ArticleDose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society
The Linear No-Threshold Model of Low-Dose Radiogenic Cancer: A Failed Fiction.
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 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, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mechanistic Effects of Environmental and Medical Low-Dose Radiation Exposure of the Lung.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- Real-time dosimetry in interventional radiology - comparing the occupational radiation exposure in fluoroscopy-guided lower extremity and abdominal procedures.European radiology · 2025Article
- Patient Shielding in Ultra-High-Resolution Cone-Beam CT of the Upper Extremity with a Twin Robotic X-Ray System.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The impact of low-dose gamma radiation on immune modulation in a mouse model of spontaneous mammary gland tumorigenesis.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- Reliability of the Biomechanical Assessment of the Sagittal Lumbar Spine and Pelvis on Radiographs Used in Clinical Practice: A Systematic Review of the Literature.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Radiation Exposure and Lifetime Attributable Risk of Cancer Incidence and Mortality from Low- and Standard-Dose CT Chest: Implications for COVID-19 Pneumonia Subjects.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- EANM position paper on the role of radiobiology in nuclear medicine.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2021Article
- Effects of Chronic Low-Dose Internal Radiation on Immune-Stimulatory Responses in Mice.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Article
- Analysis of Indoor Radon Data Using Bayesian, Random Binning, and Maximum Entropy Methods.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis SocietyArticle
- Are Continued Efforts to Reduce Radiation Exposures from X-Rays Warranted?Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis SocietyArticle
- Addressing Risk Perceptions of Low-Dose Radiation Exposure.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis SocietyArticle
- Death of the ALARA Radiation Protection Principle as Used in the Medical Sector.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis SocietyArticle
- Replacing LNT: The Integrated LNT-Hormesis Model.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
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 linear no-threshold (LNT) model for low-dose, radiogenic cancer has been a fixture of radiation protection and regulatory requirements for decades, but its validity has long been contested. This article finds, yet again, more questionable data and analyses purporting to support the model, this within the "gold-standard" data set for estimating radiation effects in humans. Herein is addressed a number of significant uncertainties in the Radiation Effects Research Foundation's Life Span Study (LSS) cohort of atomic bomb survivors, especially in its latest update of 2017, showing that the study's support of the LNT model is not evidence based. We find that its latest 2 analyses of solid cancer incidence ignore biology and do not support the LNT model. Additionally, we identify data inconsistencies and missing causalities in the LSS data and analyses that place reliance on uncertain, imputed data and apparently flawed modeling, further invalidating the LNT model. These observations lead to a most credible conclusion, one supporting a threshold model for the dose-response relationship between low-dose radiation exposure and radiogenic cancer in humans. Based upon these findings and those cited from others, it becomes apparent that the LNT model cannot be scientifically valid.
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.