444:
provide compelling evidence of a threshold, as highlighted by the fact that no national or international authoritative scientific advisory bodies have concluded that such evidence exists. Therefore, based upon the stated positions of the aforementioned advisory bodies; the comments and recommendations of NCI, NIOSH, and the EPA; the
October 28, 2015, recommendation of the ACMUI; and its own professional and technical judgment, the NRC has determined that the LNT model continues to provide a sound regulatory basis for minimizing the risk of unnecessary radiation exposure to both members of the public and occupational workers. Consequently, the NRC will retain the dose limits for occupational workers and members of the public in 10 CFR part 20 radiation protection regulations.
315:(BEIR), an expert panel who reviewed available peer reviewed literature, supported the LNT model on pragmatic grounds, noting that while "dose-effect relationship for x rays and gamma rays may not be a linear function", the "use of linear extrapolation ... may be justified on pragmatic grounds as a basis for risk estimation." In its seventh report of 2006, NAS BEIR VII writes, "the committee concludes that the preponderance of information indicates that there will be some risk, even at low doses".
194:
498:), in a 2018 report, "concludes that the recent epidemiological studies support the continued use of LNT model for radiation protection. This is in accord with judgments by other national and international scientific committees, based on somewhat older data, that no alternative dose-response relationship appears more pragmatic or prudent for radiation protection purposes than the LNT model."
551:
since it is not based on biological concepts of our current knowledge, it should not be used without precaution for assessing by extrapolation the risks associated with low and even more so, with very low doses (< 10 mSv), especially for benefit-risk assessments imposed on radiologists by the
European directive 97-43.
94:. The model assumes a linear relationship between dose and health effects, even for very low doses where biological effects are more difficult to observe. The LNT model implies that all exposure to ionizing radiation is harmful, regardless of how low the dose is, and that the effect is cumulative over lifetime.
522:
The
Committee concluded that there remains good justification for the use of a non-threshold model for risk inference given the robust knowledge on the role of mutation and chromosomal aberrations in carcinogenesis. That said, there are ways that radiation could act that might lead to a re-evaluation
430:
Many expert scientific panels have been convened on the risks of ionizing radiation. Most explicitly support the LNT model and none have concluded that evidence exists for a threshold, with the exception of the French
Academy of Sciences in a 2005 report. Considering the uncertainty of health effects
550:
In conclusion, this report raises doubts on the validity of using LNT for evaluating the carcinogenic risk of low doses (< 100 mSv) and even more for very low doses (< 10 mSv). The LNT concept can be a useful pragmatic tool for assessing rules in radioprotection for doses above 10 mSv; however
443:
Based upon the current state of science, the NRC concludes that the actual level of risk associated with low doses of radiation remains uncertain and some studies, such as the INWORKS study, show there is at least some risk from low doses of radiation. Moreover, the current state of science does not
414:
A 2011 research of the cellular repair mechanisms support the evidence against the linear no-threshold model. According to its authors, this study published in the
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America "casts considerable doubt on the general assumption that
279:
The early studies were based on higher levels of radiation that made it hard to establish the safety of low level of radiation. Indeed, many early scientists believed that there may be a tolerance level, and that low doses of radiation may not be harmful. A later study in 1955 on mice exposed to low
486:
stated: "The report concludes that while existence of a low-dose threshold does not seem to be unlikely for radiation-related cancers of certain tissues, the evidence does not favour the existence of a universal threshold. The LNT hypothesis, combined with an uncertain DDREF for extrapolation from
426:
per sievert (ERR/Sv), is "broadly applicable" to low dose or low dose-rate exposure, "although the uncertainties associated with this estimate are considerable". The study also notes that "epidemiological studies have been unable, in general, to detect the influence of natural background radiation
141:, which are caused by tissue damage. Deterministic effects reliably occur above a threshold dose and their severity increases with dose. Because of the inherent differences, LNT is not a model for deterministic effects, which are instead characterized by other types of dose-response relationships.
629:
database, divided into "exposed" and control groups were assessed in 1999. As no
Chernobyl impacts were detected, the researchers conclude "in retrospect the widespread fear in the population about the possible effects of exposure on the unborn was not justified". Despite studies from Germany and
340:
component of sunlight, with no safe level of sunlight exposure being suggested, following the precautionary LNT model. According to a 2007 study submitted by the
University of Ottawa to the Department of Health and Human Services in Washington, D.C., there is not enough information to determine a
508:
Underlying the risk models is a large body of epidemiological and radiobiological data. In general, results from both lines of research are consistent with a linear, no-threshold dose (LNT) response model in which the risk of inducing a cancer in an irradiated tissue by low doses of radiation is
263:
in 1928, suggesting that genomic mutation was induced by cosmic and terrestrial radiation and first introduced the idea that such mutation may occur proportionally to the dose of radiation. Various laboratories, including Muller's, then demonstrated the apparent linear dose response of mutation
176:
model, which claims that radiation at very small doses can be beneficial. Because the current data is inconclusive, scientists disagree on which model should be used, though most national and international cancer research organizations explicitly endorse LNT for regulating exposures to low dose
164:
policies. Whether the LNT model describes the reality for small-dose exposures is disputed, and challenges to the LNT model used by NRC for setting radiation protection regulations were submitted. NRC rejected the petitions in 2021 because "they fail to present an adequate basis supporting the
661:
Such great psychological danger does not accompany other materials that put people at risk of cancer and other deadly illness. Visceral fear is not widely aroused by, for example, the daily emissions from coal burning, although as a
National Academy of Sciences study found, this causes 10,000
575:
states that the LNT model may not adequately describe the relationship between harm and exposure and notes the recommendation in ICRP-103 "that the LNT model not be used for estimating the health effects of trivial exposures received by large populations over long periods of time…" It further
129:, but whose severity is independent of the dose. The LNT model assumes there is no lower threshold at which stochastic effects start, and assumes a linear relationship between dose and the stochastic health risk. In other words, LNT assumes that radiation has the potential to cause harm at
487:
high doses, remains a prudent basis for radiation protection at low doses and low dose rates." In a 2007 report, ICRP noted that collective dose is effective for optimization, but aggregation of very low doses to estimate excess cancers is inappropriate because of large uncertainties.
