Literature DB >> 18480143

Low-dose radiation risk extrapolation fallacy associated with the linear-no-threshold model.

Bobby R Scott1.   

Abstract

Managing radiation risks typically involves establishing regulations that limit radiation exposure. The linear-no-threshold (LNT) dose-response model has been the traditional regulatory default assumption. According to the LNT model, for low a linear-energy-transfer (LET) radiation-induced stochastic effects (e.g., neoplastic transformation and cancer), the risk increases linearly without a threshold. Any radiation exposure is predicted to increase the number of cancer cases among a large population of people. Cancer risk extrapolation from high to low doses based on this model is widespread. Here, indirect evidence is provided that the excess cancer risk calculated at very low doses of low-LET radiation (e.g., around 1 mGy), based on extrapolating from high dose data for an irradiated human population using the LNT model, is likely a phantom excess risk. Indirect evidence is provided, suggesting that for brief exposures to low-LET radiation doses on the order of 1 mGy, that a decrease below the spontaneous level is many orders of magnitude more probable than for any increase in risk as would be predicted by extrapolating from high to low doses using the LNT model. Such a decrease is, however, not expected after exposure to high-LET alpha radiation. The risk reduction has been largely attributed to the induction of a protective apoptosis-mediated (PAM) process that selectively eliminates cells that contain genomic instability (e.g., mutant and neoplastically transformed cells). The PAM process appears to require a dose-rate-dependent stochastic threshold for activation whose minimum is estimated to possibly be as low as 0.01 mGy for X-rays and gamma rays. However, if the dose is too high (e.g., above 250 mGy for brief exposure at a high rate to X-rays or gamma rays), the PAM process is not expected to be activated. For protracted exposure to X-rays or gamma rays, doses as high as 400 mGy (and possibly higher) may activate the PAM process.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18480143     DOI: 10.1177/0960327107083410

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Exp Toxicol        ISSN: 0960-3271            Impact factor:   2.903


  20 in total

1.  Assessing potential radiological harm to fukushima recovery workers.

Authors:  Bobby R Scott
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2011-06-16       Impact factor: 2.658

Review 2.  Twilight effects of low doses of ionizing radiation on cellular systems: a bird's eye view on current concepts and research.

Authors:  Ilaria Postiglione; Angela Chiaviello; Giuseppe Palumbo
Journal:  Med Oncol       Date:  2009-06-06       Impact factor: 3.064

3.  Stochastic thresholds: a novel explanation of nonlinear dose-response relationships for stochastic radiobiological effects.

Authors:  Bobby R Scott
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2006-05-22       Impact factor: 2.658

4.  The new radiobiology: returning to our roots.

Authors:  Brant A Ulsh
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2012-07-15       Impact factor: 2.658

Review 5.  Protecting sensitive patient groups from imaging using ionizing radiation: effects during pregnancy, in fetal life and childhood.

Authors:  Paolo Tomà; Alessandra Bartoloni; Sergio Salerno; Claudio Granata; Vittorio Cannatà; Andrea Magistrelli; Owen J Arthurs
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2019-04-04       Impact factor: 3.469

6.  Radiation risk from lung cancer screening.

Authors:  Cristiano Rampinelli; Paolo De Marco; Massimo Bellomi
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2017-12

7.  Cancer-prone mice expressing the Ki-rasG12C gene show increased lung carcinogenesis after CT screening exposures.

Authors:  Michael T Munley; Joseph E Moore; Matthew C Walb; Scott P Isom; John D Olson; J Gregory Zora; Nancy D Kock; Kenneth T Wheeler; Mark Steven Miller
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2011-09-30       Impact factor: 2.841

8.  Radiation exposure among patients with the highest CT scan utilization in the emergency department.

Authors:  Kaushal H Shah; Benjamin H Slovis; Dan Runde; Brandon Godbout; David H Newman; Jarone Lee
Journal:  Emerg Radiol       Date:  2013-07-14

9.  Residential radon appears to prevent lung cancer.

Authors:  Bobby R Scott
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2011-10-14       Impact factor: 2.658

10.  Risk of leukaemia mortality from exposure to ionising radiation in US nuclear workers: a pooled case-control study.

Authors:  Robert D Daniels; Stephen Bertke; Kathleen M Waters; Mary K Schubauer-Berigan
Journal:  Occup Environ Med       Date:  2012-09-21       Impact factor: 4.402

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.