Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Linear no-threshold model

The linear no-threshold (LNT) model is a dose-response framework in radiation protection that assumes the risk of stochastic effects, particularly cancer induction, from ionizing radiation exposure is linearly proportional to the absorbed dose, extrapolating from high-dose observations to imply no safe threshold even at minimal exposures such as 0.1 mSv.^[1] Adopted in the mid-20th century for regulatory purposes, the model underpins international standards for limiting public and occupational radiation doses, prioritizing a precautionary approach to minimize potential harm despite uncertainties in low-dose regimes.^[2] However, the LNT has faced substantial scientific scrutiny, with empirical data from epidemiological studies and cellular mechanisms indicating that low-dose radiation often elicits no detectable increase in cancer risk—or potentially beneficial adaptive responses like hormesis—due to efficient DNA repair and signaling pathways that counteract damage at sub-millisievert levels.^[3]^[4] This controversy persists because direct causation at low doses remains unproven, leading critics to argue that LNT's linear extrapolation overestimates risks, fosters radiophobia, and imposes disproportionate economic costs on nuclear energy, medicine, and industry without commensurate safety gains.^[5]^[6] Despite calls from peer-reviewed analyses to reconsider or abandon LNT in favor of threshold or hormetic models supported by recent low-dose research, regulatory bodies continue its application, reflecting entrenched policy inertia over evolving mechanistic and observational evidence.^[4]^[7]

Conceptual Framework

Definition and Assumptions

The linear no-threshold (LNT) model is a conceptual framework in radiological protection asserting that the risk of stochastic health effects, particularly cancer induction from ionizing radiation, increases linearly with absorbed dose and exhibits no threshold below which risk is absent.^[8]^[1] This posits a direct proportionality: the probability of harm scales with dose such that even minimal exposures incur a commensurate, non-zero increment in risk.^[8]^[9] Central assumptions include the stochastic nature of radiation carcinogenesis, where individual ionizing radiation tracks can trigger DNA mutations leading to cancer without necessitating cumulative damage exceeding repair capacities.^[9] The model further presumes risk additivity across fractionated exposures, dose rates, and sources, implying lifetime accumulation without saturation or mitigation from biological adaptations.^[8] It extends applicability to low doses through linear extrapolation from higher-dose observations, bypassing direct measurement where statistical signals are weak.^[1]^[8] Employed for conservatism in setting protection standards, LNT prioritizes overestimation of low-dose perils to safeguard populations, notwithstanding uncertainties in mechanistic validation at sub-millisievert levels.^[9] From causal first-principles, dose-response relations often feature thresholds wherein repair mechanisms render sub-critical exposures harmless, as seen in toxicology; yet LNT forgoes this, equating per-dose-unit hazard uniformly to enforce precautionary limits.^[1]

Mathematical Formulation

The linear no-threshold (LNT) model formalizes the assumption that stochastic radiation risks, such as cancer induction, increase linearly with absorbed dose without a threshold, expressed as excess relative risk (ERR) = βD, where D denotes the equivalent dose in sieverts (Sv) and β represents the ERR coefficient per Sv, typically estimated from high-dose cohorts like atomic bomb survivors.^[10] The total relative risk follows as RR(D) = 1 + βD, multiplying the baseline risk to yield the dose-dependent total.^[11] This formulation implies cumulative lifetime risk proportionality to total exposure, independent of fractionation or protraction in the strict model.^[12] For excess absolute risk (EAR), the LNT posits EAR = β'D, where β' is the EAR per Sv, added directly to the age- and sex-specific baseline incidence rate to compute total absolute risk.^[13] Empirical β values, such as approximately 0.05 Sv⁻¹ for all solid cancers under ERR models, derive from Life Span Study data extrapolated linearly.^[1] These equations lack parameters for thresholds or dose-squared terms (βD²), yielding a zero-intercept straight line on excess risk versus dose plots, in contrast to quadratic or hormetic alternatives.^[12] The model assumes a dose-rate effectiveness factor (DREF) of 1, equating acute and chronic low-dose-rate risks per unit dose; regulatory applications sometimes apply a DREF of 1.5–2 to attenuate estimates for protracted exposures, reflecting observed reductions in high-dose-rate experiments but not altering the core linear proportionality.^[14] This adjustment, however, introduces non-linearity in effective risk calculation, diverging from pure LNT predictions.^[14]

Historical Development

Early Theoretical Foundations

In 1927, geneticist Hermann J. Muller reported experiments demonstrating that X-rays could induce heritable mutations in Drosophila melanogaster fruit flies at rates proportional to the radiation dose, with no observed safe threshold for genetic damage.^[15] Muller's findings, presented at the Fifth International Congress of Genetics, posited that even low doses carried risks of transmissible alterations, extrapolating from higher acute exposures where mutation frequencies increased linearly without saturation.^[16] This work shifted perceptions from spontaneous mutations alone to environmentally inducible ones, emphasizing probabilistic harm from ionizing radiation's ability to alter genes directly.^[17] Building on Muller's mutagenesis insights, target theory emerged in the 1930s as a biophysical framework in radiobiology, proposing that radiation effects arise from discrete ionization events hitting sensitive cellular "targets" such as chromosomes or genes.^[18] Pioneered by physicists Nikolai Timofeeff-Ressovsky and Karl Zimmer in collaboration with geneticists like Max Delbrück, the theory modeled damage as a Poisson process where a single ionizing particle could suffice to inactivate a target, yielding a linear probability of effect with dose and implying no threshold for stochastic outcomes like mutations.^[16] This single-hit paradigm provided a mechanistic rationale for linearity at low doses, influencing early risk extrapolations despite lacking direct low-dose validation.^[19] Pre-1940s human observations, such as radium dial painters ingesting microgram quantities via contaminated brushes in the 1910s–1920s, sparked debates on thresholds versus cumulative risks, with initial cases revealing bone sarcomas and anemias at higher intakes but apparent tolerance below certain levels.^[20] Figures like Muller advocated no-threshold conservatism for heritable effects, contrasting with evidence from radiology workers showing reparable skin damage below erythema thresholds, yet growing awareness of delayed malignancies prompted precautionary linear assumptions amid uncertainties in chronic low-level exposure. These foundations prioritized genetic and biophysical linearity over empirical thresholds in non-genetic endpoints, framing radiation as inherently probabilistic without safe harbors.^[16]

