It Is Time to Move Beyond the Linear No-Threshold Theory for Low-Dose Radiation Protection

Overview

Journal Dose Response

Publisher Sage Publications

Date 2018 Jul 18

PMID 30013457

Citations 26

Authors

John J Cardarelli 2nd

Brant A Ulsh

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is the primary federal agency responsible for promulgating regulations and policies to protect people and the environment from ionizing radiation. Currently, the USEPA uses the linear no-threshold (LNT) model to estimate cancer risks and determine cleanup levels in radiologically contaminated environments. The LNT model implies that there is no safe dose of ionizing radiation; however, adverse effects from low dose, low-dose rate (LDDR) exposures are not detectable. This article (1) provides the scientific basis for discontinuing use of the LNT model in LDDR radiation environments, (2) shows that there is no scientific consensus for using the LNT model, (3) identifies USEPA reliance on outdated scientific information, and (4) identifies regulatory reliance on incomplete evaluations of recent data contradicting the LNT. It is the time to reconsider the use of the LNT model in LDDR radiation environments. Incorporating the latest science into the regulatory process for risk assessment will (1) ensure science remains the foundation for decision making, (2) reduce unnecessary burdens of costly cleanups, (3) educate the public on the real effects of LDDR radiation exposures, and (4) harmonize government policies with the rest of the radiation scientific community.

Citing Articles

INWORKS and Hiroshima/Nagasaki Leukaemia Results.

Chaplin K Dose Response. 2024; 22(4):15593258241303476.

PMID: 39713752 PMC: 11660241. DOI: 10.1177/15593258241303476.

Health Effect of Low-Dose-Rate Irradiation with Cumulative Threshold Dose: A Promising Area to Explore in Nuclear Emergency and Environmental Contamination.

Tang F Cells. 2024; 13(18.

PMID: 39329705 PMC: 11429844. DOI: 10.3390/cells13181521.

Establishing a genomic radiation-age association for space exploration supplements lung disease differentiation.

Ruprecht N, Singhal S, Schaefer K, Gill J, Bansal B, Sens D Front Public Health. 2023; 11:1161124.

PMID: 37250098 PMC: 10213902. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1161124.

The Future of Radioactive Medicine.

Sproull M, Wilson E, Miller R, Camphausen K Radiat Res. 2023; 200(1):80-91.

PMID: 37141143 PMC: 10466314. DOI: 10.1667/RADE-23-00031.1.

Performance Evaluation of Radiation-Shielding Materials and Process Technology for Manufacturing Skin Protection Cream.

Kim S Materials (Basel). 2023; 16(8).

PMID: 37109895 PMC: 10146880. DOI: 10.3390/ma16083059.

References

Ozasa K, Shimizu Y, Suyama A, Kasagi F, Soda M, Grant E . Studies of the mortality of atomic bomb survivors, Report 14, 1950-2003: an overview of cancer and noncancer diseases. Radiat Res. 2011; 177(3):229-43. DOI: 10.1667/rr2629.1. View

Schubauer-Berigan M, Leuraud K, Richardson D, Cardis E, Daniels R, Gillies M . INWORKS study: risk of leukaemia from protracted radiation exposure - Authors' reply. Lancet Haematol. 2015; 2(10):e405-6. DOI: 10.1016/S2352-3026(15)00201-X. View

Krille L, Dreger S, Schindel R, Albrecht T, Asmussen M, Barkhausen J . Risk of cancer incidence before the age of 15 years after exposure to ionising radiation from computed tomography: results from a German cohort study. Radiat Environ Biophys. 2015; 54(1):1-12. DOI: 10.1007/s00411-014-0580-3. View

Cohen B . The Puskin observation on smoking as a confounder in ecologic correlations of cancer mortality rates with average county radon levels. Health Phys. 2004; 86(2):203-4. DOI: 10.1097/00004032-200402000-00013. View