308:" (ALARA). ALARA would become a fundamental principle in radiation protection policy that implicitly accepts the validity of LNT. In 1959, the United States Federal Radiation Council (FRC) supported the concept of the LNT extrapolation down to the low dose region in its first report.
637:
than radiological. Because damage from very-low-level radiation cannot be detected, people exposed to it are left in anguished uncertainty about what will happen to them. Many believe they have been fundamentally contaminated for life and may refuse to have children for fear of
589:
The
Scientific Committee does not recommend multiplying very low doses by large numbers of individuals to estimate numbers of radiation-induced health effects within a population exposed to incremental doses at levels equivalent to or lower than natural background
364:
detection, is translated into a number of lives saved. When the doses are very low the model predicts new cancers only in a very small fraction of the population, but for a large population, the number of lives is extrapolated into hundreds or thousands.
288:, and studies were conducted on the survivors. Although compelling evidence on the effect of low dosage of radiation was hard to come by, by the late 1940s, the idea of LNT became more popular due to its mathematical simplicity. In 1954, the
439:
upheld the LNT model in 2021 as a "sound regulatory basis for minimizing the risk of unnecessary radiation exposure to both members of the public and radiation workers" following challenges to the dose limit requirements contained in its
466:
The assumption that any stimulatory hormetic effects from low doses of ionizing radiation will have a significant health benefit to humans that exceeds potential detrimental effects from the radiation exposure is unwarranted at this
545:) published a report in 2005 (at the same time as BEIR VII report in the United States) that rejected the linear no-threshold model in favor of a threshold dose response and a significantly reduced risk at low radiation exposure:
300:(UNSCEAR) assessed the LNT model and a threshold model, but noted the difficulty in acquiring "reliable information about the correlation between small doses and their effects either in individuals or in large populations". The
565:
The Health
Physics Society advises against estimating health risks to people from exposures to ionizing radiation that are near or less than natural background levels because statistical uncertainties at these low levels are
201:, from BEIR report. Notably, this exposure pathway occurred from essentially a massive spike or pulse of radiation, a result of the brief instant that the bomb exploded, which while somewhat similar to the environment of a
112:
Scientific organizations and government regulatory bodies generally support use of the LNT model, particularly for optimization. However, some caution against estimating health effects from doses below a certain level (see
1204:
Lorenz E, Hollcroft JW, Miller E, Congdon CC, Schweisthal R (February 1955). "Long-term effects of acute and chronic irradiation in mice. I. Survival and tumor incidence following chronic irradiation of 0.11 r per day".
391:, it was known at the time that radiation can cause a physiological increase in the rate of pregnancy anomalies; however, human exposure data and animal testing suggests that the "malformation of organs appears to be a
581:
514:
297:
2152:
International Dose-Response Society – dedicated to the enhancement, exchange, and dissemination of ongoing global research in hormesis, a dose-response phenomenon characterized by low-dose stimulation and high-dose
747:"Epidemiology Without Biology: False Paradigms, Unfounded Assumptions, and Specious Statistics in Radiation Science (with Commentaries by Inge Schmitz-Feuerhake and Christopher Busby and a Reply by the Authors)"
630:
Turkey, the only robust evidence of negative pregnancy outcomes that transpired after the accident were these elective abortion indirect effects, in Greece, Denmark, Italy etc., due to the anxieties created.
1845:
Sources, Effects and Risks of Ionizing Radiation, United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) 2012 Report: Report to the General Assembly, with Scientific Annexes A and
472:
In 2005 the United States National Academies' National Research Council published its comprehensive meta-analysis of low-dose radiation research BEIR VII, Phase 2. In its press release the Academies stated:
403:(birth defects) concludes that "there is no substantive proof regarding radiation‐induced teratogenic effects from the Chernobyl accident". It is argued that the human body has defense mechanisms, such as
617:, Europe-wide anxieties were fomented in pregnant mothers over the perception enforced by the LNT model that their children would be born with a higher rate of mutations. As far afield as the country of
1715:
645:
Forced evacuation from a radiation or nuclear accident may lead to social isolation, anxiety, depression, psychosomatic medical problems, reckless behavior, or suicide. Such was the outcome of the 1986
1781:
491:
289:
109:
model, which says that radiation at very small doses can be beneficial, and the supra-linear model. It has been argued that the LNT model may have created an irrational fear of radiation.
133:
dose level, however small, and the sum of several very small exposures is just as likely to cause a stochastic health effect as a single larger exposure of equal dose value. In contrast,
1240:
311:
By the 1970s, the LNT model had become accepted as the standard in radiation protection practice by a number of bodies. In 1972, the first report of National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
301:
897:
483:
182:
874:
1332:
418:
A 2011 review of studies addressing childhood leukaemia following exposure to ionizing radiation, including both diagnostic exposure and natural background exposure from
1797:
UNSCEAR 2000 REPORT Vol. II: Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation: Annex G: Biological effects at low radiation doses. page 160, paragraph 541. Available online at
477:
The scientific research base shows that there is no threshold of exposure below which low levels of ionizing radiation can be demonstrated to be harmless or beneficial.
101:
policies that set regulatory dose limits to protect against the effects of radiation. The validity of the LNT model, however, is disputed, and other models exist: the
650:
in Ukraine. A comprehensive 2005 study concluded that "the mental health impact of Chernobyl is the largest public health problem unleashed by the accident to date".
