Literature DB >> 23304107

The new radiobiology: returning to our roots.

Brant A Ulsh1.   

Abstract

In 2005, two expert advisory bodies examined the evidence on the effects of low doses of ionizing radiation. The U.S. National Research Council concluded that current scientific evidence is consistent with the linear no-threshold dose-response relationship (NRCNA 2005) while the French National Academies of Science and Medicine concluded the opposite (Aurengo et al. 2005). These contradictory conclusions may stem in part from an emphasis on epidemiological data (a "top down" approach) versus an emphasis on biological mechanisms (a "bottom up" approach). In this paper, the strengths and limitations of the top down and bottom up approaches are discussed, and proposals for strengthening and reconciling them are suggested. The past seven years since these two reports were published have yielded increasing evidence of nonlinear responses of biological systems to low radiation doses delivered at low dose-rates. This growing body of evidence is casting ever more doubt on the extrapolation of risks observed at high doses and dose-rates to estimate risks associated with typical environmental and occupational exposures. This paper compares current evidence on low dose, low dose-rate effects against objective criteria of causation. Finally, some questions for a post-LNT world are posed.

Keywords:  cancer; hormesis; linear no-threshold hypothesis

Year:  2012        PMID: 23304107      PMCID: PMC3526330          DOI: 10.2203/dose-response.12-021.Ulsh

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


  66 in total

1.  Reconciling scientists' beliefs about radiation risks and social norms: explaining preferred radiation protection standards.

Authors:  Carol L Silva; Hank C Jenkins-Smith; Richard P Barke
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 4.000

Review 2.  The road to linearity: why linearity at low doses became the basis for carcinogen risk assessment.

Authors:  Edward J Calabrese
Journal:  Arch Toxicol       Date:  2009-02-27       Impact factor: 5.153

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.  Evidence for hormesis in mutagenicity dose-response relationships.

Authors:  Edward J Calabrese; Edward J Stanek; Marc A Nascarella
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  2011-04-21       Impact factor: 2.433

5.  Radiation induced bystander effects in mice given low doses of radiation in vivo.

Authors:  Harleen Singh; Rohin Saroya; Richard Smith; Rebecca Mantha; Lynda Guindon; Ron E J Mitchel; Colin Seymour; Carmel Mothersill
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2010-05-13       Impact factor: 2.658

6.  Muller's Nobel lecture on dose-response for ionizing radiation: ideology or science?

Authors:  Edward J Calabrese
Journal:  Arch Toxicol       Date:  2011-06-30       Impact factor: 5.153

7.  Protective effects of radon inhalation on carrageenan-induced inflammatory paw edema in mice.

Authors:  Takahiro Kataoka; Junichi Teraoka; Akihiro Sakoda; Yuichi Nishiyama; Keiko Yamato; Mayuko Monden; Yuu Ishimori; Takaharu Nomura; Takehito Taguchi; Kiyonori Yamaoka
Journal:  Inflammation       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 4.092

8.  Hormesis predicts low-dose responses better than threshold models.

Authors:  Edward J Calabrese; Edward J Stanek; Marc A Nascarella; George R Hoffmann
Journal:  Int J Toxicol       Date:  2008 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.032

9.  Low dose X-radiation adaptive response in spleen and prostate of Atm knockout heterozygous mice.

Authors:  Tanya K Day; Antony M Hooker; Guoxin Zeng; Pamela J Sykes
Journal:  Int J Radiat Biol       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 2.694

10.  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

View more
  7 in total

1.  Special issue introduction.

Authors:  Bobby R Scott; Ludwik Dobrzyński
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2012-12-07       Impact factor: 2.658

2.  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

3.  Influence of A Continuous Very Low Dose of Gamma-Rays on Cell Proliferation, Apoptosis and Oxidative Stress.

Authors:  Laetitia Lacoste-Collin; Suzanne Jozan; Veronica Pereda; Monique Courtade-Saïdi
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2015-05-04       Impact factor: 2.658

Review 4.  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

5.  The Linear-No-Threshold Line for Cancer Excess Relative Risk Based on Lagging Low Radiation Doses is Misleading.

Authors:  Bobby R Scott
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2021-12-09       Impact factor: 2.658

Review 6.  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

7.  It Is Time to Move Beyond the Linear No-Threshold Theory for Low-Dose Radiation Protection.

Authors:  John J Cardarelli; Brant A Ulsh
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2018-07-01       Impact factor: 2.658

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.