Abstract
The linear, no threshold (LNT) hypothesis assuming that all ionizing radiation is harmful and that even the smallest absorbed dose of radiation may be carcinogenic constitutes the basis of radiation protection regulations.The present review briefly recapitulates the genesis of the LNT dogma and provides examples of results of both epidemiological and experimental studies indicating that the dogma is false and unscientific and, when applied in practice, begets more harm than good. Hence, the time is ripe, if not long overdue, to place cancer risk assessment on the biologically based and fully transparent foundations.
Reference36 articles.
1. 1. Brant A, Ulsh BA, Calabrese EJ. Time for Radiation Regulation to Evolve. The Cato Institute's magazine, Regulation, Fall 2019.
2. 2. Calabrese EJ, Baldwin LA. Radiation hormesis: the demise of a legitimate hypothesis. Hum Exp Toxicol. 19(1):76-84, 2000.
3. 3. Calabrese EJ. On the origins of the linear no-threshold (LNT) dogma by means of untruths, artful dodges and blind faith. Environ. Res. 142: 432-442, 2015.
4. 4. Calabrese EJ. Ethical failings: The problematic history of cancer risk assessment. Environ Res 193: 110582, 2021.
5. 5. Cardarelli JJ II, Ulsh BA. It Is Time to Move Beyond the Linear No-Threshold Theory for Low-Dose Radiation Protection. Dose Response 16(3):1559325818779651, 2018.