1810:
502:
625:
were performed on the healthy unborn, out of this no-threshold fear. Following the accident however, studies of data sets approaching a million births in the
280:
dose of radiation suggests that they may outlive control animals. The interest in the effects of radiation intensified after the dropping of atomic bombs on
456:
411:, that would protect it against carcinogenesis due to low-dose exposures of carcinogens. However, these repair mechanisms are known to be error prone.
431:
at low doses, several organizations caution against estimating health effects below certain doses, generally below natural background, as noted below:
662:
premature deaths a year in the US. It is "only nuclear radiation that bears a huge psychological burden – for it carries a unique historical legacy".
658:, saying that "fear of ionizing radiation could have long-term psychological effects on a large portion of the population in the contaminated areas".
312:
227:. When the two environments and cell effects are vastly different. Likewise, it has also been pointed out that bomb survivors inhaled carcinogenic
452:
1596:
2143:
33:
527:
A number of organisations caution against using the Linear no-threshold model to estimate risk from radiation exposure below a certain level:
1879:
1653:
1251:
541:
276:, that mutation frequency is "directly and simply proportional to the dose of irradiation applied" and that there is "no threshold dose".
384:
intentionally ignored an early study that did not support the LNT model when he gave his 1946 Nobel Prize address advocating the model.
1412:
304:(JCAE) similarly could not establish if there is a threshold or "safe" level for exposure; nevertheless, it introduced the concept of "
36:
Different assumptions on the extrapolation of the cancer risk vs. radiation dose to low-dose levels, given a known risk at a high dose:
2133:
2211:
1854:
2021:
1716:"NRCP Commentary No. 27: Implications of Recent Epiedmiologic Studies for the Linear-Nonthreshold Model and Radiation Protection"
1938:"Evaluation of the impact of Chernobyl on the prevalence of congenital anomalies in 16 regions of Europe. EUROCAT Working Group"
1371:
396:
2231:
327:
160:(NRC), commonly use LNT as a basis for regulatory dose limits to protect against stochastic health effects, as found in many
1092:"The linear No-Threshold (LNT) dose response model: A comprehensive assessment of its historical and scientific foundations"
609:, whose observable effects are much more significant than non-observable effects postulated by LNT. In the wake of the 1986
152:
studies support its application, but controversially, also at low doses, which is a dose region that has a lower predictive
2236:
1754:
UNSCEAR 2020/2021 report Volume III: Sources, Effects and Risks of Ionizing Radiation. Paragraph 542. Available online at
436:
235:
The association of exposure to radiation with cancer had been observed as early as 1902, six years after the discovery of
157:
259:
and Alex Olson, based on Muller's discovery of the effect of radiation on mutation, proposed a mechanism for biological
2128:
1595:
Tubiana M, Aurengo A, Averbeck D, Bonnin A, Le Guen B, Masse R, Monier R, Valleron AJ, De Vathaire F (30 March 2005).
1186:
380:
The LNT model has been contested by a number of scientists. It has been claimed that the early proponent of the model
318:
The Health Physics Society (in the United States) has published a documentary series on the origins of the LNT model.
1817:
655:
647:
532:
126:
1730:
1435:
2221:
2159:
1513:
Wakeford R (March 2013). "The risk of childhood leukaemia following exposure to ionising radiation--a review".
686:
572:
344:
The linear no-threshold model is used to extrapolate the expected number of extra deaths caused by exposure to
153:
145:
138:
79:
992:
399:", below which no rate increase is observed. A review in 1999 on the link between the Chernobyl accident and
345:
2160:"On the origins of the linear no-threshold (LNT) dogma by means of untruths, artful dodges and blind faith"
2148:
Reprinted PowerPoint notes from a colloquium at the Physics Department, Oxford University, 24 November 2006
1755:
1669:
701:
557:
495:
181:
of low-level radioactive contaminations, which is controversial. Such practice has been criticized by the
2134:
ECRR report on Chernobyl (April 2006) claiming deliberate suppression of the LNT in public health studies
1597:"Dose-effect relationships and estimation of the carcinogenic effects of low doses of ionizing radiation"
255:
demonstrated that radiation may cause genetic mutation. He also suggested mutation as a cause of cancer.
2216:
1455:
408:
381:
252:
1977:
Little J (April 1993). "The Chernobyl accident, congenital anomalies and other reproductive outcomes".
798:
125:
Stochastic health effects are those that occur by chance, and whose probability is proportional to the
2129:
Report from the European Committee on Radiation Risk broadly supporting the Linear No Threshold model
1607:
2174:
2052:
1522:
1467:
1152:
1007:
834:
Christensen DM, Iddins CJ, Sugarman SL (February 2014). "Ionizing radiation injuries and illnesses".
681:
392:
71:
1782:"American Nuclear Society Position Statement #41: Risks of Exposure to Low-Level Ionizing Radiaiton"
914:"The linear no-threshold relationship is inconsistent with radiation biologic and experimental data"
892:
651:
1687:
2068:
1546:
1363:
1121:
676:
626:
610:
460:
357:
173:
106:
91:
240:
1702:"ICRP-103: The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection"
1633:
1276:
970:"Historical Development of the Linear Nonthreshold Dose-Response Model as Applied to Radiation"
2226:
2190:
1994:
1959:
1918:
1875:
1850:
1649:
1538:
1495:
1416:
1355:
1313:
1222:
1168:
1113:
1072:
1023:
943:
851:
776:
706:
622:
388:
353:
220:
1843:
1565:
2182:
2060:
2017:
1986:
1949:
1908:
1641:
1577:
1530:
1485:
1475:
1456:"Evidence for formation of DNA repair centers and dose-response nonlinearity in human cells"
1408:
1347:
1303:
1214:
1160:
1103:
1062:
1054:
1015:
933:
925:
843:
816:
766:
758:
642:. They may be shunned by others in their community who fear a sort of mysterious contagion.
