how long has 

it been around? 

Dr. BRINK. I’m sure I can answer specifically. It’s been — it’s not 

new. The theory’s been around for some time. 

Chairman WEBER. Where does the name hormetic come from? 

Dr. BRINK. Hormesis is the root term, and I’m sorry, I’m not a 

linguist. I’m not sure I can answer that. 

Chairman WEBER. Okay. You just know that that’s the term that 

was applied. 

In Texas in Andrews County out by El Paso or actually I think 

it’s maybe further north toward the panhandle is a company called 
55 

Waste Control Specialists, and they take on low-level radiation 

waste. Are any of you all aware of that facility or familiar with 

that facility? So when we’re talking about, you know, doing research on low-level waste, were any of the low-level radiation waste 

facilities included in that research? Do you know? 

Dr. BRINK. I’m not aware. 

Ms. WOLOSCHAK. I’m not aware of any. 

Chairman WEBER. So when we talk about doing research on lowlevel radiation, and maybe this is for you, Mr. Neumann, why 

wouldn’t it be that the DOE or anybody that was involved prior to 

2012 when the funding was starting to be diminished, why 

wouldn’t they have included those facilities? Any idea? 

Mr. NEUMANN. The research they’ve been conducted has been either epidemiological, you know, where they’re looking at a population of people over time, or radiobiological, which involves lab 

work that Dr. Woloschak talked about. 

Chairman WEBER. Right. 

Mr. NEUMANN. That’s how they were determining the potential 

effects of low dose radiation. 

Ms. WOLOSCHAK. One approach would be to go to a site like the 

one you’ve mentioned and look at what the doses are, get a good 

dosimetry, and then do some lab experiments to try to answer what 

those effects might be in addition to studying the population. 

Chairman WEBER. Dr. Brink, I think you were going to say something? 

Dr. BRINK. Yeah. There certainly have been other efforts to look 

at radiation workers for their risks, and a more recent one is the 

Million Workers study looking at a million workers in the nuclear 

power industry that’s underway. 

Chairman WEBER. Right, and that was the reason I asked because those are typically associated with high-level radiation, 

right? 

Dr. BRINK. Well, hopefully not for the workers. 

Chairman WEBER. Well, I mean, you’re hoping not but, I mean, 

you go in there and you think well, those would not be considered 

low dose radiation levels, right? 

Ms. WOLOSCHAK. The Million Workers study is really about low 

dose workers—— 

Chairman WEBER. At nuclear—— 

Ms. WOLOSCHAK. —people that were exposed at low—— 

Chairman WEBER. At nuclear plants? 

Ms. WOLOSCHAK. Yes. 

Chairman WEBER. I would think the propensity would be to be— 

well, I guess any level—what did you call it? The lowest risk assessment level? But it’s interesting to me that you only talk about 

nuclear energy plants, you don’t talk about the waste facilities. 

Perhaps that’s something that should be included. 

So I appreciate that, and I’m going to yield to the gentleman 

from California. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let me apologize that, of course, as usual, 

we’re scheduled with two important hearings at exactly the same 

time, and I will review your testimony later on. So if I ask a question or two that is repetitive, excuse me for that. 
56 

Let me—people are going to the dentist and then they’re taking 

your pictures or you go to a doctor and they’re taking X-rays of you. 

Is this the type of low dose radiation that deserves more research? 

Dr. BRINK. So when we talk about low dose radiation, those kind 

of doses are extremely low, and more commonly, and you know, 

they’re two or three orders of magnitude lower than the doses that 

we call low dose that we’re focused mostly from computed tomography or nuclear medicine. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So we don’t—so one thing that came out of 

this hearing today is that you’re not suggesting that we—this is a 

potential danger that needs further investigation in terms of the 

type of radiation that we are exposed to in the health industry, 

medical health? 

Dr. BRINK. Well, the topic is very much about doses administered 

in the health industry. You were speaking more specifically I think 

about dental X-rays or—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. 

Dr. BRINK. —extremity X-rays, which are extremely low dose. 