Mossman K . Cancer complexity and radiation protection. Health Phys. 2014; 107(1):73-9. DOI: 10.1097/HP.0000000000000054. View

Tung C, Chao T, Chen T, Hsu F, Lee I, Chang S . Dose reconstruction for residents living in 60Co-contaminated rebar buildings. Health Phys. 1998; 74(6):707-13. DOI: 10.1097/00004032-199806000-00008. View

. Principles for Intervention for Protection of the Public in a Radiological Emergency. A report of a Task Group of Committee 4 of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Ann ICRP. 1991; 22(4):1-30. View

Beyea J . Lessons to be learned from a contentious challenge to mainstream radiobiological science (the linear no-threshold theory of genetic mutations). Environ Res. 2017; 154:362-379. DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2017.01.032. View

. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103. Ann ICRP. 2007; 37(2-4):1-332. DOI: 10.1016/j.icrp.2007.10.003. View

10.

Koana T, Takahashi T, Tsujimura H . Reduction of spontaneous somatic mutation frequency by a low-dose X irradiation of Drosophila larvae and possible involvement of DNA single-strand damage repair. Radiat Res. 2011; 177(3):265-71. DOI: 10.1667/rr2630.1. View

11.

Harvey H, Brink J, Frush D . Informed Consent for Radiation Risk from CT Is Unjustified Based on the Current Scientific Evidence. Radiology. 2015; 275(2):321-5. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2015142859. View

12.

Koana T, Okada M, Ogura K, Tsujimura H, Sakai K . Reduction of background mutations by low-dose X irradiation of Drosophila spermatocytes at a low dose rate. Radiat Res. 2007; 167(2):217-21. DOI: 10.1667/rr0705.1. View

13.

Sykes P, Day T . Requirements for identification of low dose and non-linear mutagenic responses to ionising radiation. Dose Response. 2008; 5(4):308-14. PMC: 2477715. DOI: 10.2203/dose-response.07-018.Sykes. View

14.

Ogura K, Magae J, Kawakami Y, Koana T . Reduction in mutation frequency by very low-dose gamma irradiation of Drosophila melanogaster germ cells. Radiat Res. 2009; 171(1):1-8. DOI: 10.1667/RR1288.1. View

15.

Ichiseki H . Features of disaster-related deaths after the Great East Japan Earthquake. Lancet. 2013; 381(9862):204. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60091-4. View

16.

Nair R, Rajan B, Akiba S, Jayalekshmi P, Nair M, Gangadharan P . Background radiation and cancer incidence in Kerala, India-Karanagappally cohort study. Health Phys. 2008; 96(1):55-66. DOI: 10.1097/01.HP.0000327646.54923.11. View

17.

Kendall G, Little M, Wakeford R, Bunch K, Miles J, Vincent T . A record-based case-control study of natural background radiation and the incidence of childhood leukaemia and other cancers in Great Britain during 1980-2006. Leukemia. 2012; 27(1):3-9. PMC: 3998763. DOI: 10.1038/leu.2012.151. View

18.

Tao Z, Akiba S, Zha Y, Sun Q, Zou J, Li J . Cancer and non-cancer mortality among Inhabitants in the high background radiation area of Yangjiang, China (1979-1998). Health Phys. 2012; 102(2):173-81. DOI: 10.1097/HP.0b013e31822c7f1e. View

19.

Ueno A, Vannais D, Gustafson D, Wong J, Waldren C . A low, adaptive dose of gamma-rays reduced the number and altered the spectrum of S1- mutants in human-hamster hybrid AL cells. Mutat Res. 1996; 358(2):161-9. DOI: 10.1016/s0027-5107(96)00117-0. View

20.

Richardson D, Cardis E, Daniels R, Gillies M, OHagan J, Hamra G . Risk of cancer from occupational exposure to ionising radiation: retrospective cohort study of workers in France, the United Kingdom, and the United States (INWORKS). BMJ. 2015; 351:h5359. PMC: 4612459. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.h5359. View