Post-World War II Adoption and Institutionalization

Following the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences established the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission (ABCC) in 1947 to investigate radiation effects on survivors, providing foundational epidemiological data that predominantly captured exposures exceeding 100 mSv but was later extrapolated linearly to lower doses despite limited direct evidence at those levels.^[21] This data influenced early post-war assessments, as leukemia incidence among survivors demonstrated a dose-dependent response at higher exposures, prompting conservative linear extrapolation to assume no safe threshold for regulatory purposes amid uncertainties in low-dose regimes.^[22] In the 1950s, advisory bodies increasingly institutionalized the linear no-threshold (LNT) model, prioritizing its mathematical simplicity and perceived conservatism over threshold alternatives that had dominated pre-war radiation protection philosophy. The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) began endorsing LNT as an upper-bound risk estimate; UNSCEAR's inaugural 1958 report incorporated ABCC survivor data to evaluate leukemia risks, equivocating between LNT and threshold interpretations but leaning toward linearity for precautionary standardization, while its 1962 report reaffirmed LNT citing ease of application.^[22] ^[23] Key figures like Karl Z. Morgan, director of health physics at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, advocated no-threshold assumptions for genetic mutations and leukemogenesis in 1959 testimony before the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, influencing U.S. standards that reduced maximum permissible doses from 0.3 rem/week in 1940s tolerance-based frameworks to 5 rem/year by 1956 under LNT-driven conservatism.^[22] This shift accelerated during Cold War nuclear expansion, including weapons testing and reactor development from 1949 onward, where worst-case LNT assumptions facilitated uniform regulatory guidelines over empirical debates on thresholds, as evidenced by the U.S. Federal Radiation Council's 1960 support for LNT as a risk ceiling and ICRP's 1966 formal endorsement for protection standards.^[22] ^[24] Institutions favored LNT's extrapolative tractability from high-dose ABCC observations, embedding it in frameworks like the National Committee on Radiation Protection's 1954 maximum permissible dose concepts, despite ongoing scientific contention over its applicability to chronic low exposures.^[23]

Scientific Basis and Evidence

Data from High-Dose Exposures

The foundational empirical evidence for the linear dose-response relationship in the LNT model originates from cohorts exposed to acute or chronic high radiation doses, generally above 100 mSv, where excess cancer risks exhibit proportionality to absorbed dose without an apparent threshold in the observed range. The Life Span Study (LSS) of atomic bomb survivors in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, encompassing over 120,000 individuals tracked since 1950 by the Radiation Effects Research Foundation, reveals statistically significant elevations in leukemia and solid cancer incidence among those receiving doses exceeding 0.1 Gy, with dose-response analyses indicating linearity for doses up to several Gy. Specifically, from 1958 to 1998, 7,851 first primary malignancies were documented among 44,635 survivors with doses >0.005 Gy, predominantly attributable to radiation at higher exposures. Leukemia mortality data further substantiate this, with 204 deaths by 2000 among 49,204 survivors having bone marrow doses ≥0.005 Gy, yielding an excess of 94 cases (46% attributable fraction).^[25]^[26]^[27] These high-dose observations underpin quantitative risk coefficients, such as the BEIR VII Phase 2 report's (2006) estimate of approximately 5% lifetime attributable risk of cancer incidence per Sv for low-LET whole-body exposure at age 30, derived principally from LSS solid cancer and leukemia data spanning 1950–2000. Complementary evidence from U.S. radium dial workers, who accumulated skeletal doses often exceeding several Gy via ingestion of radium-226 during luminous paint application in the 1920s, demonstrates linear dose-response for radiogenic malignancies including bone sarcomas (61 cases among 1,474 women) and head carcinomas (21 cases), with the minimum intake dose linked to bone cancer at 202.5 μCi and risks escalating proportionally with cumulative burden.^[28]^[29]^[30] Therapeutic radiotherapy cohorts, involving localized high doses (typically 20–60 Gy fractionated), corroborate linearity for secondary cancers in exposed organs; for instance, post-Hodgkin lymphoma treatment analyses show breast cancer risk rising linearly without downturn up to ≥30 Gy, while lung cancer risk post-breast radiotherapy increases by 8.5% per Gy among cases manifesting ≥5 years later. Mechanistically, such high-dose effects trace to ionizing radiation's induction of DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs)—the most cytotoxic lesions leading to mutagenesis—as quantified in animal models where DSB yields and repair foci scale linearly with dose, and in vitro assays confirming clustered damage sufficient for oncogenic transformation.^[31]^[32]^[33]^[34] While these datasets validate a linear stochastic risk slope at elevated exposures, their relevance diminishes for chronic low-dose scenarios due to differences in dose rate, fractionation, and biological repair dynamics not captured in acute high-dose paradigms.^[28]

