Literature DB >> 20011649

Perspective on the use of LNT for radiation protection and risk assessment by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Jerome S Puskin1.   

Abstract

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) bases its risk assessments, regulatory limits, and nonregulatory guidelines for population exposures to low level ionizing radiation on the linear no-threshold (LNT) hypothesis, which assumes that the risk of cancer due to a low dose exposure is proportional to dose, with no threshold. The use of LNT for radiation protection purposes has been repeatedly endorsed by authoritative scientific advisory bodies, including the National Academy of Sciences' BEIR Committees, whose recommendations form a primary basis of EPA's risk assessment methodology. Although recent radiobiological findings indicate novel damage and repair processes at low doses, LNT is supported by data from both epidemiology and radiobiology. Given the current state of the science, the consensus positions of key scientific and governmental bodies, as well as the conservatism and calculational convenience of the LNT assumption, it is unlikely that EPA will modify this approach in the near future.

Entities:  

Year:  2009        PMID: 20011649      PMCID: PMC2790313          DOI: 10.2203/dose-response.09-005.Puskin

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


  22 in total

Review 1.  The Chernobyl disaster: cancer following the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant.

Authors:  M Hatch; E Ron; A Bouville; L Zablotska; G Howe
Journal:  Epidemiol Rev       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 6.222

2.  Radiation-induced genomic instability: delayed mutagenic and cytogenetic effects of X rays and alpha particles.

Authors:  J B Little; H Nagasawa; T Pfenning; H Vetrovs
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 2.841

3.  Breast cancer mortality after diagnostic radiography: findings from the U.S. Scoliosis Cohort Study.

Authors:  M M Doody; J E Lonstein; M Stovall; D G Hacker; N Luckyanov; C E Land
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-08-15       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Cell-cell contact during gamma irradiation is not required to induce a bystander effect in normal human keratinocytes: evidence for release during irradiation of a signal controlling survival into the medium.

Authors:  C Mothersill; C B Seymour
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 2.841

5.  The 15-Country Collaborative Study of Cancer Risk among Radiation Workers in the Nuclear Industry: estimates of radiation-related cancer risks.

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; A Biau; E Combalot; P Deboodt; A Diez Sacristan; M Eklöf; H Engels; G Engholm; G Gulis; R 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:  Radiat Res       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 2.841

6.  Estimates of relative risks for cancers in a population after prolonged low-dose-rate radiation exposure: a follow-up assessment from 1983 to 2005.

Authors:  Su-Lun Hwang; Jing-Shiang Hwang; Yi-Ta Yang; Wanhua A Hsieh; Tien-Chun Chang; How-Ran Guo; Mong-Hsun Tsai; Jih-Luh Tang; I-Feng Lin; Wushou Peter Chang
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 2.841

Review 7.  Chronic lymphocytic leukaemia and radiation: findings among workers at five US nuclear facilities and a review of the recent literature.

Authors:  Mary K Schubauer-Berigan; Robert D Daniels; Donald A Fleming; Andrea M Markey; James R Couch; Steven H Ahrenholz; Jenneh S Burphy; Jeri L Anderson; Chih-Yu Tseng
Journal:  Br J Haematol       Date:  2007-10-06       Impact factor: 6.998

8.  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 9.  Is cancer risk of radiation workers larger than expected?

Authors:  P Jacob; W Rühm; L Walsh; M Blettner; G Hammer; H Zeeb
Journal:  Occup Environ Med       Date:  2009-06-30       Impact factor: 4.402

10.  Mortality and cancer incidence following occupational radiation exposure: third analysis of the National Registry for Radiation Workers.

Authors:  C R Muirhead; J A O'Hagan; R G E Haylock; M A Phillipson; T Willcock; G L C Berridge; W Zhang
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2009-01-13       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  14 in total

1.  The LNT Debate in Radiation Protection: Science vs. Policy.

Authors:  Kenneth L Mossman
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2011-06-15       Impact factor: 2.658

2.  Special issue introduction.

Authors:  Bobby R Scott
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2010-01-04       Impact factor: 2.658

3.  Letter to the Editor: Reply to Cohen's Response to EPA Position on Cancer Risk from Low Level Radiation.

Authors:  Jerome S Puskin
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2010-04-29       Impact factor: 2.658

4.  Letter to the editor: response to EPA position on cancer risk from low level radiation.

Authors:  Bernard L Cohen
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2010-02-25       Impact factor: 2.658

5.  Commentary on Using LNT for Radiation Protection and Risk Assessment.

Authors:  Jerry M Cuttler
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2010-02-04       Impact factor: 2.658

Review 6.  Ionizing radiation from computed tomography versus anesthesia for magnetic resonance imaging in infants and children: patient safety considerations.

Authors:  Michael J Callahan; Robert D MacDougall; Sarah D Bixby; Stephan D Voss; Richard L Robertson; Joseph P Cravero
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2017-11-27

7.  Epidemiology Without Biology: False Paradigms, Unfounded Assumptions, and Specious Statistics in Radiation Science (with Commentaries by Inge Schmitz-Feuerhake and Christopher Busby and a Reply by the Authors).

Authors:  Bill Sacks; Gregory Meyerson; Jeffry A Siegel
Journal:  Biol Theory       Date:  2016-06-17

8.  Small γ-Ray Doses Prevent Rather than Increase Lung Tumors in Mice.

Authors:  B R Scott; V R Bruce; K M Gott; J Wilder; T March
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2012-10-09       Impact factor: 2.658

9.  Background radiation impacts human longevity and cancer mortality: reconsidering the linear no-threshold paradigm.

Authors:  Elroei David; Marina Wolfson; Vadim E Fraifeld
Journal:  Biogerontology       Date:  2021-01-22       Impact factor: 4.277

10.  Simulation study on the validity of the average risk approach in estimating population attributable fractions for continuous exposures.

Authors:  Yibing Ruan; Stephen D Walter; Priyanka Gogna; Christine M Friedenreich; Darren R Brenner
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-07-01       Impact factor: 2.692

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.