What Can Chemical Carcinogenesis Shed Light on the LNT Hypothesis in Radiation Carcinogenesis?

To protect the public’s health from exposure to physical, chemical, and microbiological agents, it is important that any policy be based on rigorous scientifically based research. The concept of “linear no-threshold” (LNT) has been implemented to provide guideline exposures to these agents. The practical limitation to testing this hypothesis is to provide sufficient samples for experimental or epidemiological studies. While there is no universally accepted understanding of most human diseases, there seems to be better understanding of cancer that might help resolve the “LNT” model. The public’s concern, after being exposed to radiation, is the potential of producing cancer. The most rigorous hypothesis of human carcinogenesis is the “multistage, multimechanism” chemical carcinogenesis model. The radiation carcinogenesis LNT model, rarely, if ever, built it into their support. It will be argued that this multistage, multimechanism model of carcinogenesis, involving the “initiation” of a single cell by a mutagen event, followed by chronic exposure to threshold levels of epigenetic agents or conditions that stimulate the clonal expansion of the “initiated” cell, can convert these benign cells to become invasive and metastatic. This “promotion” process can be interrupted, thereby preventing these initiated cells from transitioning to the “progression” process of invasion and metastasis.

A critical evaluation of the NCRP COMMENTARY 27 endorsement of the linear no-threshold model of radiation effects

Regulatory policy to protect the public and the environment from radiation is universally based on the linear, no-threshold model (LNT) of radiation effects. This model has been controversial since its inception over nine decades ago, and remains so to this day, but it has proved remarkably resistant to challenge from the scientific community. The LNT model has been repeatedly endorsed by expert advisory bodies, and regulatory agencies in turn adopt policies that reflect this advice. Unfortunately, these endorsements rest on a foundation of institutional inertia and numerous logical fallacies. These include most significantly setting the LNT as the null hypothesis, and shifting the burden of proof onto LNT skeptics. Other examples include arbitrary exclusion of alternative hypotheses, ignoring criticisms of the LNT, cherry-picking evidence, and making policy judgements without foundation. This paper presents an evaluation of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements' (NCRP) Commentary 27, which concluded that recent epidemiological studies are compatible with the continued use of the LNT model for radiation protection. While this report will likely provide political cover for regulators' continued reliance on the LNT, it is a missed opportunity to advance the scientific discussion of the effects of low dose, low dose-rate radiation exposure. Due to its Congressionally chartered mission, no organization is better positioned than the NCRP to move this debate forward, and recommendations for doing so in future reviews are provided.

It Is Time to Move Beyond the Linear No-Threshold Theory for Low-Dose Radiation Protection

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.

Radiophobia: 7 Reasons Why Radiography Used in Spine and Posture Rehabilitation Should Not Be Feared or Avoided

Evidence-based contemporary spinal rehabilitation often requires radiography. Use of radiography (X-rays or computed tomography scans) should not be feared, avoided, or have their exposures lessened to decrease patient dose possibly jeopardizing image quality. This is because all fears of radiation exposures from medical diagnostic imaging are based on complete fabrication of health risks based on an outdated, invalid linear model that has simply been propagated for decades. We present 7 main arguments for continued use of radiography for routine use in spinal rehabilitation: (1) the linear no-threshold model for radiation risk estimates is invalid for low-dose exposures; (2) low-dose radiation enhances health via the body's adaptive response mechanisms (ie, radiation hormesis); (3) an X-ray with low-dose radiation only induces 1 one-millionth the amount of cellular damage as compared to breathing air for a day; (4) radiography is below inescapable natural annual background radiation levels; (5) radiophobia stems from unwarranted fears and false beliefs; (6) radiography use leads to better patient outcomes; (7) the risk to benefit ratio is always beneficial for routine radiography. Radiography is a safe imaging method for routine use in patient assessment, screening, diagnosis, and biomechanical analysis and for monitoring treatment progress in daily clinical practice.