Literature DB >> 30585971

Recent Epidemiologic Studies and the Linear No-Threshold Model For Radiation Protection-Considerations Regarding NCRP Commentary 27.

Roy E Shore1, Harold L Beck2, John D Boice3, Emily A Caffrey4, Scott Davis5, Helen A Grogan6, Fred A Mettler7, R Julian Preston8, John E Till9, Richard Wakeford10, Linda Walsh11, Lawrence T Dauer12.   

Abstract

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements Commentary 27 examines recent epidemiologic data primarily from low-dose or low dose-rate studies of low linear-energy-transfer radiation and cancer to assess whether they support the linear no-threshold model as used in radiation protection. The commentary provides a critical review of low-dose or low dose-rate studies, most published within the last 10 y, that are applicable to current occupational, environmental, and medical radiation exposures. The strengths and weaknesses of the epidemiologic methods, dosimetry assessments, and statistical modeling of 29 epidemiologic studies of total solid cancer, leukemia, breast cancer, and thyroid cancer, as well as heritable effects and a few nonmalignant conditions, were evaluated. An appraisal of the degree to which the low-dose or low dose-rate studies supported a linear no-threshold model for radiation protection or on the contrary, demonstrated sufficient evidence that the linear no-threshold model is inappropriate for the purposes of radiation protection was also included. The review found that many, though not all, studies of solid cancer supported the continued use of the linear no-threshold model in radiation protection. Evaluations of the principal studies of leukemia and low-dose or low dose-rate radiation exposure also lent support for the linear no-threshold model as used in protection. Ischemic heart disease, a major type of cardiovascular disease, was examined briefly, but the results of recent studies were considered too weak or inconsistent to allow firm conclusions regarding support of the linear no-threshold model. It is acknowledged that the possible risks from very low doses of low linear-energy-transfer radiation are small and uncertain and that it may never be possible to prove or disprove the validity of the linear no-threshold assumption by epidemiologic means. Nonetheless, the preponderance of recent epidemiologic data on solid cancer is supportive of the continued use of the linear no-threshold model for the purposes of radiation protection. This conclusion is in accord with judgments by other national and international scientific committees, based on somewhat older data. Currently, no alternative dose-response relationship appears more pragmatic or prudent for radiation protection purposes than the linear no-threshold model.

Entities:  

Year:  2019        PMID: 30585971     DOI: 10.1097/HP.0000000000001015

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Phys        ISSN: 0017-9078            Impact factor:   1.316


  7 in total

1.  Cleanup and Complexity: Nuclear and Industrial Contamination at The Santa Susana Field Laboratory, California.

Authors:  Nicola Ulibarri; Cameron L Tracy; Ryan J McCarty
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2019-12-11       Impact factor: 3.266

2.  Radio-biologically motivated modeling of radiation risks of mortality from ischemic heart diseases in the Canadian fluoroscopy cohort study.

Authors:  Helmut Schöllnberger; Jan Christian Kaiser; Markus Eidemüller; Lydia B Zablotska
Journal:  Radiat Environ Biophys       Date:  2019-11-28       Impact factor: 1.925

3.  A bespoke health risk assessment methodology for the radiation protection of astronauts.

Authors:  Linda Walsh; Luana Hafner; Ulrich Straube; Alexander Ulanowski; Anna Fogtman; Marco Durante; Guillaume Weerts; Uwe Schneider
Journal:  Radiat Environ Biophys       Date:  2021-04-30       Impact factor: 1.925

4.  Patient-adapted organ absorbed dose and effective dose estimates in pediatric 18F-FDG positron emission tomography/computed tomography studies.

Authors:  Brian M Quinn; Yiming Gao; Usman Mahmood; Neeta Pandit-Taskar; Gerald Behr; Pat Zanzonico; Lawrence T Dauer
Journal:  BMC Med Imaging       Date:  2020-01-29       Impact factor: 1.930

5.  SOLLID - a single centre study to develop methods to investigate the effects of low radiation doses within nuclear medicine, to enable multicentre epidemiological investigations.

Authors:  Glenn Flux; Iain Murray; Dominic Rushforth; Paul Gape; Carla Abreu; Martin Lee; Ana Ribeiro; Rebecca Gregory; Sarah Chittenden; Jim Thurston; Yong Du; Jonathan Gear
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2020-09-09       Impact factor: 3.039

6.  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

Review 7.  Review of the risk of cancer following low and moderate doses of sparsely ionising radiation received in early life in groups with individually estimated doses.

Authors:  Mark P Little; Richard Wakeford; Simon D Bouffler; Kossi Abalo; Michael Hauptmann; Nobuyuki Hamada; Gerald M Kendall
Journal:  Environ Int       Date:  2021-12-24       Impact factor: 13.352

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.