Time to Reject the Linear-No Threshold Hypothesis and Accept Thresholds and Hormesis: A Petition to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission

被引:14
作者
Marcus, Carol S. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Calif Los Angeles, David Geffen Sch Med, Los Angeles, CA 90025 USA
关键词
ATOMIC-BOMB SURVIVORS; CANCER; RADIATION; IRRADIATION; POPULATION; MORTALITY; COUNTIES;
D O I
10.1097/RLU.0000000000000835
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
On February 9, 2015, I submitted a petition to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to reject the linear-no threshold (LNT) hypothesis and ALARA as the bases for radiation safety regulation in the United States, using instead threshold and hormesis evidence. In this article, I will briefly review the history of LNT and its use by regulators, the lack of evidence supporting LNT, and the large body of evidence supporting thresholds and hormesis. Physician acceptance of cancer risk from low dose radiation based upon federal regulatory claims is unfortunate and needs to be reevaluated. This is dangerous to patients and impedes good medical care. A link to my petition is available: [GRAPHICS] , and support by individual physicians once the public comment period begins would be extremely important.
引用
收藏
页码:617 / 619
页数:3
相关论文
共 35 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], 2005, 2 AC NAT MED I FRANC
  • [2] [Anonymous], 2001, 136 NCRP
  • [3] [Anonymous], 2008, Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons
  • [4] Becker Klaus, 2003, Nonlinearity Biol Toxicol Med, V1, P3, DOI 10.1080/15401420390844447
  • [5] Advances in Radiation Biology: Effect on Nuclear Medicine
    Brooks, Antone L.
    Dauer, Lawrence T.
    [J]. SEMINARS IN NUCLEAR MEDICINE, 2014, 44 (03) : 179 - 186
  • [6] An abuse of risk assessment: how regulatory agencies improperly adopted LNT for cancer risk assessment
    Calabrese, Edward J.
    [J]. ARCHIVES OF TOXICOLOGY, 2015, 89 (04) : 647 - 648
  • [7] Cancer risk assessment foundation unraveling: New historical evidence reveals that the US National Academy of Sciences (US NAS), Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation (BEAR) Committee Genetics Panel falsified the research record to promote acceptance of the LNT
    Calabrese, Edward J.
    [J]. ARCHIVES OF TOXICOLOGY, 2015, 89 (04) : 649 - 650
  • [8] The Genetics Panel of the NAS BEAR I Committee (1956): epistolary evidence suggests self-interest may have prompted an exaggeration of radiation risks that led to the adoption of the LNT cancer risk assessment model
    Calabrese, Edward J.
    [J]. ARCHIVES OF TOXICOLOGY, 2014, 88 (09) : 1631 - 1634
  • [9] The 15-country collaborative study of cancer risk among radiation workers in the nuclear industry:: Estimates of radiation-related cancer risks
    Cardis, E.
    Vrijheid, M.
    Blettner, M.
    Gilbert, E.
    Hakama, M.
    Hill, C.
    Howe, G.
    Kaldor, J.
    Muirhead, C. R.
    Schubauer-Berigan, M.
    Yoshimura, T.
    Bermann, F.
    Cowper, G.
    Fix, J.
    Hacker, C.
    Heinmiller, B.
    Marshall, M.
    Thierry-Chef, I.
    Utterback, D.
    Ahn, Y-O
    Amoros, E.
    Ashmore, P.
    Auvinen, A.
    Bae, J-M.
    Bernar, J.
    Biau, A.
    Combalot, E.
    Deboodt, P.
    Sacristan, A. Diez
    Eklof, M.
    Engels, H.
    Engholm, G.
    Gulis, G.
    Habib, R. R.
    Holan, K.
    Hyvonen, H.
    Kerekes, A.
    Kurtinaitis, J.
    Malker, H.
    Martuzzi, M.
    Mastauskas, A.
    Monnet, A.
    Moser, M.
    Pearce, M. S.
    Richardson, D. B.
    Rodriguez-Artalejo, F.
    Rogel, A.
    Tardy, H.
    Telle-Lamberton, M.
    Turai, I.
    [J]. RADIATION RESEARCH, 2007, 167 (04) : 396 - 416
  • [10] Lung cancer rate vs mean radon level in US counties of various characteristics
    Cohen, BL
    [J]. HEALTH PHYSICS, 1997, 72 (01): : 114 - 119