256:
560:'s position statement first adopted in January 1996, last revised in February 2019, states:
1701:
248:
219:
is orders of magnitude smaller. LNT does not consider dose rate and is an unsubstantiated
193:
178:
169:
102:
1140:
2178:
2056:
1526:
1471:
1156:
1011:
32:
1990:
1490:
1308:
1295:
1294:
Cranney A, Horsley T, O'Donnell S, Weiler H, Puil L, Ooi D, et al. (August 2007).
1067:
1042:
938:
913:
771:
746:
682:
Nuclear power debate#Health effects on population near nuclear power plants and workers
369:
1333:"Muller's Nobel lecture on dose-response for ionizing radiation: ideology or science?"
1141:"The Effect of Varying the Duration of X-Ray Treatment Upon the Frequency of Mutation"
2205:
2072:
1454:
Neumaier T, Swenson J, Pham C, Polyzos A, Lo AT, Yang P, et al. (January 2012).
893:"The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection"
710:
634:
423:
349:
244:
224:
161:
98:
67:
1550:
1125:
2041:"The radiological and psychological consequences of the Fukushima Daiichi accident"
1534:
1367:
696:
639:
149:
134:
75:
17:
2138:
2104:
UNSCEAR, United Nations Scientific Committee on the effects of Ionizing Radiations
1058:
2186:
1798:
1638:
Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII Phase 2
1440:
618:
606:
600:
337:
265:
228:
1460:
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
1164:
1019:
969:
97:
The LNT model is commonly used by regulatory bodies as a basis for formulating
2040:
1770:
1351:
1108:
1091:
929:
847:
762:
671:
404:
400:
87:
2064:
1218:
1480:
691:
281:
269:
260:
212:
207:
198:
2194:
1963:
1954:
1937:
1731:"EPA Radiogenic Cancer Risk Models and Projections for the U.S. Population"
1581:
1542:
1499:
1420:
1359:
1317:
1226:
1172:
1117:
1027:
947:
855:
780:
523:
of the use of a linear dose-response model to infer radiation cancer risks.
177:
radiation. The model is sometimes used to quantify the cancerous effect of
1998:
1922:
1413:
10.1002/(sici)1096-9926(199908)60:2<100::aid-tera14>3.3.co;2-8
1399:
Castronovo FP (August 1999). "Teratogen update: radiation and Chernobyl".
1241:"Beir VII: Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation"
1076:
875:"Linear No-Threshold Model and Standards for Protection Against Radiation"
333:
285:
83:
1897:"The Chernobyl accident and induced abortions: only one-way information"
1913:
1896:
1756:
https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications/scientific-reports.html
1604:
Academy of Medicine (Paris) and Academy of Science (Paris) Joint Report
614:
202:
298:
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation
505:
endorses the LNT model in its 2011 report on radiogenic cancer risk:
2119:
NCRP, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, US
1645:
336:
being listed as a carcinogen at all sun exposure rates, due to the
1688:"ICRP-99: Low-dose Extrapolation of Radiation-related Cancer Risk"
1296:"Effectiveness and safety of vitamin D in relation to bone health"
1277:"The History of the Linear No-Threshold (LNT) Model Episode Guide"
419:
361:
305:
236:
192:
31:
2151:
172:, which assumes that very small exposures are harmless, and the
459:) supported the linear no threshold model and stated regarding
2124:
IRSN, Institute for Radioprotection and Nuclear Safety, France
1872:
Communicating Risks to the Public: International Perspectives
1766:
Health Physics Society, 2019. Radiation Risk in Perspective
1640:. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. p. 335.
912:
Tubiana M, Feinendegen LE, Yang C, Kaminski JM (April 2009).
272:
effect of radiation in 1946, asserted in his Nobel lecture,
105:, which assumes that very small exposures are harmless, the
2103:
2118:
492:
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements
290:
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements
2113:
2108:
2098:
2093:
2088:
1436:"The Mythology of Linear No-Threshold Cancer Causation"
633:
The consequences of low-level radiation are often more
302:
United States Congress Joint Committee on Atomic Energy
27:
Deprecated model predicting health effects of radiation
2123:
2089:
ICRP, International Commission on Radiation Protection
1901:
Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health
1874:. Berlin: Springer Science and Media. pp. 160–2.
356:, into a number of lives lost, while any reduction in
231:
from the burning cities, yet this is not factored in.
144:
LNT is a common model to calculate the probability of
415:
risk to ionizing radiation is proportional to dose".
2114:
IRPA, International Radiation Protection Association
2022:"Nuclear Risk and Fear, from Hiroshima to Fukushima"
605:
It has been argued that the LNT model had caused an
1729:U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (April 2011).
898:
International Commission on Radiological Protection
484:
International Commission on Radiological Protection
183:
International Commission on Radiological Protection
1043:"Seventy years ago: mutation becomes experimental"
869:
867:
865:
2094:ICRU, International Commission on Radiation Units
1670:"Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation May Cause Harm"
1564:Heyes GJ, Mill AJ, Charles MW (1 October 2006).
2099:IAEA, International Atomic Agency Energy Agency
1676:. National Academies of Sciences. 29 June 2005.
587:
563:
548:
520:
506:
475:
464:
441:
422:, concluded that existing risk factors, excess
372:to set maximum acceptable radiation exposures.
745:Sacks B, Meyerson G, Siegel JA (1 June 2016).
165:request to discontinue use of the LNT model".
