Time to reject the linear-no threshold hypothesis and accept thresholds and hormesis: A petition to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Clinical Nuclear Medicine

Volumn 40, Issue 7, 2015, Pages 617-619

  Marcus, Carol S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

linear no threshold hypothesis; radiation hormesis

Indexed keywords

RADIUM; RADON; THORIUM DIOXIDE;

CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER RISK; CHERNOBYL ACCIDENT; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HEALTH CARE NEED; HORMESIS; HUMAN; HYPOTHESIS; LINEAR NO THRESHOLD HYPOTHESIS; LOW ENERGY RADIATION; MEDICAL CARE; MEDICAL PRACTICE; NUCLEAR FUEL REPROCESSING; NUCLEAR MEDICINE; ORGANIZATION; PHYSICIAN ATTITUDE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; RADIATION PROTECTION; RADIATION RESPONSE; RADIATION SAFETY; REVIEW; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT; UNITED STATES; GOVERNMENT; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; STANDARDS;

GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HORMESIS; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT AGENCIES;

EID: 84931294183     PISSN: 03639762     EISSN: 15360229     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/RLU.0000000000000835     Document Type: Review

References (36)

1. Calabrese EJ. The genetics panel of the NAS BEAR I Committee (1956): epistolary evidence suggests self-interest may have prompted an exaggeration of radiation risks that led to the adoption of the LNT cancer risk assessment model. Arch Toxicol. Published online: 04 July 2014. DOI 10.1007/s00204-014-1306-7
2. Calabrese EJ. An abuse of risk assessment: how regulatory agencies improperly adopted LNT for cancer risk assessment. Arch Toxicol. Published online: 18 January 2015. DOI 10.1007/s00204-015-1454-4
3. Calabrese EJ. Cancer risk assessment foundation unraveling: new historical evidence reveals that the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (US NAS), Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation (BEAR) Committee Genetics Panel falsified the research record to promote acceptance of the LNT. Arch Toxicol. Published online: 20 January 2015. DOI 10.1007/s00204-015-1455-3
4. NCRP Report No. 136: Evaluation of the Linear-Nonthreshold Dose-response Model for Ionizing Radiation. Bethesda: NCRP; 2001
5. Jaworowski Z, Waligorski M. Problems of U.S. policy on radiation protection. EIR Science and Technology. 2003: 18-26
6. Cutler JM. Remedy for radiation fear-discard the politicized science. Dose Response. 2014; 12: 170-184
7. Ozasa K, Shimizu Y, Suyama A, et al. Studies of the mortality of atomic bomb survivors, report 14, 1950-2003: an overview of cancer and noncancer diseases. Radiat Res. 2012; 177: 229-243
8. Cuttler JM. Leukemia incidence of 96, 000 Hiroshima atomic bomb survivors is compelling evidence that the LNT model is wrong. Arch Toxicol. 2014; 88: 847-848
9. Cardis E, Vrijheid M, Blettner M, et al. The 15-country collaborative study of cancer risk among radiation workers in the nuclear industry: estimates of radiationrelated cancer risks. Radiat Res. 2007; 167: 396-416
10. Verifying Canadian nuclear energy worker radiation risk: a reanalysis of cancer mortality in Canadian nuclear energy workers (1957-1994): summary report. Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission; 2011: Catalogue number CC172-65/2011E-PDF. ISBN 978-1-100-17760-1
11. Marcus CS, Stabin MG, Siegel JA. The "healthy worker" effect could be backwards! Health Physics News. 2011: 14
12. Wallis C. Never too old for chemo. Sci Am. 2014: 34-36
13. Cuttler JM, Pollycove M. Can cancer be treated with low doses of radiation? J Am Phys Surg. 2003; 8: 108-111
