Literature DB >> 18648610

What becomes of nuclear risk assessment in light of radiation hormesis?

Jerry M Cuttler1.   

Abstract

A nuclear probabilistic risk or safety assessment (PRA or PSA) is a scientific calculation that uses assumptions and models to determine the likelihood of plant or fuel repository failures and the corresponding releases of radioactivity. Estimated radiation doses to the surrounding population are linked inappropriately to risks of cancer death and congenital malformations. Even though PRAs use very pessimistic assumptions, they demonstrate that nuclear power plants and fuel repositories are very safe compared with the health risks of other generating options or other risks that people readily accept. Because of the frightening negative images and the exaggerated safety and health concerns that are communicated, many people judge nuclear risks to be unacceptable and do not favour nuclear plants. Large-scale tests and experience with nuclear accidents demonstrate that even severe accidents expose the public to only low doses of radiation, and a century of research has demonstrated that such exposures are beneficial to health. A scientific basis for this phenomenon now exists. PRAs are valuable tools for improving plant designs, but if nuclear power is to play a significant role in meeting future energy needs, we must communicate its many real benefits and dispel the negative images formed by unscientific extrapolations of harmful effects at high doses.

Entities:  

Year:  2006        PMID: 18648610      PMCID: PMC2477701          DOI: 10.2203/dose-response.06-106.Cuttler

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


  10 in total

Review 1.  Chemical hormesis: its historical foundations as a biological hypothesis.

Authors:  E J Calabrese; L A Baldwin
Journal:  Hum Exp Toxicol       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 2.903

Review 2.  Radiation hormesis: the demise of a legitimate hypothesis.

Authors:  E J Calabrese; L A Baldwin
Journal:  Hum Exp Toxicol       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 2.903

Review 3.  Radiation hormesis: its historical foundations as a biological hypothesis.

Authors:  E J Calabrese; L A Baldwin
Journal:  Hum Exp Toxicol       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 2.903

4.  Scientific foundations of hormesis. Introduction.

Authors: 
Journal:  Crit Rev Toxicol       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 5.635

5.  Biologic responses to low doses of ionizing radiation: detriment versus hormesis. Part 1. Dose responses of cells and tissues.

Authors:  L E Feinendegen; M Pollycove
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 10.057

Review 6.  Biologic responses to low doses of ionizing radiation: Detriment versus hormesis. Part 2. Dose responses of organisms.

Authors:  M Pollycove; L E Feinendegen
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 10.057

7.  Toxicology rethinks its central belief.

Authors:  Edward J Calabrese; Linda A Baldwin
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2003-02-13       Impact factor: 49.962

8.  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

Review 9.  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

10.  Nonlinear dose-response relationship in the immune system following exposure to ionizing radiation: mechanisms and implications.

Authors:  Shu-Zheng Liu
Journal:  Nonlinearity Biol Toxicol Med       Date:  2003-01
  10 in total
  3 in total

1.  Nuclear energy and health: and the benefits of low-dose radiation hormesis.

Authors:  Jerry M Cuttler; Myron Pollycove
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2008-11-10       Impact factor: 2.658

Review 2.  Cellular stress responses, the hormesis paradigm, and vitagenes: novel targets for therapeutic intervention in neurodegenerative disorders.

Authors:  Vittorio Calabrese; Carolin Cornelius; Albena T Dinkova-Kostova; Edward J Calabrese; Mark P Mattson
Journal:  Antioxid Redox Signal       Date:  2010-08-28       Impact factor: 8.401

3.  Health effects of low level radiation: when will we acknowledge the reality?

Authors:  J M Cuttler
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2007-09-10       Impact factor: 2.658

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.