But more commonly, the doses from an imaging procedure such as 

a CT scan or a nuclear medicine test would be also low dose but 

at a magnitude that we’re really speaking about what would be 

the—where research would be helpful to understand better what 

the potential risk might be. At the moment we only extrapolate 

from high-dose exposures to kind of guesstimate what the risk 

would be at those kind of doses. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And what about, is this idea that power 

lines—I guess power lines wouldn’t be—I remember there were 

some complaints in the past that power lines could pose some sort 

of health threat. Was that due to radiation or something else? 

Ms. WOLOSCHAK. You know, I was on a committee that investigated the effects of electric magnetic power lines, and that kind 

of radiation or the quality of radiation is different than the ionizing 

radiation that we’re talking about now. Now, in fact, most of those 

studies said that there were no effects from living by the highpower lines but this is different type of radiation. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. What about that? 

Ms. WOLOSCHAK. And it’s also a different kind of radiation than 

the cell phones have as well. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. So you aren’t today testifying that a 

warning to all of us to put this on the speaker rather than next 

to your ear or that we better watch out when we go to the dentist 

or if you’re—-you have to get something X-rayed so the dentist— 

or so the doctor can figure out how to help you, we don’t have to 

worry about those things? 

Ms. WOLOSCHAK. So I think what we’re trying to say is that cell 

phone, that quality of radiation, is something that we’re not concerned about here. What we’re concerned about is ionizing radiation, and ionizing radiation is dangerous because it breaks bonds, 

and that’s—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Can you give me an example of ionized—— 

Ms. WOLOSCHAK. So the dental X-ray is a type of ionizing radiation. The other types would be the CT scan, the chest X-ray, what 

we find in nuclear power plants, what we use for nuclear power. 

All of those would be examples of ionizing radiation. They’re a type 
57 

of radiation that causes the breaking—has the potential to break 

our bonds in our genetic material. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So is it a fundamentally different type of radiation that we’re talking about? 

Ms. WOLOSCHAK. It is fundamentally different than the cell 

phone or the power line, fundamentally different. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So we’re not just talking about dosage, we’re 

talking about an actual difference in the type of thing that we’re 

looking at? 

Ms. WOLOSCHAK. Right. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, we do know also—look, I’m here to 

learn, okay, so don’t think less of me for asking stupid questions 

sometimes. Isn’t—when you go and you’re treated for cancer, aren’t 

you being dosed with radiation, and if the cancer—if radiation 

causes cancer, what are we doing? 

Ms. WOLOSCHAK. So that becomes one of the biggest questions in 

treatment of patients with cancer. You’re absolutely right. The dose 

we’re giving to the cancer to kill it is very, very high, but what 

happens is, high doses kill cells. They don’t cause cancer; they kill 

cells. What causes cancer are lower doses where the cell still lives 

but it’s picked up mutations. So when you treat somebody with 

cancer, you give this whopping dose, it kills the cells; they’re gone. 

But around that dose there’s often a lower dose, and then there’s 

the risk of secondary cancer, a second cancer popping up. But the 

problem is the person’s life is at stake so you just go in and you 

treat the cancer because you’ve got to save the life then, and then 

you worry about the effects later. But it is a risk. It is a risk. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. Well, thank you very much for 

drawing our attention to this issue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, and I apologize to Mr. Foster. I 

should have recognized him next. Bill, you’re up. 

Mr. FOSTER. Thank you. 

First, I just want to comment on these beneficial effects of radiation. You know, this has been speculated upon I guess as long as 

radiation was known. My mother, when she was growing up, I 

guess people thought it was a good idea to treat acne with very 

large doses of X-rays for which my mother enjoyed having various 

forms of skin cancer towards the later years of her life. On the 

other hand, you know, my brother who had stage IV esophageal 

cancer benefited tremendously from a focused dose of radiation on 

his tumor. And so better scientific understanding yields better 

health outcomes here, and one of the reasons that we really want 

to keep doing this research. 

Now, in regards to the hormetic effects, you mentioned the immune system is activated in response to radiation dose. Is there 

also evidence that this can trigger autoimmune diseases as well? 

