Literature DB >> 18648559

Very large amounts of radiation are required to produce cancer.

Antone L Brooks1, T Edmond Hui, Lezlie A Couch.   

Abstract

The public fear of radiation is in part driven by the Linear No Threshold Hypothesis (LNTH), or the concept that each and every ionization increases the risk for cancer. Even if this were true, it is important to recognize that the increased risk is very small at low doses and cannot be detected. This paper demonstrates the large number of assumptions and extrapolations needed when using the LNTH to estimate low-dose cancer risk. The manuscript provides information at every level of biological organization suggesting that many of these linear assumptions do not hold. While the initial damage may be produced linearly with dose, the processing of that damage is very non-linear. Finally, the paper provides the unique prospective on radiation-induced cancer, demonstrating that it takes large amounts (total energy) of radiation delivered to large populations to detect an increase in cancer frequency. These observations are supported by both theoretical calculations and examples based on past human radiation exposure.

Entities:  

Keywords:  LNTH; cancer risk; total energy

Year:  2007        PMID: 18648559      PMCID: PMC2477710          DOI: 10.2203/dose-response.07-013.Brooks

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dose Response        ISSN: 1559-3258            Impact factor:   2.658


  20 in total

1.  Gene expression changes in mouse brain after exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation.

Authors:  E Yin; D O Nelson; M A Coleman; L E Peterson; A J Wyrobek
Journal:  Int J Radiat Biol       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 2.694

2.  Risks and risks.

Authors:  Donald Kennedy
Journal:  Science       Date:  2005-09-30       Impact factor: 47.728

3.  Evidence for a lack of DNA double-strand break repair in human cells exposed to very low x-ray doses.

Authors:  Kai Rothkamm; Markus Löbrich
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2003-04-04       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Low-dose irradiation alters the transcript profiles of human lymphoblastoid cells including genes associated with cytogenetic radioadaptive response.

Authors:  Matthew A Coleman; Eric Yin; Leif E Peterson; David Nelson; Karen Sorensen; James D Tucker; Andrew J Wyrobek
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 2.841

5.  Risk of cancer after low doses of ionising radiation: retrospective cohort study in 15 countries.

Authors:  E Cardis; M Vrijheid; M Blettner; E Gilbert; M Hakama; C Hill; G Howe; J Kaldor; C R Muirhead; M Schubauer-Berigan; T Yoshimura; F Bermann; G Cowper; J Fix; C Hacker; B Heinmiller; M Marshall; I Thierry-Chef; D Utterback; Y-O Ahn; E Amoros; P Ashmore; A Auvinen; J-M Bae; J Bernar Solano; A Biau; E Combalot; P Deboodt; A Diez Sacristan; M Eklof; H Engels; G Engholm; G Gulis; R Habib; K Holan; H Hyvonen; A Kerekes; J Kurtinaitis; H Malker; M Martuzzi; A Mastauskas; A Monnet; M Moser; M S Pearce; D B Richardson; F Rodriguez-Artalejo; A Rogel; H Tardy; M Telle-Lamberton; I Turai; M Usel; K Veress
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2005-06-29

Review 6.  Hypersensitivity to very-low single radiation doses: its relationship to the adaptive response and induced radioresistance.

Authors:  M C Joiner; P Lambin; E P Malaise; T Robson; J E Arrand; K A Skov; B Marples
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  1996-11-04       Impact factor: 2.433

7.  Low doses of radiation increase the latency of spontaneous lymphomas and spinal osteosarcomas in cancer-prone, radiation-sensitive Trp53 heterozygous mice.

Authors:  R E J Mitchel; J S Jackson; D P Morrison; S M Carlisle
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 2.841

8.  Analysis of the mortality experience amongst U.S. nuclear power industry workers after chronic low-dose exposure to ionizing radiation.

Authors:  Geoffrey R Howe; Lydia B Zablotska; Jack J Fix; John Egel; Jeff Buchanan
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 2.841

9.  Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: assessing what we really know.

Authors:  David J Brenner; Richard Doll; Dudley T Goodhead; Eric J Hall; Charles E Land; John B Little; Jay H Lubin; Dale L Preston; R Julian Preston; Jerome S Puskin; Elaine Ron; Rainer K Sachs; Jonathan M Samet; Richard B Setlow; Marco Zaider
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2003-11-10       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 10.  The adaptive response in radiobiology: evolving insights and implications.

Authors:  S Wolff
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 9.031

View more
  6 in total

1.  Improving the scientific foundations for estimating health risks from the Fukushima incident.

Authors:  Edward Calabrese
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2011-11-22       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  The healthy worker effect and nuclear industry workers.

Authors:  Krzysztof W Fornalski; Ludwik Dobrzyński
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2010-01-06       Impact factor: 2.658

Review 3.  Negotiating the risks of computed tomography in primary care.

Authors:  Julie-Ann Moreland; Fergus V Gleeson; Brian D Nicholson
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2020-01-30       Impact factor: 5.386

4.  Radiation hormesis: historical perspective and implications for low-dose cancer risk assessment.

Authors:  Alexander M Vaiserman
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2010-01-18       Impact factor: 2.658

5.  Micronucleus frequency among Iraqi thyroid disorder patients.

Authors:  Abdul Hussein Moyet AlFaisal; Intesar Jawad Kahdoom Al-Ramahi; Ismail Abdul Redah Abdul-Hassan
Journal:  Comp Clin Path       Date:  2012-12-28

6.  Quantitative Proteomic Profiling of Low-Dose Ionizing Radiation Effects in a Human Skin Model.

Authors:  Shawna M Hengel; Joshua T Aldrich; Katrina M Waters; Ljiljana Pasa-Tolic; David L Stenoien
Journal:  Proteomes       Date:  2014-07-29
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.