ArticleDose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society
It Is Time to Move Beyond the Linear No-Threshold Theory for Low-Dose Radiation Protection.
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 34 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
34 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nonlinear Redox-Immune Coupling Under Low-Dose-Rate Radiation: A Compartment-Specific Framework for Biological Responses-A Narrative Review.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Deep learning for incidence rate prediction and radiation risk assessment of solid tumors.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Misleading Model: Why the 5% Cancer Risk from Computed Tomography Scans Is Overstated.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2025Article
- Radiation effects research foundation-a view to the future.Carcinogenesis · 2025Article
- False and Misleading Claims of Scientific Misconduct in Early Research into Radiation Dose-response: Part 1. Overlooking Key Historical Text.Health physics · 2025Article
- Risk and Safety in Radiographic Utilization: Evaluating the Evidence From Current Research.Radiology research and practice · 2025Review
- Article
- The Future of Radioactive Medicine.Radiation research · 2023Review
- Performance Evaluation of Radiation-Shielding Materials and Process Technology for Manufacturing Skin Protection Cream.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Examining Clinical Opinion and Experience Regarding Utilization of Plain Radiography of the Spine: Evidence from Surveying the Chiropractic Profession.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Establishing a genomic radiation-age association for space exploration supplements lung disease differentiation.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Cone beam computed tomography-the need for future guidance.Journal of thoracic disease · 2022Article
- Radiation-response in primary fibroblasts of long-term survivors of childhood cancer with and without second primary neoplasms: the KiKme study.Molecular medicine (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2022Article
- Correlative links between natural radiation and life expectancy in the US population.Biogerontology · 2022Article
- Physicochemical characterization of monazite sand and its associated bacterial species from the beaches of southeastern Brazil.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2022Article
- Effect of Low-Dose Ionizing Radiation on the Expression of Mitochondria-Related Genes in Human Mesenchymal Stem Cells.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Article
- Reconceptualization of Hormetic Responses in the Frame of Redox Toxicology.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- Radiation concerns in frequent flyer patients: should imaging history influence decisions about recurrent imaging?The British journal of radiology · 2021Review
- Adverse outcome pathways, key events, and radiation risk assessment.International journal of radiation biology · 2021Review
- Chernobyl-level radiation exposure damages bumblebee reproduction: a laboratory experiment.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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.
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.