156:. Nonetheless, regulatory bodies, such as the
517:stated in Appendix C of its 2020/2021 report:
503:United States Environmental Protection Agency
197:Increased Risk of Solid Cancer with Dose for
90:effects on the human body due to exposure to
8:
1895:Perucchi M, Domenighetti G (December 1990).
1811:"UNSCEAR Fifty-Ninth Session 21–25 May 2012"
1394:
1392:
2109:HPA (ex NCRP), Health Protection Agency, UK
1842:UNSCEAR United Nations (31 December 2015).
836:Emergency Medicine Clinics of North America
797:Emshwiller JR, Fields G (13 August 2016).
654:, a U.S. scientist, commented on the 2011
1953:
1912:
1489:
1479:
1307:
1107:
1066:
963:
961:
959:
957:
937:
770:
348:, and it therefore has a great impact on
211:of living in a contaminated area such as
2039:von Hippel FN (September–October 2011).
2012:
2010:
2008:
1207:Journal of the National Cancer Institute
539:) and the National Academy of Medicine (
313:Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation
1041:Crow JF, Abrahamson S (December 1997).
726:
509:proportional to the dose to that tissue
453:United States National Research Council
322:Radiation precautions and public policy
2139:BBC article discussing doubts over LNT
993:"Artificial Transmutation of the Gene"
974:University of New Hampshire Law Review
427:upon the risk of childhood leukaemia"
137:are radiation-induced effects such as
1979:Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology
1942:International Journal of Epidemiology
1300:Evidence Report/Technology Assessment
792:
790:
713:that low dose radiation is generally
368:A linear model has long been used in
352:. The model is used to translate any
7:
2145:How dangerous is ionising radiation?
740:
738:
736:
734:
732:
730:
1632:National Research Council. (2006).
1187:"Hermann J. Muller - Nobel Lecture"
1090:Calabrese, Edward J. (March 2019).
1991:10.1111/j.1365-3016.1993.tb00388.x
1936:Dolk H, Nichols R (October 1999).
1515:Journal of Radiological Protection
360:, for example as a consequence of
332:Radiation precautions have led to
264:frequency. Muller, who received a
25:
2045:Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
1870:Kasperson RE, Stallen PJ (1991).
1139:Oliver, C. P. (10 January 1930).
292:(NCRP) introduced the concept of
1816:. 14 August 2012. Archived from
389:very high dose radiation therapy
114:
799:"Is a Little Radiation So Bad?"
576:recommends additional research.
306:As Low As Reasonably Achievable
223:approach based solely on total
168:Other dose models include: the
1331:Calabrese EJ (December 2011).
542:Académie Nationale de Médecine
328:Health effects of sun exposure
1:
2158:Calabrese EJ (October 2015).
437:Nuclear Regulatory Commission
158:Nuclear Regulatory Commission
2187:10.1016/j.envres.2015.07.011
1570:British Journal of Radiology
968:Kathren RL (December 2002).
607:irrational fear of radiation
494:(a body commissioned by the
457:National Academy of Sciences
341:safe level of sun exposure.
135:deterministic health effects
1634:"Hormesis and Epidemiology"
1059:10.1093/genetics/147.4.1491
584:stated in its 2012 report:
205:, is wholly unlike the low
2253:
1165:10.1126/science.71.1828.44
1020:10.1126/science.66.1699.84
717:harmful than higher doses.
656:Fukushima nuclear disaster
648:Chernobyl nuclear disaster
598:
533:French Academy of Sciences
325:
274:The Production of Mutation
1352:10.1007/s00204-011-0728-8
1109:10.1016/j.cbi.2018.11.020
930:10.1148/radiol.2511080671
848:10.1016/j.emc.2013.10.002
763:10.1007/s13752-016-0244-4
148:both at high doses where
76:stochastic health effects
60:linear no-threshold model
2212:Radiation health effects
2065:10.1177/0096340211421588
1535:10.1088/0952-4746/33/1/1
687:Radiation-induced cancer
573:American Nuclear Society
294:maximum permissible dose
146:radiation-induced cancer
139:acute radiation syndrome
80:radiation-induced cancer
1481:10.1073/pnas.1117849108
991:Muller HJ (July 1927).
346:environmental radiation
2167:Environmental Research
1340:Archives of Toxicology
1281:Health Physics Society
1219:10.1093/jnci/15.4.1049
821:Health Physics Society
702:Inge Schmitz-Feuerhake
592:
568:
558:Health Physics Society
553:
525:
511:
496:United States Congress
482:In a 2005 report, the
479:
469:
446:
232:
154:statistical confidence
55:
2232:Medical controversies
621:, hundreds of excess
599:Further information:
595:Mental health effects
537:Académie des Sciences
409:programmed cell death
382:Hermann Joseph Muller
196:
35:
2237:Radiation protection
1955:10.1093/ije/28.5.941
1582:10.1259/bjr/52126615
1248:The National Academy
817:"Stochastic effects"
393:deterministic effect
268:for his work on the
72:radiation protection
2179:2015ER....142..432C
2057:2011BuAtS..67e..27V
1527:2013JRP....33....1W
1472:2012PNAS..109..443N
1193:. 12 December 1946.
1157:1930Sci....71...44O
1012:1927Sci....66...84M
803:Wall Street Journal
652:Frank N. von Hippel
18:Linear no-threshold
1914:10.5271/sjweh.1761
1849:. United Nations.
1096:Chem Biol Interact
677:Dose fractionation
611:Chernobyl accident
461:Radiation hormesis
358:radiation exposure
233:
174:radiation hormesis
115:§ Controversy
107:radiation hormesis
92:ionizing radiation
56:
50:linear-quadratic,
2020:(10 March 2012).