Extrapolation to Low Doses

The linear no-threshold (LNT) model's extrapolation to low doses below 100 mSv relies on fitting a straight line to excess risk data from high-dose cohorts, such as atomic bomb survivors exposed to acute doses exceeding this level, assuming risk scales proportionally without deviation.^[35] This approach treats the dose-response as homogeneous, projecting infinitesimal risks at environmental levels despite the absence of direct empirical confirmation in that regime.^[11] A primary methodological issue stems from statistical uncertainty amplification at low doses, where radiation-induced events are sparse and confounded by ubiquitous background exposure and Poisson-distributed variability in baseline cancer incidence. Excess relative risk (ERR) estimates derived from such data exhibit confidence intervals (typically 95%) that frequently encompass zero, rendering the extrapolated positive slope statistically indistinguishable from no effect or even inverse associations.^[11]^[36] This arises because the signal-to-noise ratio diminishes inversely with dose, making linear fits prone to overfitting noise rather than capturing causal increments.^[35] The extrapolation further presumes uniformity across dose rates, applying acute high-dose coefficients to chronic low-dose scenarios without intrinsic adjustment for protracted delivery. In chronic exposures, such as those in occupational settings, inter-event intervals permit DNA repair and cell cycle checkpoints to resolve sublethal damage, yielding dose-rate reduction factors (DRRF) that empirically attenuate per-unit-dose risk by 2- to 10-fold compared to acute equivalents in experimental models.^[37] The basic LNT lacks a mechanistic term for these kinetics, treating dose accumulation as rate-independent despite evidence that repair efficiency scales with time between ionizing tracks.^[6] Reliance on fixed relative biological effectiveness (RBE) parameters, often normalized to high-dose benchmarks, overlooks dose-dependent variations for low-linear energy transfer (low-LET) radiation dominant in low-dose contexts like gamma rays or environmental sources. At sparse hit densities, low-LET tracks produce clustered lesions amenable to homologous recombination and non-homologous end joining, processes whose fidelity increases with dose sparsity, potentially yielding sublinear responses unreflected in RBE constants calibrated for denser ionization.^[38]^[39] This unaccounted nonlinearity from repair dynamics—such as inducible base excision repair activated below 100 mSv—undermines the causal validity of direct proportionality, as single-track effects rarely overwhelm cellular homeostasis without threshold accumulation.^[39]^[40]

Challenges and Contradictory Evidence

Epidemiological Studies at Low Doses

Epidemiological investigations of occupational cohorts, such as nuclear industry workers, have frequently observed no significant excess cancer mortality at cumulative doses below 100 mSv, with standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) often falling below 1, indicative of the healthy worker effect rather than LNT-predicted risks.^[41] The INWORKS international cohort of over 300,000 nuclear workers, with mean cumulative doses around 20 mSv, reported an excess relative risk (ERR) for solid cancers consistent with linearity but with confidence intervals encompassing no effect at doses under 100 mSv, and non-significant increases in that range.^[42] Similarly, pooled analyses of U.S. nuclear workers, including Department of Energy employees, showed overall cancer SMRs of 0.88 for radiation-exposed groups compared to the general population, with relative risks for solid tumors at median lifetime doses of 0.82 mSv estimated at 0.96 (95% CI: 0.94-0.98), suggesting no excess and potential underestimation of protective factors.^[43] These findings contrast with LNT expectations of proportional risk accrual even at low exposures. Studies of radon-exposed populations, including miners and residential cohorts, have revealed non-linear dose-response patterns, such as J-shaped curves, where low-level exposures correlate with reduced rather than increased lung cancer incidence. Pooled analyses of residential radon data across multiple case-control studies indicate inverse associations at low concentrations (below 100 Bq/m³), with relative risks decreasing before rising at higher exposures, challenging linear extrapolations from high-dose miner data.^[44] For instance, ecological and meta-analytic reviews of home radon measurements have found protective effects at typical environmental levels, attributing apparent miner risks to co-factors like smoking and dust rather than pure radon progeny, with overall lung cancer odds ratios below 1 at low doses in non-smokers.^[45] These J-shaped relationships imply thresholds or hormetic responses absent in LNT models. Medical cohorts involving low-dose imaging, particularly CT scans in children, exhibit apparent risks heavily confounded by indication bias, where sicker patients receive more scans, inflating associations beyond radiation effects. Large-scale French cohort studies of over 100,000 pediatric CT recipients demonstrated elevated cancer incidences, but adjustments for pre-existing conditions and diagnostic indications reduced or reversed risk estimates, with no clear proportional dose-response supporting LNT after bias correction.^[46] Similar U.K. and Australian analyses highlight that children scanned for symptoms predictive of future cancers show risks attributable to underlying health factors rather than doses typically under 50 mGy, failing to confirm expected linear increments and underscoring selection biases in observational data.^[47] These limitations prevent unambiguous attribution of low-dose effects undermining LNT predictions.

