Literature DB >> 18648568

Rad-by-rad (bit-by-bit): triumph of evidence over activities fostering fear of radiogenic cancers at low doses.

J Strzelczyk1, W Potter, Z Zdrojewicz.   

Abstract

Large segments of Western populations hold sciences in low esteem. This trend became particularly pervasive in the field of radiation sciences in recent decades. The resulting lack of knowledge, easily filled with fear that feeds on itself, makes people susceptible to prevailing dogmas. Decades-long moratorium on nuclear power in the US, resentment of "anything nuclear", and delay/refusal to obtain medical radiation procedures are some of the societal consequences. The problem has been exacerbated by promulgation of the linear-no-threshold (LNT) dose response model by advisory bodies such as the ICRP, NCRP and others. This model assumes no safe level of radiation and implies that response is the same per unit dose regardless of the total dose. The most recent (June 2005) report from the National Research Council, BEIR VII (Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation) continues this approach and quantifies potential cancer risks at low doses by linear extrapolation of risk values obtained from epidemiological observations of populations exposed to high doses, 0.2 Sv to 3 Sv. It minimizes the significance of a lack of evidence for adverse effects in populations exposed to low doses, and discounts documented beneficial effects of low dose exposures on the human immune system. The LNT doctrine is in direct conflict with current findings of radiobiology and important features of modern radiation oncology. Fortunately, these aspects are addressed in-depth in another major report-issued jointly in March 2005 by two French Academies, of Sciences and of Medicine. The latter report is much less publicized, and thus it is a responsibility of radiation professionals, physicists, nuclear engineers, and physicians to become familiar with its content and relevant studies, and to widely disseminate this information. To counteract biased media, we need to be creative in developing means of sharing good news about radiation with co-workers, patients, and the general public.

Entities:  

Year:  2007        PMID: 18648568      PMCID: PMC2477719          DOI: 10.2203/dose-response.07-021.Strzelczyk

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


  16 in total

1.  Inverse radiation dose-rate effects on somatic and germ-line mutations and DNA damage rates.

Authors:  M M Vilenchik; A G Knudson
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2000-05-09       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  DNA damage-related RNA expression to assess individual sensitivity to ionizing radiation.

Authors:  K Bishay; K Ory; M F Olivier; J Lebeau; C Levalois; S Chevillard
Journal:  Carcinogenesis       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 4.944

3.  Biological detection of low radiation doses by combining results of two microarray analysis methods.

Authors:  G Mercier; N Berthault; J Mary; J Peyre; A Antoniadis; J-P Comet; A Cornuejols; C Froidevaux; M Dutreix
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2004-01-13       Impact factor: 16.971

4.  Stress-specific signatures: expression profiling of p53 wild-type and -null human cells.

Authors:  Sally A Amundson; Khanh T Do; Lisa Vinikoor; Christine A Koch-Paiz; Michael L Bittner; Jeffrey M Trent; Paul Meltzer; Albert J Fornace
Journal:  Oncogene       Date:  2005-06-30       Impact factor: 9.867

5.  Dose-effect relationship and estimation of the carcinogenic effects of low doses of ionizing radiation: the joint report of the Académie des Sciences (Paris) and of the Académie Nationale de Médecine.

Authors:  Maurice Tubiana
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2005-10-01       Impact factor: 7.038

Review 6.  Radiation-induced bystander effects: are they good, bad or both?

Authors:  Carmel Mothersill; Colin Seymour
Journal:  Med Confl Surviv       Date:  2005 Apr-Jun

Review 7.  Cellular mechanisms of protection and repair induced by radiation exposure and their consequences for cell system responses.

Authors:  L E Feinendegen; M K Loken; J Booz; H Mühlensiepen; C A Sondhaus; V P Bond
Journal:  Stem Cells       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 6.277

8.  Extracellular signaling through the microenvironment: a hypothesis relating carcinogenesis, bystander effects, and genomic instability.

Authors:  M H Barcellos-Hoff; A L Brooks
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 2.841

Review 9.  Reactive oxygen species in cell responses to toxic agents.

Authors:  L E Feinendegen
Journal:  Hum Exp Toxicol       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 2.903

Review 10.  Radiation-induced versus endogenous DNA damage: possible effect of inducible protective responses in mitigating endogenous damage.

Authors:  Myron Pollycove; Ludwig E Feinendegen
Journal:  Hum Exp Toxicol       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 2.903

View more
  3 in total

1.  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

2.  Radiation-stimulated epigenetic reprogramming of adaptive-response genes in the lung: an evolutionary gift for mounting adaptive protection against lung cancer.

Authors:  Bobby R Scott; Steven A Belinsky; Shuguang Leng; Yong Lin; Julie A Wilder; Leah A Damiani
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2009-06-11       Impact factor: 2.658

3.  The Assessment of the Integrated Antioxidant System of the Body in the Course of Radon Therapy: A Pilot Study.

Authors:  Jadwiga Kuciel-Lewandowska; Jan Gnus; Lilla Pawlik-Sobecka; Sylwia Płaczkowska; Izabela Kokot; Michał Kasperczak; Małgorzata Paprocka-Borowicz
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2018-01-02       Impact factor: 3.411

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.