Literature DB >> 26248082

On the origins of the linear no-threshold (LNT) dogma by means of untruths, artful dodges and blind faith.

Edward J Calabrese1.   

Abstract

This paper is an historical assessment of how prominent radiation geneticists in the United States during the 1940s and 1950s successfully worked to build acceptance for the linear no-threshold (LNT) dose-response model in risk assessment, significantly impacting environmental, occupational and medical exposure standards and practices to the present time. Detailed documentation indicates that actions taken in support of this policy revolution were ideologically driven and deliberately and deceptively misleading; that scientific records were artfully misrepresented; and that people and organizations in positions of public trust failed to perform the duties expected of them. Key activities are described and the roles of specific individuals are documented. These actions culminated in a 1956 report by a Genetics Panel of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) on Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation (BEAR). In this report the Genetics Panel recommended that a linear dose response model be adopted for the purpose of risk assessment, a recommendation that was rapidly and widely promulgated. The paper argues that current international cancer risk assessment policies are based on fraudulent actions of the U.S. NAS BEAR I Committee, Genetics Panel and on the uncritical, unquestioning and blind-faith acceptance by regulatory agencies and the scientific community.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cancer; Dose–response; Ionizing radiation; LNT; Linear dose response; Mutation; Risk assessment

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26248082     DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2015.07.011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Res        ISSN: 0013-9351            Impact factor:   6.498


  22 in total

Review 1.  Risk Communication Strategies: Lessons Learned from Previous Disasters with a Focus on the Fukushima Radiation Accident.

Authors:  Erik R Svendsen; Ichiro Yamaguchi; Toshihide Tsuda; Jean Remy Davee Guimaraes; Martin Tondel
Journal:  Curr Environ Health Rep       Date:  2016-12

2.  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

3.  Linear Non-Threshold (LNT) historical discovery milestones.

Authors:  Edward Calabrese
Journal:  Med Lav       Date:  2022-08-25       Impact factor: 2.244

4.  Potential Radiological Problems in the Ukrainian War Zone and Challenges for Related Health Risks Assessments.

Authors:  Bobby R Scott
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2022-04-06       Impact factor: 2.623

5.  A message to Fukushima: nothing to fear but fear itself.

Authors:  Shizuyo Sutou
Journal:  Genes Environ       Date:  2016-06-01

Review 6.  The Emergence of the Dose-Response Concept in Biology and Medicine.

Authors:  Edward J Calabrese
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2016-12-05       Impact factor: 5.923

7.  A Certified Health Physicist's Reflections on a 40-Year Career in Radiation Protection.

Authors:  Mark L Miller
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2016-11-06       Impact factor: 2.658

8.  Rediscovery of an old article reporting that the area around the epicenter in Hiroshima was heavily contaminated with residual radiation, indicating that exposure doses of A-bomb survivors were largely underestimated.

Authors:  Shizuyo Sutou
Journal:  J Radiat Res       Date:  2017-09-01       Impact factor: 2.724

9.  Model Uncertainty via the Integration of Hormesis and LNT as the Default in Cancer Risk Assessment.

Authors:  Edward J Calabrese
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2015-12-10       Impact factor: 2.658

10.  Regulating Ionizing Radiation Based on Metrics for Evaluation of Regulatory Science Claims.

Authors:  A Alan Moghissi; Richard Calderone; Furzan Azam; Teresa Nowak; Sarah Sheppard; Dennis K McBride; Lisa Jaeger
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2018-01-22       Impact factor: 2.658

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.