Biological Mechanisms Undermining LNT

At low doses of ionizing radiation, DNA damage occurs at rates that are readily managed by cellular repair pathways, such as base excision repair (BER) and non-homologous end joining (NHEJ), which efficiently correct oxidative lesions and double-strand breaks without resulting in net mutagenesis.^[48] These mechanisms activate rapidly post-exposure, outpacing the sparse induction of damage from low-dose exposures, where the number of radiation-induced mutations remains far below baseline spontaneous levels from endogenous sources like reactive oxygen species.^[48] Consequently, low doses fail to accumulate unrepaired errors as assumed by the LNT model, instead yielding genomic stability comparable to unirradiated controls.^[37] Low-dose radiation triggers adaptive responses that enhance cellular resilience, including upregulation of antioxidant enzymes like superoxide dismutase and catalase to neutralize free radicals, and selective apoptosis of irreparably damaged cells to prevent propagation of defects.^[49] These defenses, inducible by doses as low as 0.01-0.1 Gy, reduce subsequent sensitivity to higher challenges, as demonstrated in vitro where preconditioning with low-dose gamma rays diminishes DNA damage from acute exposures.^[50] Unlike high-dose scenarios, where bystander effects propagate genomic instability via inflammatory signaling and gap-junction-mediated transmission of damage signals, low-dose bystander interactions often convey protective cues, such as increased DNA repair enzyme expression in neighboring cells.^[51] This shift from deleterious to beneficial intercellular communication at sub-threshold levels contradicts LNT's uniform risk extrapolation.^[52] Animal studies reveal hormetic outcomes at low doses, with irradiated cohorts exhibiting reduced tumor incidence relative to sham controls, attributable to stimulated DNA repair and immune surveillance rather than damage accrual. For instance, in C57BL/6 mice exposed to chronic low-dose-rate gamma radiation (0.5 mGy/day), lymphoma rates decreased by up to 50% compared to unexposed groups, linked to enhanced apoptosis of pre-neoplastic cells.^[53] Meta-analyses of rodent carcinogenesis data further confirm excess low-dose groups with tumor responses below control levels, supporting stimulatory biological pathways over linear harm.^[54] These findings indicate that low-dose irradiation activates systemic hormesis, bolstering anti-carcinogenic processes like autophagy and T-cell mediated clearance, which LNT overlooks by presuming dose-proportional stochastic risk without thresholds.^[55]

Alternative Models

Threshold Hypothesis

The threshold hypothesis proposes that ionizing radiation poses no increased risk of stochastic health effects, such as cancer, below a specific absorbed dose level, above which risk rises linearly or supralinearly. This model attributes the absence of risk at low doses to robust biological defense mechanisms, including DNA repair processes that efficiently correct sparse radiation-induced damage without residual effects.^[51] Estimates for the threshold dose vary but commonly range from 100 to 200 mSv for protracted whole-body exposures, drawing parallels to no-observed-adverse-effect levels (NOAEL) established in toxicology for numerous non-radioactive agents where cellular repair or detoxification negates harm below defined exposures.^[37]^[56] Epidemiological support derives from human cohorts exposed to low doses, including atomic bomb survivors in the Life Span Study, where no statistically significant excess cancer mortality or incidence appears in subgroups receiving under 100 mSv, despite large sample sizes enabling detection of even modest risks.^[57] Similarly, occupational studies of nuclear workers and medical radiology patients show no detectable health detriments at cumulative doses below this range, contrasting with clear risks at higher exposures from therapeutic or accidental sources.^[7] At the cellular level, low-dose irradiation produces infrequent DNA double-strand breaks that repair enzymes, such as those in non-homologous end joining pathways, resolve effectively, with saturation of repair capacity occurring only at doses yielding multiple hits per cell cycle.^[37] In radiation protection, the threshold model enables empirically derived safe exposure limits, mitigating the linear no-threshold (LNT) assumption of infinitesimal risk at any dose, which proponents argue fosters disproportionate regulatory conservatism and resource allocation without commensurate public health gains.^[7] By recognizing finite biological resilience, it aligns standards with observable data, potentially optimizing practices in nuclear energy, space exploration, and diagnostic imaging where low-level exposures are unavoidable.^[51]

Radiation Hormesis

Radiation hormesis posits that exposures to low doses of ionizing radiation, typically below 100 mGy, induce adaptive responses that protect against cancer and other diseases more effectively than in unexposed populations, resulting in health outcomes superior to background levels. This model describes a biphasic dose-response curve, often J- or U-shaped, where low doses stimulate beneficial effects before risk increases at higher exposures, directly challenging the assumptions of uniform stochastic damage in the linear no-threshold framework.^[58] The underlying mechanisms involve enhanced DNA repair efficiency, upregulation of antioxidant defenses to mitigate oxidative stress, and activation of immune pathways that bolster cellular resilience. Low-dose irradiation triggers these processes by signaling pathways that prepare cells for subsequent damage, as evidenced in cellular studies showing stimulated repair up to 200 mGy and immune stimulation in both human and murine models.^[59]^[60] Hormetic effects also include reduced chronic inflammation and improved longevity in irradiated organisms, with molecular events like gene expression changes conferring resistance to higher radiation challenges.^[61]^[62] Empirical support draws from epidemiological data, such as the 1983-1998 Taiwanese incident where approximately 10,000 residents in buildings with Co-60-contaminated rebar received chronic whole-body doses averaging 0.4 Sv, yet exhibited cancer mortality rates about 3% of the general population's expected rate, alongside lower overall mortality and no elevated leukemia incidence.^[63] Reviews from 2020-2024 consolidate evidence of these adaptive responses, including meta-analyses indicating immune modulation and hormesis in low-dose contexts, though some studies note subgroup variations in outcomes.^[62] Animal experiments further demonstrate longevity extensions and reduced tumor formation at low doses, aligning with human observations in high natural background radiation areas where no excess cancers occur and potential benefits like lower disease rates are reported.^[64] Applications in radon spas exemplify practical hormetic benefits, with low-dose radon inhalation (0.2-0.5 mSv per session) yielding anti-inflammatory and pain-relieving effects for rheumatic conditions, supported by clinical data showing peripheral immune improvements without increased cancer risk.^[65] The J-shaped curve implies an optimal "sweet spot" for low-dose stimulation, beyond which inhibitory effects dominate, as modeled in dose-response analyses of chronic exposures.^[58] These findings, derived from peer-reviewed experimental and cohort studies, underscore hormesis as a viable alternative paradigm grounded in observable biological adaptations rather than extrapolated high-dose risks.^[66]