Is there a danger there as well as cancer? 

Ms. WOLOSCHAK. Look, I want to stress that we don’t understand 

enough about low doses to even say yes, there’s this big hormetic 

effect. What I can say is, in the literature, you can find reports that 

when you treat with low doses, you stimulate animals to have a 

better immune response. Is there the possibility of autoimmune 

disease? You’re absolutely right. That is a possibility that could 

come with it. So just as much as looks like there are positive ef-
58 

fects, there may also be negative effects, and that’s why we have 

the need to do research at that low dose range. 

Mr. FOSTER. Okay. And similarly, DNA repair mechanisms are 

modulated by various factors inside biology. Are there documented 

effects of radiation on how active the DNA repair mechanisms are? 

Ms. WOLOSCHAK. Certainly we know that the repair mechanisms 

are sitting there kind of raring to go, and when you irradiate, they 

go right to the site within almost nanoseconds to begin to repair. 

So the repair process is extremely rapid. It begins almost immediately following radiation exposure. 

Mr. FOSTER. And it’s my understanding that there is some scientific at least speculation, if not research, that you may be able 

to treat astronauts with drugs, for example, that activate the DNA 

repair mechanism to make them more radiation-resistant. 

Ms. WOLOSCHAK. NASA’s looking for mitigators exactly like that 

right now, so you’re right on target. 

Mr. FOSTER. It’s sort of an infinitely complicated problem. 

Now, I’d like to actually stand up in favor of DOE a little bit. 

It was not a completely thoughtless abandonment of this, and if I 

could have unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter—— 

Chairman WEBER. Without objection. 

[The information appears in Appendix I] 

Mr. FOSTER. —a letter to the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board 

dated—on this subject dated June 23, 2015, which makes two interesting observations. The first one is that, quoting from the letter, ‘‘it’s highly unlikely and I would say impossible that a group 

of experts would after review and deliberation of the vast literature 

on this subject come to a consensus or that that consensus would 

resolve this issue to the satisfaction of the regulatory authorities 

or the public.’’ You know, this has to do with is there a path to success here even if the science became clear, and I was wondering— 

I’ll ask you for comments on that. 

The second thing I want to point out is that this same letter from 

the SEAB says the SEAB does not believe that DOE should abandon its research on low level radiation effects. So although it expressed skepticism on a path to success both in convincing the regulators and the public that this could be a settled issue, they did 

also recommend this, and so the letter is, I think, interesting reading for anyone just trying to evaluate why the DOE went the way 

it did. 

So any comments on that? 

Ms. WOLOSCHAK. Yeah. I mean, so as a person that sits on a 

number of regulatory boards that discusses these and mostly 

makes advisory decisions, I mean, I think it is true to say that if 

you don’t have data, then you always say well, we can’t imagine 

what we can get to solve a problem. So DOE is exactly correct in 

saying we can’t imagine what it would get to solve a problem. But 

at the same time what I’ll say is, I’ve seen policies change because 

of data. So things I never expected like to have the limit for the 

dose for the lens of the eye, it’s dropped because of new data and 

new results. It’s dropped internationally—— 

Mr. FOSTER. The limit dropped in the sense of being more conservative? 
59 

Ms. WOLOSCHAK. Being more conservative in that particular example because cataracts were popping up at lower doses than people expected, and nobody would have imagine that happening five 

years ago. It was just not possible. So I think that it’s easy for DOE 

to make that statement that things will never change, but the fact 

is, data do convince people, and that’s why more data are needed. 

Mr. FOSTER. You know, it used to be popular to tune up electron 

beam lines by looking at—staring the beam into your eyeball and 

looking at the track of radiation. 

Anyway, I just wanted, in the time that I barely have here, to 

bring up the issue of money. I mean the reason that ultimately this 

program was discontinued is the stress in real terms of the budgets 

in the Department of Energy, so I have a lot of sympathy there. 

