Literature DB >> 26535990

The Birth of the Illegitimate Linear No-Threshold Model: An Invalid Paradigm for Estimating Risk Following Low-dose Radiation Exposure.

Jeffry A Siegel1, Charles W Pennington2, Bill Sacks3, James S Welsh4.   

Abstract

This paper examines the birthing process of the linear no-threshold model with respect to genetic effects and carcinogenesis. This model was conceived >70 years ago but still remains a foundational element within much of the scientific thought regarding exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation. This model is used today to provide risk estimates for cancer resulting from any exposure to ionizing radiation down to zero dose, risk estimates that are only theoretical and, as yet, have never been conclusively demonstrated by empirical evidence. We are literally bathed every second of every day in low-dose radiation exposure due to natural background radiation, exposures that vary annually from a few mGy to 260 mGy, depending upon where one lives on the planet. Irrespective of the level of background exposure to a given population, no associated health effects have been documented to date anywhere in the world. In fact, people in the United States are living longer today than ever before, likely due to always improving levels of medical care, including even more radiation exposure from diagnostic medical radiation (eg, x-ray and computed tomography imaging examinations) which are well within the background dose range across the globe. Yet, the persistent use of the linear no-threshold model for risk assessment by regulators and advisory bodies continues to drive an unfounded fear of any low-dose radiation exposure, as well as excessive expenditures on putative but unneeded and wasteful safety measures.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 26535990     DOI: 10.1097/COC.0000000000000244

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0277-3732            Impact factor:   2.339


  6 in total

1.  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

2.  Radiation doses to operators performing transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt using a flat-panel detector-based system and ultrasound guidance for portal vein targeting.

Authors:  Roberto Miraglia; Roberta Gerasia; Luigi Maruzzelli; Mario D'Amico; Angelo Luca
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-08-25       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Data on the estimating the risk of cancer due to some common radiographs in Tehran city.

Authors:  Mohammad Mirdoraghi; Amin Banaei; Jafar Fatahi Asl
Journal:  Data Brief       Date:  2018-09-06

Review 4.  Cancer risk assessment in modern radiotherapy workflow with medical big data.

Authors:  Fu Jin; Huan-Li Luo; Juan Zhou; Ya-Nan He; Xian-Feng Liu; Ming-Song Zhong; Han Yang; Chao Li; Qi-Cheng Li; Xia Huang; Xiu-Mei Tian; Da Qiu; Guang-Lei He; Li Yin; Ying Wang
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2018-06-22       Impact factor: 3.989

5.  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

6.  Low-dose radiation therapy (LDRT) for COVID-19 and its deadlier variants.

Authors:  Rachna Kapoor; James S Welsh; Vikas Dhawan; Seyed Alireza Javadinia; Edward J Calabrese; Gaurav Dhawan
Journal:  Arch Toxicol       Date:  2021-07-24       Impact factor: 6.168

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.