14. Miller AB, Howe GR, Sherman GJ, et al. Mortality from breast cancer after irradiation during fluoroscopic examinations in patients being treated for tuberculosis. N Engl J Med. 1989; 321: 1285-1289
15. Rowland RE. Dose and damage in long term radium cases. In Cloutier RJ, Edwards CL, Snyder WS, eds. Medical Radionuclides: Radiation Dose and Effects. Proceedings of a symposium held at the Oak Ridge Associated Universities Dec. 8-11, 1969, CONF-691212. SpringfieldVA, Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information, National Bureau of Standards, U.S. Dept. of Commerce; 1970: 369-386
16. Tompkins E. Late effects of radioiodine therapy. ibid. 1970: 431-440
17. Kostyuchenko VA, Krestinina LY. Long-term irradiation effects in the population evacuated from the East-Urals radioactive trace area. Sci Total Environ. 1994; 142: 119-125
18. Hwang SL, Guo HR, HsiehWA, et al. Cancer risks in a population with prolonged low dose-rate ?-radiation exposure in radiocontaminated buildings, 1983-2002. Int J Radiat Biol. 2006; 82: 849-858
19. Cohen BL. Expected indoor 222Rn levels in counties with very high and very low lung cancer rates. Health Phys. 1989; 57: 897-907
20. Cohen BL. Test of the linear-no threshold theory of radiation carcinogenesis for inhaled radon decay products. Health Phys. 1995; 68: 157-174
21. Cohen BL. Lung cancer rate vs. mean radon level in U.S. counties of various characteristics. Health Phys. 1997; 114-119
22. Cohen BL. The linear no-threshold theory of radiation carcinogenesis should be rejected. J Am Phys Surg. 2008; 13: 70-76
23. Scott B. Residential radon appears to prevent lung cancer. Dose-response. 2011; 9: 444-464
24. Becker K. Health effects of high radon environments in central Europe: another test for the LNT hypothesis? Nonlinearity in Biology, Toxicology, and Medicine. 2003; 1: 3-35
25. Jaworowski Z. Observations on Chernobyl after 25 years of radiophobia. 21st Century Science and Technology 2010; summer: 30-45
26. UNSCEAR 2000b. United Nations Publication Sales No. E.00.IX.4; ISBN 92-1- 142239-6
27. Cohen BL. Lung cancer rate vs. mean radon level in U.S. counties of various characteristics. Health Phys. 1997; 72: 114-119
28. Moosa M, Mazzaferri EL. Occult thyroid carcinoma. Cancer J. 1997; 10: 180-188
29. Tan GH, Gharib H. Thyroid incidentalomas: management approaches to nonpalpable nodules discovered incidentally on thyroid imaging. Ann Intern Med. 1997; 126: 226-231
30. Ron E, Lubin J, Schneider AB. Thyroid cancer incidence. Nature. 1992; 360: 113
31. Jargin SV. Chernobyl-related cancer and precancerous lesions: incidence increase vs. late diagnostics. Dose Response. 2014; 12: 404-415
32. Tang FR, Loke WK. Molecular mechanisms of low dose ionizing radiationinduced hormesis, adaptive responses, radioresistance, bystander effects, and genomic instability. Int J Radiat Biol. Published online, pp1-15, 2014. ISSN 0955-3002 print/ISSN 1362-3095 online. DOI: 10.3109/09553002.2014.937510
33. Brooks AL, Dauer LT. Advances in radiation biology: effect on nuclear medicine. Semin Nucl Med. 2014; 44: 179-186
34. Joint report no2, Académie Nationale deMédecine, Institut De France-Académie des Sciences: dose-effect relationships and the estimation of the carcinogenic effects of low doses of ionizing radiation. Edition Nucleon (Paris 2005) ISBN 2-84332-018-6
35. BEIR VII, Phase 2. National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council: health risks fromexposure to low levels of ionizing radiation. National Academies Press, 2006, Washington, D.C. ISBN 0-309-53040-7 (pdf )
36. Tubiana M, Aurengo A, Averbeck D, et al. Recent reports on the effect of low doses of ionizing radiation and its dose-effect relationship. Radiat Environ Biophys. 2006; 44: 245-251