Literature DB >> 8690571

Pathway to a paradigm: the linear nonthreshold dose-response model in historical context. The American Academy of Health Physics 1995 Radiology Centennial Hartman Oration.

R L Kathren1.   

Abstract

This paper traces the evolution of the linear nonthreshold dose-response model and its acceptance as a paradigm in radiation protection practice and risk analysis. Deterministic effects such as skin burns and even deep tissue trauma were associated with excessive exposure to x rays shortly after their discovery, and carcinogenicity was observed as early as 1902. Still, it was not until 1925 that the first protective limits were suggested. For three decades these limits were based on the concept of a tolerance dose which, if not exceeded, would result in no demonstrable harm to the individual and implicitly assumed a threshold dose below which radiation effects would be absent. After World War II, largely because of genetic concerns related to atmospheric weapons testing, radiation protection dose limits were expressed in terms of a risk based maximum permissible dose which clearly implied no threshold. The 1927 discovery by Muller of x-ray induced genetic mutations in fruit flies, linear with dose and with no apparent threshold, was an important underpinning of the standards. The linear nonthreshold dose-response model was originally used to provide an upper limit estimate of the risk, with zero being the lower limit, of low level irradiation since the dose-response curve could not be determined at low dose levels. Evidence to the contrary such as hormesis and the classic studies of the radium dial painters notwithstanding, the linear nonthreshold model gained greater acceptance and in the centennial year of the discovery of x rays stands as a paradigm although serious questions are beginning to be raised regarding its general applicability. The work includes a brief digression describing the work of x-ray protection pioneer William Rollins and concludes with a recommendation for application of a de minimis dose level in radiation protection.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8690571     DOI: 10.1097/00004032-199605000-00002

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


  13 in total

Review 1.  Hormesis, an update of the present position.

Authors:  Lennart Johansson
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2003-04-26       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 2.  "Nuclear" medicine physicians as communicators: their point of view on the aftermath of "nuclear" disaster.

Authors:  Anton Staudenherz; Helmut Sinzinger
Journal:  Wien Med Wochenschr       Date:  2012-02

3.  LNT: a never-ending story.

Authors:  Anna A Friedl; Werner Rühm
Journal:  Radiat Environ Biophys       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 1.925

4.  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

5.  The new radiobiology: returning to our roots.

Authors:  Brant A Ulsh
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2012-07-15       Impact factor: 2.658

6.  Second-Guessing Scientists and Engineers: Post Hoc Criticism and the Reform of Practice in Green Chemistry and Engineering.

Authors:  William T Lynch
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2014-09-14       Impact factor: 3.525

7.  [Biological effect and tumor risk of diagnostic x-rays. The "war of the theories"].

Authors:  E Selzer; A Hebar
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 0.635

8.  Threshold and other departures from linear-quadratic curvature in the non-cancer mortality dose-response curve in the Japanese atomic bomb survivors.

Authors:  Mark P Little
Journal:  Radiat Environ Biophys       Date:  2004-06-19       Impact factor: 1.925

9.  Redox status in workers occupationally exposed to long-term low levels of ionizing radiation: A pilot study.

Authors:  Iman M Ahmad; James B Temme; Maher Y Abdalla; Matthew C Zimmerman
Journal:  Redox Rep       Date:  2016-02-05       Impact factor: 4.412

10.  Small γ-Ray Doses Prevent Rather than Increase Lung Tumors in Mice.

Authors:  B R Scott; V R Bruce; K M Gott; J Wilder; T March
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2012-10-09       Impact factor: 2.658

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.