1881:978-0-7923-0601-6
1655:978-0-309-09156-5
751:Biological Theory
623:induced abortions
354:radiation release
221:one size fits all
41:supra-linearity,
16:(Redirected from
2244:
2222:Nuclear medicine
2198:
2164:
2077:
2076:
2036:
2030:
2029:
2014:
2003:
2002:
1974:
1968:
1967:
1957:
1933:
1927:
1926:
1916:
1892:
1886:
1885:
1867:
1861:
1860:
1839:
1833:
1832:
1830:
1828:
1823:on 5 August 2013
1822:
1815:
1807:
1801:
1795:
1789:
1788:
1786:
1778:
1772:
1764:
1758:
1752:
1746:
1745:
1743:
1741:
1735:
1726:
1720:
1719:
1712:
1706:
1705:
1698:
1692:
1691:
1684:
1678:
1677:
1666:
1660:
1659:
1629:
1623:
1622:
1620:
1618:
1612:
1606:. Archived from
1601:
1592:
1586:
1585:
1576:(946): 855–857.
1566:"Authors' reply"
1561:
1555:
1554:
1510:
1504:
1503:
1493:
1483:
1451:
1445:
1444:
1431:
1425:
1424:
1396:
1387:
1386:
1384:
1382:
1377:on 2 August 2017
1376:
1370:. Archived from
1337:
1328:
1322:
1321:
1311:
1291:
1285:
1284:
1273:
1267:
1266:
1264:
1262:
1256:
1250:. Archived from
1245:
1237:
1231:
1230:
1201:
1195:
1194:
1183:
1177:
1176:
1136:
1130:
1129:
1111:
1087:
1081:
1080:
1070:
1038:
1032:
1031:
997:
988:
982:
981:
965:
952:
951:
941:
909:
903:
902:
889:
883:
882:
879:Federal Register
871:
860:
859:
831:
825:
824:
813:
807:
806:
794:
785:
784:
774:
742:
257:Gilbert N. Lewis
199:A-bomb survivors
179:collective doses
21:
2252:
2251:
2247:
2246:
2245:
2243:
2242:
2241:
2202:
2201:
2162:
2157:
2085:
2080:
2038:
2037:
2033:
2016:
2015:
2006:
1976:
1975:
1971:
1935:
1934:
1930:
1894:
1893:
1889:
1882:
1869:
1868:
1864:
1857:
1841:
1840:
1836:
1826:
1824:
1820:
1813:
1809:
1808:
1804:
1796:
1792:
1784:
1780:
1779:
1775:
1765:
1761:
1753:
1749:
1739:
1737:
1733:
1728:
1727:
1723:
1714:
1713:
1709:
1700:
1699:
1695:
1686:
1685:
1681:
1668:
1667:
1663:
1656:
1631:
1630:
1626:
1616:
1614:
1613:on 25 July 2011
1610:
1599:
1594:
1593:
1589:
1563:
1562:
1558:
1512:
1511:
1507:
1453:
1452:
1448:
1434:Schachtman NA.
1433:
1432:
1428:
1398:
1397:
1390:
1380:
1378:
1374:
1335:
1330:
1329:
1325:
1293:
1292:
1288:
1275:
1274:
1270:
1260:
1258:
1257:on 7 March 2020
1254:
1243:
1239:
1238:
1234:
1203:
1202:
1198:
1185:
1184:
1180:
1151:(1828): 44–46.
1138:
1137:
1133:
1089:
1088:
1084:
1040:
1039:
1035:
995:
990:
989:
985:
967:
966:
955:
911:
910:
906:
891:
890:
886:
873:
872:
863:
833:
832:
828:
815:
814:
810:
796:
795:
788:
744:
743:
728:
724:
668:
603:
597:
378:
330:
324:
296:. In 1958, the
249:Henri Becquerel
241:Wilhelm Röntgen
191:
170:threshold model
123:
103:threshold model
46:
37:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
2250:
2248:
2240:
2239:
2234:
2229:
2224:
2219:
2214:
2204:
2203:
2200:
2199:
2155:
2149:
2141:
2136:
2131:
2126:
2121:
2116:
2111:
2106:
2101:
2096:
2091:
2084:
2083:External links
2081:
2079:
2078:
2031:
2026:New York Times
2004:
1969:
1928:
1887:
1880:
1862:
1855:
1834:
1802:
1790:
1773:
1759:
1747:
1721:
1707:
1693:
1679:
1661:
1654:
1646:10.17226/11340
1624:
1587:
1556:
1505:
1446:
1426:
1388:
1346:(12): 1495–8.
1323:
1302:(158): 1–235.
1286:
1268:
1232:
1213:(4): 1049–58.
1196:
1178:
1131:
1082:
1033:
1006:(1699): 84–7.
983:
953:
904:
884:
861:
826:
808:
786:
725:
723:
720:
719:
718:
707:Biphasic Model
704:
699:
694:
689:
684:
679:
674:
667:
664:
596:
593:
586:
585:
578:
577:
562:
561:
547:
546:
519:
518:
512:
499:
488:
474:
473:
470:
448:
447:
397:threshold dose
377:
374:
370:health physics
323:
320:
253:Hermann Muller
190:
187:
122:
119:
70:model used in
26:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2249:
2238:
2235:
2233:
2230:
2228:
2225:
2223:
2220:
2218:
2215:
2213:
2210:
2209:
2207:
2196:
2192:
2188:
2184:
2180:
2176:
2172:
2168:
2161:
2156:
2154:
2150:
2147:
2146:
2142:
2140:
2137:
2135:
2132:
2130:
2127:
2125:
2122:
2120:
2117:
2115:
2112:
2110:
2107:
2105:
2102:
2100:
2097:
2095:
2092:
2090:
2087:
2086:
2082:
2074:
2070:
2066:
2062:
2058:
2054:
2050:
2046:
2042:
2035:
2032:
2027:
2023:
2019:
2013:
2011:
2009:
2005:
2000:
1996:
1992:
1988:
1985:(2): 121–51.
