ArticleDose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society2014
Commentary: ethical issues of current health-protection policies on low-dose ionizing radiation.
Article in Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Low-dose ionizing radiation as a hormetin: experimental observations and therapeutic perspective for age-related disorders.Biogerontology · 2021Review
- The prospective mathematical idea satisfying both radiation hormesis under low radiation doses and linear non-threshold theory under high radiation doses.Genes and environment : the official journal of the Japanese Environmental Mutagen Society · 2020Article
- Developmental toxicity and apoptosis in zebrafish embryos induced by low-dose γ-ray irradiation.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2019Article
- Cancer immunotherapy: how low-level ionizing radiation can play a key role.Cancer immunology, immunotherapy : CII · 2017Review
- Effects of ionising radiation on micronucleus formation and chromosomal aberrations in Chinese radiation workers.Radiation protection dosimetry · 2016Article
- Donor-specific cell-based assays in studying sensitivity to low-dose radiation: a population-based perspective.Frontiers in public health · 2014Review
- Prediction of the Dose and Dose-Rate of Ionizing Radiation that Provides the Greatest Biological Benefit.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis SocietyArticle
- Atomic Bomb Survivors Life-Span Study: Insufficient Statistical Power to Select Radiation Carcinogenesis Model.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis SocietyArticle
- Reconsidering Health Consequences of the Chernobyl Accident.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis SocietyArticle
- Radiophobia: 7 Reasons Why Radiography Used in Spine and Posture Rehabilitation Should Not Be Feared or Avoided.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis SocietyArticle
- Ethics of Adoption and Use of the Linear No-Threshold Model.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis SocietyArticle
- Interests, Bias, and Consensus in Science and Regulation.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis SocietyArticle
- 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The linear no-threshold (LNT) model of ionizing-radiation-induced cancer is based on the assumption that every radiation dose increment constitutes increased cancer risk for humans. The risk is hypothesized to increase linearly as the total dose increases. While this model is the basis for radiation safety regulations, its scientific validity has been questioned and debated for many decades. The recent memorandum of the International Commission on Radiological Protection admits that the LNT-model predictions at low doses are "speculative, unproven, undetectable and 'phantom'." Moreover, numerous experimental, ecological, and epidemiological studies show that low doses of sparsely-ionizing or sparsely-ionizing plus highly-ionizing radiation may be beneficial to human health (hormesis/adaptive response). The present LNT-model-based regulations impose excessive costs on the society. For example, the median-cost medical program is 5000 times more cost-efficient in saving lives than controlling radiation emissions. There are also lives lost: e.g., following Fukushima accident, more than 1000 disaster-related yet non-radiogenic premature deaths were officially registered among the population evacuated due to radiation concerns. Additional negative impacts of LNT-model-inspired radiophobia include: refusal of some patients to undergo potentially life-saving medical imaging; discouragement of the study of low-dose radiation therapies; motivation for radiological terrorism and promotion of nuclear proliferation.
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.