You know, I wish this could be a uniformly bipartisan issue. I was 

very disappointed when the Trump Administration proposed I 

think a 16 percent cut to the Department of Energy, and I was unable to get bipartisan support for a letter urging against that. It 

is not only authorization that counts, it is appropriations, and I 

think that everyone paying attention to this hearing should understand to watch votes on budgets and appropriations and not just 

authorizations. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This has been a really great hearing, 

and I yield back. 

Chairman WEBER. Well, I thank the gentleman. I do want to 

point out that we didn’t exactly—we’re not enamored by those cuts 

either in every form, some cuts but not all of them, so I thank you 

for saying that. 

I do want to ask probably a more technical question, Dr. 

Woloschak. Ionizing radiation, you specifically said as used in dental X-ray, they break bonds. Would you explain what you mean by 

that? 

Ms. WOLOSCHAK. So ionizing radiation is defined by any radiation that can cause an electron to be ejected from an atom. That’s 

actually the official definition. So if you think about the removal 

of an electron from an atom, so go back to high school chemistry—— 

Chairman WEBER. It’s going to change the structure? 

Ms. WOLOSCHAK. That ejection process causes bonds to break, 

and what we care about most, as a radiation biologist, is damage 

to our DNA. So when we break bonds to DNA, then we have to 

have processes in our cells that repair it and actually we have fabulous methods in our cells to repair it. It’s incredible. But that is 

the definition officially of what ionizing radiation is. 

Chairman WEBER. Okay. Are there other types of radiation? 

Ms. WOLOSCHAK. Sure, sure. So ultraviolet radiation that we get 

from the sun when we get a sunburn. That’s a different quality of 

radiation. 

Chairman WEBER. So that’s low level? 

Ms. WOLOSCHAK. It’s—but it’s not ionizing. So we don’t—so that’s 

not what we’ve been worried about here because it’s not ionizing. 

We can protect it with sunscreens and things like that. Electromagnetic radiation that comes from power lines, that’s another 

type of radiation. It’s not ionizing. Radiation that we get from our 

microwave is also radiation but it’s not ionizing. 
60 

Chairman WEBER. I’ve often wondered about that, the microwave 

analogy. How many other types of radiation would you say? Are 

there six? 

Ms. WOLOSCHAK. So yeah, they’re probably about—from the electromagnetic spectrum, we go from extremely low-frequently radiation from the power lines, we go to radiation from infrared I 

mean, so there’s a spectrum of probably like seven or eight types, 

and it depends on how you divide it. 

Chairman WEBER. Okay. All right. That’s actually probably, unless you have any other questions? 

Mr. FOSTER. If I could have just one—— 

Chairman WEBER. You bet you. 

Mr. FOSTER. —final comment. You know, this is a reminder of 

how great it is to have the GAO around, having an organization 

that provides high-quality, nonpartisan analysis is indispensable. 

You know, for good or ill, we’ve taken the size of Congressional 

staffs down to dangerously low levels, and that actually causes us 

to depend on organizations like yours, so thank you and thank everyone in your organization for existing and doing your job so well. 

Mr. NEUMANN. Thank you. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman WEBER. The gentleman from California. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. One last comment as well. We all know that 

Madame Curie died, right? She died of cancer, I believe, from her 

experiments, and that’s—we didn’t even know anything about radiation then at all, and she was the one who discovered this, and 

about 40 years later, 50 years later, maybe, maybe 40, my father 

had cancer, and he was saved. Radiation saved him. He was one 

of the first chemotherapy guys, so Madame Curie died and my father lived, and we’ve been through this thing where you go to the 

shoe store and you’re going to buy your shoes, I remember looking 

in the X-ray machine, so mankind has a lot to learn, and we have 

learned a lot, and I want to thank you guys for being at the forefront of this important lesson and try and see how we can use this 

to our benefit and take care of the dangers, so thank you very 

much. 

Chairman WEBER. Well, thank you. I want to thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony and the members for their 

questions. The record will remain open for two weeks for additional 

comments and written questions from members. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:01 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(61) 

Appendix I 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
62 

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY RANKING MEMBER

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON
63 
64 

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MS. LAURA I. THEVENOY, CEO, ASTRO 
65 

LETTER SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE BILL FOSTER
66 

Æ