Applications in Radiation Protection

Regulatory Standards and ALARA Principle

The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) bases its recommended dose limits on the linear no-threshold (LNT) model, which extrapolates risks from high-dose data to estimate stochastic effects like cancer at low doses, incorporating uncertainty factors to ensure conservatism. For occupational exposures, the ICRP sets an effective dose limit of 20 millisieverts (mSv) per year averaged over 5 consecutive years, with no single year exceeding 50 mSv. For members of the public, the limit is 1 mSv per year from regulated sources. These limits derive from LNT-derived risk coefficients, typically around 5% excess cancer risk per sievert, adjusted for detriment including lethality and quality-of-life impacts.^[67]^[68] In the United States, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) implements similar standards under 10 CFR Part 20, establishing an annual effective dose limit of 50 mSv for radiation workers and 1 mSv for the general public from licensed activities, explicitly relying on the LNT model to quantify exposure risks and set protective thresholds. These limits apply to planned exposures from artificial sources, with compliance verified through dosimetry and monitoring programs that assume proportional risk accrual per LNT predictions. The NRC's framework integrates LNT risk estimates with safety factors, treating even low-level anthropogenic radiation as incrementally hazardous without a threshold.^[2]^[69] The ALARA principle, formalized by the ICRP in the 1970s and adopted globally, operationalizes LNT by requiring that radiation doses be kept as low as reasonably achievable, taking into account economic and social factors, beyond mere compliance with limits. Rooted in LNT's premise of no safe exposure level, ALARA mandates optimization through engineering controls, administrative measures, and procedural reviews to minimize unnecessary doses, such as shielding enhancements or exposure time reductions in nuclear facilities. This approach treats all incremental doses as carrying finite risk, prompting iterative reductions feasible within technological and cost constraints.^[70]^[71] Regulatory frameworks distinguish controlled ionizing radiation from ubiquitous natural background, which averages 2.4 mSv per year worldwide from cosmic, terrestrial, and radon sources, yet faces no equivalent dose caps due to its inevitability and lack of practicable mitigation. LNT-based standards thus prioritize anthropogenic exposures, enforcing stricter controls on regulated activities while accepting background levels that exceed public limits, reflecting a targeted application to modifiable risks rather than total exposure.^[72]^[73]

Implementation in Nuclear and Medical Contexts

In nuclear power plant design and operations, the linear no-threshold (LNT) model guides shielding calculations and exposure limits by extrapolating cancer risks proportionally to even minimal doses, ensuring structures like reactor containments and worker barriers attenuate radiation to levels deemed acceptable under projected lifetime risks of approximately 5% per sievert.^[2]^[74] This approach influences material selections, such as lead or concrete thicknesses calibrated to reduce annual worker doses below 50 millisieverts, prioritizing stochastic effect avoidance despite limited empirical validation at low exposures.^[75] During emergencies, LNT projections determine protective action distances; at the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi accident, Japanese authorities established evacuation zones extending 20-30 kilometers based on modeled dose thresholds of 1-20 millisieverts per year, aiming to avert projected LNT-derived cancers but resulting in over 2,000 indirect fatalities from relocation stress, particularly among the elderly, exceeding direct radiation harms.^[76]^[77]^[78] In medical contexts, LNT facilitates risk-benefit evaluations for diagnostic imaging, estimating procedure-specific cancer induction risks—for instance, a 10-millisievert CT scan correlating to a 1 in 2,000 lifetime fatality probability—against diagnostic yields, thereby justifying protocols that minimize doses while preserving image quality.^[79]^[80] Campaigns like Image Gently, initiated in 2008 by the Alliance for Radiation Safety in Pediatric Imaging, apply LNT-informed principles to advocate child-specific dose reductions in CT and fluoroscopy, promoting techniques such as iterative reconstruction to lower exposures by up to 50% without compromising efficacy.^[81]^[82] Such implementations, however, introduce tradeoffs where LNT-projected risks may deter clinically indicated scans; analyses indicate that forgoing beneficial imaging due to radiation apprehension can elevate overall mortality, as timely diagnostics demonstrably reduce cancer and cardiovascular event fatalities by enabling early interventions.^[83]^[84] Critics contend this stems from LNT's conservative extrapolation, potentially amplifying perceived hazards beyond substantiated low-dose effects and prompting avoidance behaviors that net harm patient outcomes.^[75]^[1]

