ArticleDose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society2012
Shifting the paradigm in radiation safety.
Article in Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Low-dose ionizing radiation as a hormetin: experimental observations and therapeutic perspective for age-related disorders.Biogerontology · 2021Review
- Winter Exercise and Speleotherapy for Allergy and Asthma: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
- Computed tomography and patient risk: Facts, perceptions and uncertainties.World journal of radiology · 2016Review
- Point/Counterpoint: low-dose radiation is beneficial, not harmful.Medical physics · 2014Article
- Correcting systemic deficiencies in our scientific infrastructure.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society · 2014Article
- Linear No-Threshold Model VS. Radiation Hormesis.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society · 2013Article
- Special issue introduction.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society · 2012Article
- Evidence supporting radiation hormesis in atomic bomb survivor cancer mortality data.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society · 2012Article
- X-Ray Hesitancy: Patients' Radiophobic Concerns Over Medical X-rays.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis SocietyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The current radiation safety paradigm using the linear no-threshold (LNT) model is based on the premise that even the smallest amount of radiation may cause mutations increasing the risk of cancer. Autopsy studies have shown that the presence of cancer cells is not a decisive factor in the occurrence of clinical cancer. On the other hand, suppression of immune system more than doubles the cancer risk in organ transplant patients, indicating its key role in keeping occult cancers in check. Low dose radiation (LDR) elevates immune response, and so it may reduce rather than increase the risk of cancer. LNT model pays exclusive attention to DNA damage, which is not a decisive factor, and completely ignores immune system response, which is an important factor, and so is not scientifically justifiable. By not recognizing the importance of the immune system in cancer, and not exploring exercise intervention, the current paradigm may have missed an opportunity to reduce cancer deaths among atomic bomb survivors. Increased antioxidants from LDR may reduce aging-related non-cancer diseases since oxidative damage is implicated in these. A paradigm shift is warranted to reduce further casualties, reduce fear of LDR, and enable investigation of potential beneficial applications of LDR.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.