1984:
1980:
1973:
1970:
1965:
1961:
1956:
1951:
1947:
1943:
1939:
1932:
1929:
1924:
1920:
1915:
1910:
1906:
1902:
1898:
1891:
1888:
1883:
1877:
1873:
1866:
1863:
1858:
1856:9789210577984
1852:
1848:
1847:
1838:
1835:
1819:
1812:
1806:
1803:
1799:
1794:
1791:
1783:
1777:
1774:
1771:
1769:
1763:
1760:
1757:
1751:
1748:
1732:
1725:
1722:
1717:
1711:
1708:
1703:
1697:
1694:
1689:
1683:
1680:
1675:
1671:
1665:
1662:
1657:
1651:
1647:
1643:
1639:
1635:
1628:
1625:
1609:
1605:
1598:
1591:
1588:
1583:
1579:
1575:
1571:
1567:
1560:
1557:
1552:
1548:
1544:
1540:
1536:
1532:
1528:
1524:
1520:
1516:
1509:
1506:
1501:
1497:
1492:
1487:
1482:
1477:
1473:
1469:
1465:
1461:
1457:
1450:
1447:
1442:
1441:
1437:
1430:
1427:
1422:
1418:
1414:
1410:
1406:
1402:
1395:
1393:
1389:
1373:
1369:
1365:
1361:
1357:
1353:
1349:
1345:
1341:
1334:
1327:
1324:
1319:
1315:
1310:
1305:
1301:
1297:
1290:
1287:
1282:
1278:
1272:
1269:
1253:
1249:
1242:
1236:
1233:
1228:
1224:
1220:
1216:
1212:
1208:
1200:
1197:
1192:
1188:
1182:
1179:
1174:
1170:
1166:
1162:
1158:
1154:
1150:
1146:
1142:
1135:
1132:
1127:
1123:
1119:
1115:
1110:
1105:
1101:
1097:
1093:
1086:
1083:
1078:
1074:
1069:
1064:
1060:
1056:
1053:(4): 1491–6.
1052:
1048:
1044:
1037:
1034:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1017:
1013:
1009:
1005:
1001:
994:
987:
984:
979:
975:
971:
964:
962:
960:
958:
954:
949:
945:
940:
935:
931:
927:
923:
919:
915:
908:
905:
900:
899:
894:
888:
885:
880:
876:
870:
868:
866:
862:
857:
853:
849:
845:
842:(1): 245–65.
841:
837:
830:
827:
822:
818:
812:
809:
804:
800:
793:
791:
787:
782:
778:
773:
768:
764:
760:
757:(2): 69–101.
756:
752:
748:
741:
739:
737:
735:
733:
731:
727:
721:
716:
712:
711:fringe theory
708:
705:
703:
700:
698:
695:
693:
690:
688:
685:
683:
680:
678:
675:
673:
670:
669:
665:
663:
659:
657:
653:
649:
643:
641:
640:birth defects
636:
635:psychological
631:
628:
624:
620:
616:
612:
608:
602:
594:
591:
583:
580:
579:
574:
570:
569:
567:
559:
555:
554:
552:
544:
543:
538:
534:
530:
529:
528:
524:
516:
513:
510:
504:
500:
497:
493:
489:
485:
481:
480:
478:
471:
468:
462:
458:
455:(part of the
454:
450:
449:
445:
438:
434:
433:
432:
428:
425:
424:relative risk
421:
416:
412:
410:
406:
402:
398:
394:
390:
385:
383:
375:
373:
371:
366:
363:
359:
355:
351:
350:public policy
347:
342:
339:
335:
329:
321:
319:
316:
314:
309:
307:
303:
299:
295:
291:
287:
283:
277:
275:
271:
267:
262:
258:
254:
250:
246:
245:radioactivity
242:
238:
230:
226:
225:absorbed dose
222:
218:
214:
210:
209:
204:
200:
195:
188:
186:
184:
180:
175:
171:
166:
163:
162:public health
159:
155:
151:
147:
142:
140:
136:
132:
128:
120:
118:
116:
110:
108:
104:
100:
99:public health
95:
93:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
69:
68:dose-response
65:
61:
53:
49:
44:
40:
34:
30:
19:
2217:Radiobiology
2170:
2166:
2144:
2051:(5): 27–36.
2048:
2044:
2034:
2025:
1982:
1978:
1972:
1948:(5): 941–8.
1945:
1941:
1931:
1907:(6): 443–4.
1904:
1900:
1890:
1871:
1865:
1844:
1837:
1825:. Retrieved
1818:the original
1805:
1793:
1776:
1767:
1762:
1750:
1738:. Retrieved
1724:
1710:
1696:
1682:
1674:News Release
1673:
1664:
1637:
1627:
1615:. Retrieved
1608:the original
1603:
1590:
1573:
1569:
1559:
1518:
1514:
1508:
1466:(2): 443–8.
1463:
1459:
1449:
1439:
1429:
1407:(2): 100–6.
1404:
1400:
1379:. Retrieved
1372:the original
1343:
1339:
1326:
1299:
1289:
1280:
1271:
1259:. Retrieved
1252:the original
1247:
1235:
1210:
1206:
1199:
1190:
1181:
1148:
1144:
1134:
1099:
1095:
1085:
1050:
1046:
1036:
1003:
999:
986:
977:
973:
924:(1): 13–22.
921:
917:
907:
896:
887:
878:
839:
835:
829:
820:
811:
802:
754:
750:
714:
697:Radiotherapy
660:
644:
632:
604:
588:
564:
549:
540:
536:
526:
521:
507:
476:
465:
451:In 2004 the
442:
440:regulations.