Policy Implications and Controversies

Influence on Public Policy and Regulation

The linear no-threshold (LNT) model has served as a foundational assumption in radiation protection regulations since the post-World War II era, particularly influencing U.S. policy through endorsements by advisory bodies like the National Academy of Sciences. In the United States, it underpinned the shift from early threshold-based tolerance doses—such as the 0.2 roentgen per day limit established in the 1930s and carried into initial Atomic Energy Commission practices—to stochastic risk models emphasizing no safe exposure level, as reflected in subsequent amendments to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the development of federal standards.^[85] The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) incorporated LNT into its cancer risk assessments and radiation guidance documents starting in the 1970s, deriving dose-response coefficients that assume proportional cancer incidence even at low levels below 100 millisieverts.^[86] Similarly, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has relied on LNT to set public exposure limits at 1 millisievert per year and occupational limits at 50 millisieverts per year, affirming in 2021 that the model provides a "sound regulatory basis" for minimizing unnecessary risks despite scientific controversies over low-dose extrapolations.^[2] ^[87] Internationally, LNT has informed harmonized standards through bodies like the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), whose recommendations—reaffirming LNT in publications such as ICRP 103 (2007)—have been adopted in European Union directives, including Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom, which mandates dose constraints and optimization principles calibrated to linear risk assumptions without thresholds. The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have maintained LNT-aligned frameworks in their evaluative reports, such as UNSCEAR's 2020/2021 assessments of exposure levels and effects, which underpin global reporting and influence national regulations on nuclear safety and emergency preparedness.^[88] ^[89] This persistence reflects a precautionary regulatory philosophy, prioritizing risk aversion over direct low-dose empirical validation, as LNT facilitates conservative dose limits enforceable across jurisdictions. The model's policy entrenchment has amplified risk-averse stances in environmental advocacy, where its premise of cumulative harm from infinitesimal exposures has bolstered arguments against nuclear expansion, linking radiation regulation to broader campaigns for emissions reductions and energy transitions away from fission-based sources.^[90] For example, LNT's implication that background-equivalent doses carry inherent societal risks has been invoked to justify stringent permitting and decommissioning requirements, embedding the model in precautionary frameworks that extend beyond radiation to general environmental policy.^[91] Such applications underscore LNT's role in codifying a zero-tolerance ethos for anthropogenic radiation increments, even amid critiques that regulatory bodies like the EPA and NRC overlook alternative dose-response interpretations when deriving legally binding limits.^[87]^[2]

Economic and Societal Costs

The adoption of LNT-based radiation protection standards has driven substantial expenditures on nuclear legacy waste remediation in the United States, with the Department of Energy projecting total cleanup costs for Cold War-era sites at $652 billion to $887 billion (in 2022 dollars) through 2070, encompassing soil decontamination, groundwater treatment of trillions of liters, and management of millions of cubic meters of debris.^[92] ^[93] These costs stem from requirements to remediate to near-zero contamination levels, assuming cumulative risk without thresholds, which exceed those applied to comparable chemical hazards where practical thresholds are permitted.^[5] In the commercial nuclear sector, LNT underpins regulations that elevate capital and operational expenses through mandates for redundant shielding, continuous monitoring, and waste isolation, contributing to higher electricity prices and delayed deployment of low-carbon nuclear capacity relative to fossil fuel alternatives.^[94] ^[95] Such over-regulation has perpetuated fossil fuel dominance, forgoing nuclear's potential to avert billions of tons of CO2 emissions; estimates indicate that broader nuclear adoption could reduce global emissions by 0.8–1.0 gigatons of CO2 equivalent annually.^[96] Societally, LNT-informed evacuation protocols have induced harms outweighing direct radiation risks, as seen in Fukushima where zero acute radiation fatalities occurred but over 1,600 excess deaths resulted from relocation stress, suicides, and disrupted care among the 100,000+ evacuees, with mortality rates among institutionalized elderly rising 2.5-fold post-evacuation.^[97] ^[98] ^[99] The loss of life expectancy from these evacuations exceeded that from assumed radiation doses by two to three orders of magnitude.^[99] In medicine, LNT-extrapolated fears of stochastic cancer risks deter patients from essential low-dose imaging like CT scans, leading to underutilization that elevates mortality from undetected conditions such as cardiovascular disease and tumors, thereby imposing indirect health and economic burdens through prolonged illnesses.^[91] Overall, these LNT-driven policies are critiqued for netting societal losses, as remediation and avoidance costs surpass averted risks, contrasting with threshold-tolerant frameworks for non-radiological toxins that balance benefits against feasible protections.^[5]

