Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32952483›Full record

ArticleDose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society

The LNT Issue Is About Politics and Economics, Not Safety.

Jerry M Cuttler

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Are Continued Efforts to Reduce Radiation Exposures from X-Rays Warranted?Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Addressing Risk Perceptions of Low-Dose Radiation Exposure.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society
    Article
  6. Unethical not to Investigate Radiotherapy for COVID-19.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Jerry M CuttlerCuttler & Associates Inc, Vaughan, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9532-9818

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Sykes commentary advocates "a more sensible, graded approach for protection from low dose ionizing radiation" until the LNT dose-response issue is resolved. It urges scientists to stop criticizing the LNT model that links radiation to a risk of cancer and accept regulatory use of the threshold model to "protect" people, but with higher limits. It fails to mention the 120-year history of successful low-dose treatments of a wide variety of serious diseases, including cancers. The commentary ignores published evidence of a threshold at 1.1 Gy for radiogenic leukemia and a dose-rate threshold at about 0.6 Gy per year for lifespan shortening. LNT came from politicized science, replete with scientific misconduct and conflict of interest. Its acceptance created a false cancer scare that was likely intended to stop atomic bomb testing, but it has severely damaged human welfare. Many vitally important low-dose therapies were discarded when the radiation scare was disseminated in 1956. The rapid growth of nuclear energy ended with the media-inflamed public panic after the Three Mile Island accident in 1979. Extreme implementation of the precautionary principle made it uneconomic. Availability of a low-dose therapy for lung inflammation could have dramatically decreased the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Indexed as

ionizing radiationLNT modellow-dose radiation medical therapiesnuclear energyprecautionary principleradiophobia

Identifiers

PMID32952483
PMCPMC7476350
OpenAlexW3081534012

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.