ArticleDose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society
A Critique of Recent Epidemiologic Studies of Cancer Mortality Among Nuclear Workers.
Article in Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society. 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.
- Dose-Effects Models for Space Radiobiology: An Overview on Dose-Effect Relationships.Frontiers in public health · 2021Review
- Overview of Biological, Epidemiological, and Clinical Evidence of Radiation Hormesis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2018Review
- Low-dose radiation from A-bombs elongated lifespan and reduced cancer mortality relative to un-irradiated individuals.Genes and environment : the official journal of the Japanese Environmental Mutagen Society · 2018Article
- Replacing LNT: The Integrated LNT-Hormesis Model.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis SocietyArticle
- Radiophobia Harm, Its Main Cause, and a Proposed Solution.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis SocietyArticle
- NCRP Claims Six Studies Support LNT But They Show No-Effect to At Least 100 mGy.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis SocietyArticle
- Analysis of Indoor Radon Data Using Bayesian, Random Binning, and Maximum Entropy Methods.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis SocietyArticle
- Multiple Organ Lesions in a Case of Contamination With Multiple Radionuclides After 38 Years.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis SocietyArticle
- Epidemiologic Studies Cannot Reveal the True Shape of the Dose-Response Relationship for Radon-Induced Lung Cancer.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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Current justification by linear no-threshold (LNT) cancer risk model advocates for its use in low-dose radiation risk assessment is now mainly based on results from flawed and unreliable epidemiologic studies that manufacture small risk increases (ie, phantom risks). Four such studies of nuclear workers, essentially carried out by the same group of epidemiologists, are critiqued in this article. Three of the studies that forcibly applied the LNT model (inappropriate null hypothesis) to cancer mortality data and implicated increased mortality risk from any radiation exposure, no matter how small the dose, are demonstrated to manufacture risk increases for doses up to 100 mSv (or 100 mGy). In a study where risk reduction (hormetic effect/adaptive response) was implicated for nuclear workers, it was assumed by the researchers to relate to a "strong healthy worker effect" with no consideration of the possibility that low radiation doses may help prevent cancer mortality (which is consistent with findings from basic radiobiological research). It was found with basic research that while large radiation doses suppress our multiple natural defenses (barriers) against cancer, these barriers are enhanced by low radiation doses, thereby decreasing cancer risk, essentially rendering the LNT model to be inconsistent with the data.
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.