Debates on Scientific Validity

The linear no-threshold (LNT) model's validity for extrapolating cancer risks from high to low radiation doses has been contested by empirical findings that challenge its assumptions of proportionality and no safe threshold. Proponents emphasize its alignment with observed risks at high doses, such as those from atomic bomb survivors, where dose-response relationships appear linear without clear thresholds, justifying extrapolation as a conservative safeguard against potential DNA damage accumulation.^[2] This precautionary stance is supported by the view that uncertainties in low-dose biology, including stochastic genetic effects, warrant assuming harm at any level to protect public health, as affirmed in reviews finding no contradictory evidence for cancer risk assessment.^[9]^[100] Critics argue that LNT fails to account for low-dose null or protective effects observed in epidemiological data, such as nuclear worker cohorts and atomic bomb survivor analyses below 100 mSv, which show no statistically significant excess cancers and sometimes deficits, contradicting linear predictions.^[4] These discrepancies are attributed to overlooked biological adaptations, including DNA repair and immune stimulation at low doses, consistent with hormesis where sub-harmful exposures reduce overall risk via enhanced cellular defenses.^[101] Bernard L. Cohen's ecological study of U.S. counties demonstrated an inverse correlation between residential radon levels and lung cancer mortality—higher radon linked to 20-50% lower rates—directly opposing LNT's expected positive association and suggesting threshold or hormetic dynamics.^[102] Debate intensifies over institutional model selection, with accusations that National Academy of Sciences BEIR committees exhibited bias by dismissing early hormesis evidence and prioritizing LNT despite dose-rate experiments showing reduced low-dose risks compared to acute high doses.^[103] Petitions submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) between 2015 and 2021, citing such radon and occupational data, urged abandoning LNT for low-dose contexts but were denied on grounds of insufficient consensus for change, highlighting tensions between precautionary conservatism and data-driven reevaluation.^[69]^[104] Ongoing critiques, including toxicological tests where LNT underperforms against threshold models in predicting outcomes, underscore calls for mechanistic validation over unverified extrapolation.^[105]^[106]

Recent Developments and Ongoing Research

Key Studies and Reviews Post-2010

In 2018, an editorial in the Journal of Nuclear Medicine analyzed epidemiological data from atomic bomb survivors, nuclear workers, and high-background radiation areas, concluding that evidence favors radiation hormesis over the linear no-threshold (LNT) model and predicting the LNT model's obsolescence due to accumulating contradictions with biological and human data.^[23] The analysis highlighted null or inverse associations at low doses in multiple cohorts, arguing that advisory bodies reviewing such evidence would reject LNT.^[23] A 2023 report by the French Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety (IRSN) reviewed radiobiological and epidemiological evidence on low-dose effects, stating that a threshold below which no harm occurs "does not seem unlikely" for certain radiation-induced cancers, challenging LNT's assumption of risk linearity to zero dose.^[107] The IRSN emphasized uncertainties in extrapolating high-dose data to low doses (<100 mGy), noting adaptive cellular responses that mitigate damage at chronic low exposures.^[107] United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) assessments from 2020 onward have underscored persistent uncertainties in low-dose (<0.1 Gy) cancer risks, with 2024 reports detailing non-linear DNA damage repair mechanisms and lack of direct evidence for LNT at protracted low dose-rates.^[108] These include genomic instability thresholds and bystander effects that do not align with proportional risk under LNT.^[108] Post-2010 biological studies have advanced understanding of adaptive responses, with a 2025 scoping review documenting radioresistance via upregulated DNA repair genes (e.g., BRCA1, TP53) following priming low doses (10-50 mGy), reducing subsequent high-dose damage by 30-50% in human cells.^[109] NIH-funded research integrated hormesis into models, showing low-dose irradiation (5-100 mGy) activates antioxidant pathways like Nrf2, conferring protection against oxidative stress and inflammation in vitro and in rodent models.^[110] Epidemiological meta-analyses post-2010, including re-evaluations of nuclear worker and environmental cohorts, have questioned LNT by demonstrating no excess solid cancers or even reduced mortality in low-cumulative-dose groups (<100 mSv), attributing findings to threshold or hormetic dose-responses rather than linear extrapolation.^[111] A 2019 analysis of molecular paradigms argued LNT overlooks epigenetic adaptations, with low-dose exposures enhancing immune surveillance and apoptosis of precancerous cells.^[111] Reviews of high-background regions, such as Ramsar, Iran (up to 260 mSv/year), reported in 2025 literature syntheses show no accelerated aging or elevated cancer via telomere length metrics, supporting tolerance thresholds.^[112]

Regulatory Reassessments

In August 2021, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) denied three petitions for rulemaking submitted by Dr. Carol S. Marcus and co-petitioners, which sought to eliminate the linear no-threshold (LNT) model as the basis for radiation protection standards and replace it with evidence supporting thresholds or hormesis at low doses.^[2] The NRC concluded that the petitions lacked sufficient new scientific evidence to justify regulatory changes, emphasizing that the LNT model remains a prudent, conservative approach for ensuring safety despite ongoing debates over low-dose effects.^[2] This decision followed a detailed review of epidemiological data, radiobiological studies, and prior assessments by bodies like the National Academy of Sciences, which the NRC deemed supportive of LNT's continued use for regulatory purposes.^[113] The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in a June 2025 perspective document, upheld the LNT model as the foundational assumption for radiation risk assessment and protective guidelines, while acknowledging persistent scientific controversies regarding its applicability at doses below 100 mSv.^[87] The EPA noted that alternatives like threshold or hormetic models lack consensus validation for policy adoption, but highlighted emerging data from atomic bomb survivor studies and low-dose epidemiology that warrant further scrutiny without immediate regulatory overhaul.^[87] Internationally, a June 2023 report by the French Institute for Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety (IRSN), informed by input from the French Academies of Sciences and Medicine, questioned the LNT model's extrapolation to low doses, stating that a threshold effect "does not seem unlikely" for radiation-induced cancers in certain tissues based on repair mechanisms and epidemiological inconsistencies.^[107] This assessment echoed prior French Academy positions and called for refined models incorporating dose-rate effects, influencing discussions within the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) on updating detriment calculations, though ICRP drafts in the 2020s have maintained LNT as the default while exploring modifiers like the dose and dose-rate effectiveness factor (DDREF).^[114] Recent regulatory momentum includes proposals for dose-specific exemptions, such as abandoning strict LNT application for exposures under 100 mSv in nuclear licensing and worker standards, as outlined in a July 2025 Idaho National Laboratory reevaluation recommending shifts toward threshold-based protections to align with empirical low-dose safety data.^[115] Such prospects reflect growing petitions and white papers urging agencies to integrate hormesis evidence, potentially reducing overly conservative limits that inflate compliance costs without proportional risk reduction.^[116]

