Literature DB >> 20877492

Commentary on Using LNT for Radiation Protection and Risk Assessment.

Jerry M Cuttler1.   

Abstract

An article by Jerome Puskin attempts to justify the continued use of the linear no-threshold (LNT) assumption in radiation protection and risk assessment. In view of the substantial and increasing amount of data that contradicts this assumption; it is difficult to understand the reason for endorsing this unscientific behavior, which severely constrains nuclear energy projects and the use of CT scans in medicine. Many Japanese studies over the past 25 years have shown that low doses and low dose rates of radiation improve health in living organisms including humans. Recent studies on fruit flies have demonstrated that the original basis for the LNT notion is invalid. The Puskin article omits any mention of important reports from UNSCEAR, the NCRP and the French Academies of Science and Medicine, while citing an assessment of the Canadian breast cancer study that manipulated the data to obscure evidence of reduced breast cancer mortality following a low total dose. This commentary provides dose limits that are based on real human data, for both single and chronic radiation exposures.

Entities:  

Year:  2010        PMID: 20877492      PMCID: PMC2939692          DOI: 10.2203/dose-response.10-003.Cuttler

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


  10 in total

1.  A threshold exists in the dose-response relationship for somatic mutation frequency induced by X irradiation of Drosophila.

Authors:  Takao Koana; Yoshio Takashima; Mikie O Okada; Masateru Ikehata; Junji Miyakoshi; Kazuo Sakai
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 2.841

2.  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

3.  The linear no-threshold relationship is inconsistent with radiation biologic and experimental data.

Authors:  Maurice Tubiana; Ludwig E Feinendegen; Chichuan Yang; Joseph M Kaminski
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 11.105

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

Authors:  Jerome S Puskin
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2009-08-21       Impact factor: 2.658

5.  Test of the linear-no threshold theory of radiation carcinogenesis for inhaled radon decay products.

Authors:  B L Cohen
Journal:  Health Phys       Date:  1995-02       Impact factor: 1.316

6.  Breast cancer mortality between 1950 and 1987 after exposure to fractionated moderate-dose-rate ionizing radiation in the Canadian fluoroscopy cohort study and a comparison with breast cancer mortality in the atomic bomb survivors study.

Authors:  G R Howe; J McLaughlin
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 2.841

7.  It's time for a new low-dose-radiation risk assessment paradigm--one that acknowledges hormesis.

Authors:  Bobby R Scott
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2007-09-30       Impact factor: 2.658

8.  Reduction of background mutations by low-dose X irradiation of Drosophila spermatocytes at a low dose rate.

Authors:  Takao Koana; Mikie O Okada; Keiji Ogura; Hidenobu Tsujimura; Kazuo Sakai
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 2.841

9.  Reduction in mutation frequency by very low-dose gamma irradiation of Drosophila melanogaster germ cells.

Authors:  Keiji Ogura; Junji Magae; Yasushi Kawakami; Takao Koana
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 2.841

10.  Mortality from breast cancer after irradiation during fluoroscopic examinations in patients being treated for tuberculosis.

Authors:  A B Miller; G R Howe; G J Sherman; J P Lindsay; M J Yaffe; P J Dinner; H A Risch; D L Preston
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1989-11-09       Impact factor: 91.245

  10 in total
  11 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.  Editorial: is airport body-scan radiation a health risk?

Authors:  Jerry M Cuttler
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2011-01-17       Impact factor: 2.658

3.  ALARA, image gently and CT-induced cancer.

Authors:  Mervyn D Cohen
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2015-02-14

4.  Residential radon appears to prevent lung cancer.

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

Review 5.  Radiobiology in Cardiovascular Imaging.

Authors:  Pat Zanzonico; Lawrence Dauer; H William Strauss
Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2016-12

6.  Radiation-hormesis phenotypes, the related mechanisms and implications for disease prevention and therapy.

Authors:  Bobby R Scott
Journal:  J Cell Commun Signal       Date:  2014-10-17       Impact factor: 5.782

7.  Commentary: ethical issues of current health-protection policies on low-dose ionizing radiation.

Authors:  Yehoshua Socol; Ludwik Dobrzyński; Mohan Doss; Ludwig E Feinendegen; Marek K Janiak; Mark L Miller; Charles L Sanders; Bobby R Scott; Brant Ulsh; Alexander Vaiserman
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2013-11-07       Impact factor: 2.658

Review 8.  Cancer immunotherapy: how low-level ionizing radiation can play a key role.

Authors:  Marek K Janiak; Marta Wincenciak; Aneta Cheda; Ewa M Nowosielska; Edward J Calabrese
Journal:  Cancer Immunol Immunother       Date:  2017-03-30       Impact factor: 6.968

9.  A Critique of Recent Epidemiologic Studies of Cancer Mortality Among Nuclear Workers.

Authors:  Bobby R Scott
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2018-05-28       Impact factor: 2.658

Review 10.  Are Risks From Medical Imaging Still too Small to Be Observed or Nonexistent?

Authors:  Brant A Ulsh
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2015-05-04       Impact factor: 2.658

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.