429:
417:
413:
386:
379:
367:
343:
331:
317:
310:
293:
278:
273:
234:
216:
215:, where the
206:
185:since 2007.
167:
150:epidemiology
143:
130:
124:
121:Introduction
111:
96:
74:to estimate
63:
59:
57:
51:
47:
42:
38:
29:
2153:inhibition.
1740:15 November
1521:(1): 1–25.
1191:Nobel Prize
619:Switzerland
601:Radiophobia
376:Controversy
338:ultraviolet
266:Nobel Prize
251:. In 1927,
229:benzopyrene
88:teratogenic
2206:Categories
2173:: 432–42.
1827:3 February
1401:Teratology
722:References
672:DNA repair
405:DNA repair
401:teratology
326:See also:
82:, genetic
2073:218769799
2018:Revkin AC
918:Radiology
692:Radiology
282:Hiroshima
270:mutagenic
261:evolution
217:dose rate
213:Chernobyl
208:dose rate
84:mutations
2227:Oncology
2195:26248082
1964:10597995
1617:27 March
1551:41245977
1543:23296257
1500:22184222
1421:10440782
1360:21717110
1318:18088161
1227:13233949
1173:17806621
1126:73431487
1118:30763547
1102:: 6–25.
1047:Genetics
1028:17802387
948:19332842
856:24275177
781:27398078
666:See also
334:sunlight
286:Nagasaki
78:such as
54:hormesis
2175:Bibcode
2053:Bibcode
1999:8516187
1923:2284594
1768:PS010-4
1523:Bibcode
1491:3258602
1468:Bibcode
1381:25 July
1368:4708210
1309:4781354
1153:Bibcode
1145:Science
1077:9409815
1068:1208325
1008:Bibcode
1000:Science
939:2663584
901:. 2007.
772:4917595
627:EUROCAT
615:Ukraine
590:levels.
582:UNSCEAR
515:UNSCEAR
435:The US
395:with a
203:CT scan
189:Origins
66:) is a
2193:
2071:
1997:
1962:
1921:
1878:
1853:
1652:
1549:
1541:
1498:
1488:
1419:
1366:
1358:
1316:
1306:
1261:7 June
1225:
1171:
1124:
1116:
1075:
1065:
1026:
946:
936:
854:
779:
769:
566:great.
237:X-rays
45:linear
2163:(PDF)
2069:S2CID
1821:(PDF)
1814:(PDF)
1785:(PDF)
1736:. EPA
1734:(PDF)
1611:(PDF)
1600:(PDF)
1547:S2CID
1375:(PDF)
1364:S2CID
1336:(PDF)
1255:(PDF)
1244:(PDF)
1122:S2CID
996:(PDF)
467:time.
420:radon
362:radon
2191:PMID
1995:PMID
1960:PMID
1919:PMID
1876:ISBN
1851:ISBN
1829:2013
1742:2011
1650:ISBN
1619:2008
1539:PMID
1496:PMID
1417:PMID
1383:2017
1356:PMID
1314:PMID
1263:2018
1223:PMID
1169:PMID
1114:PMID
1073:PMID
1024:PMID
980:(1).
944:PMID
852:PMID
777:PMID
715:more
709:, a
571:The
556:The
531:The
501:The
490:The
407:and
284:and
243:and
127:dose
86:and
58:The
2183:doi
2171:142
2061:doi
1987:doi
1950:doi
1909:doi
1642:doi
1578:doi
1531:doi
1486:PMC
1476:doi
1464:109
1409:doi
1348:doi
1304:PMC
1215:doi
1161:doi
1104:doi
1100:301
1063:PMC
1055:doi
1051:147
1016:doi
934:PMC
926:doi
922:251
844:doi
767:PMC
759:doi
613:in
387:In
247:by
239:by
131:any
117:).
64:LNT
52:(D)
48:(C)
43:(B)
39:(A)
2208::
2189:.
2181:.
2169:.
2165:.
2067:.
2059:.
2049:67
2047:.
2043:.
2024:.
2007:^
1993:.
1981:.
1958:.
1946:28
1944:.
1940:.
1917:.
1905:16
1903:.
1899:.
1672:.
1648:.
1636:.
1602:.
1574:79
1572:.
1568:.
1545:.
1537:.
1529:.
1519:33
1517:.
1494:.
1484:.
1474:.
1462:.
1458:.
1438:.
1415:.
1405:60
1403:.
1391:^
1362:.
1354:.
1344:85
1342:.
1338:.
1312:.
1298:.
1279:.
1246:.
1221:.
1211:15
1209:.
1189:.
1167:.
1159:.
1149:71
1147:.
1143:.
1120:.
1112:.
1098:.
1094:.
1071:.
1061:.
1049:.
1045:.
1022:.
1014:.
1004:66
1002:.
998:.
976:.
972:.
956:^
942:.
932:.
920:.
916:.
895:.
877:.
864:^
850:.
840:32
838:.
819:.
801:.
789:^
775:.
765:.
755:11
753:.
749:.
729:^
2197:.
2185::
2177::
2075:.
2063::
2055::
2028:.
2001:.
1989::
1983:7
1966:.
1952::
1925:.
1911::
1884:.
1859:.
1846:B
1831:.
1800:.
1787:.
1744:.
1718:.
1704:.
1690:.
1658:.
1644::
1621:.
1584:.
1580::
1553:.
1533::
1525::
1502:.
1478::
1470::
1443:.
1423:.
1411::
1385:.
1350::
1320:.
1283:.
1265:.
1229:.
1217::
1175:.
1163::
1155::
1128:.
1106::
1079:.
1057::
1030:.
1018::
1010::
978:1
950:.
928::
881:.
858:.
846::
823:.
805:.
783:.
761::
535:(
463::
62:(
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