References

[1]
The Controversial Linear No-Threshold Model
Jan 1, 2017 · The LNT model assumes there is no threshold dose for radiation-induced cancer, even a dose of as low as 0.1 mSv is associated with a nonzero excess risk.
[2]
Linear No-Threshold Model and Standards for Protection Against ...
Aug 17, 2021 · The LNT model assumes that, in the long term, biological damage caused by ionizing radiation ( i.e., cancer risk and adverse hereditary effects) ...
[3]
It Is Time to Move Beyond the Linear No-Threshold Theory for Low ...
Of all the agents demonstrated to be carcinogenic, the evidence for LNT is particularly strong for ionizing radiation. Within limitations imposed by statistical ...
[4]
Facilitating the End of the Linear No-Threshold Model Era
Jun 21, 2024 · The linear no-threshold (LNT) model, which asserts that any level of ionizing radiation increases cancer risk, has been the basis of global ...
[5]
Ethics of Adoption and Use of the Linear No-Threshold Model - PMC
Jan 10, 2019 · Linear no-threshold is presently the most widely applied model for radiation risk assessment; its use is recommended by such advisory bodies as ...<|separator|>
[6]
Re-evaluation of the linear no-threshold (LNT) model using new ...
Mar 1, 2019 · This model lacks safety thresholds and postulates that health risks caused by ionizing radiation is directly proportional to dose. Therefore ...
[7]
A Review of Recent Low-dose Research and Recommendations...
Based on this review, there is insufficient evidence to replace LNT as the regulatory model despite the fact that it contributes to public radiophobia, ...
[8]
Linear-Non-Threshold Model - Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
The LNT model is the straight line that is extrapolated to zero, meaning that cancer risk will rise with increasing dose. The threshold model implies that below ...
[9]
The scientific basis for the use of the linear no-threshold (LNT ...
Jun 29, 2023 · In epidemiology, the results show excess cancer risks at dose levels of 100 mGy or less. While some recent results indicate non-linear dose ...
[10]
[PDF] SOURCES, EFFECTS AND RISKS OF IONIZING RADIATION
Sep 16, 2022 · ERR = β d where d is the cumulative dose to the RBM, and β ... workers, 1991-2002: Estimation of excess relative risk per radiation dose.
[11]
Ionizing radiations epidemiology does not support the LNT model
Mar 1, 2019 · In its simplest form, RR(D) = 1 + βD, where D is dose, RR(D) is the relative risk at dose D, and β is the ERR per unit of dose, …. This linear ...
[12]
latency and non-linear dose-response in the 1950–90 mortality cohort
Dose response prototypes for linear, transient, and two-phase models. Typical dose response curves for the linear model ERR = βD where ERR is Excess ...
[13]
[PDF] Radiation Risk Modeling - National Cancer Institute
What is a Radiation Risk Model? • Function that relates disease risk (relative or absolute) to exposure (dose) and factors that might modify this ...
[14]
[PDF] Development of Probability Distribution of DDREF for Solid Cancers
Apr 11, 2018 · When Is a DDREF Used? DDREF is used in estimating cancer risks at low acute doses or low dose rates of low-LET radiation whenever linear ...
[15]
Hermann Joseph Muller's Study of X-rays as a Mutagen, (1926-1927)
Mar 7, 2017 · He determined that x-ray exposure caused 150 times more flies to die through a lethal mutation compared to the spontaneous rate of mutations ...Missing: threshold | Show results with:threshold
[16]
The linear No-Threshold (LNT) dose response model
Mar 1, 2019 · “It has been established for a variety of experimental organisms that the number of mutations induced by radiation is proportional to the dose.
[17]
Muller's nobel prize research and peer review - PMC
Oct 19, 2018 · Muller [20] claimed that high doses of X-rays induced gene mutations in Drosophila in his paper entitled the “Artificial Transmutation of the ...
[18]
[PDF] Origin of the linearity no threshold (LNT) dose–response concept
Jul 11, 2013 · The radiation target theory as applied to mutations was formulated by the detailed interactions and collaborations of leading radiation ...
[19]
Origin of the linearity no threshold (LNT) dose-response concept
This paper identifies the origin of the linearity at low-dose concept [ie, linear no threshold (LNT)] for ionizing radiation-induced mutation.
[20]
The LNT Issue Is About Politics and Economics, Not Safety - PMC
Analyses of radium dial painter data revealed an intake threshold of 100 µg for malignancy and a 10 Gy threshold for bone cancer.
[21]
UNSCEAR 1958 Report
The UNSCEAR 1958 Report is comprised the main text of the 1958 report to the General Assembly (A/3838 + Corr.) and nine scientific annexes.Missing: first LNT
[22]
[PDF] Historical Development of the Linear Nonthreshold Dose-Response ...
The linear nonthreshold extrapolation was originally selected largely for its mathe- matical simplicity and its perceived conservatism, a fact that has by and.
[23]
Are We Approaching the End of the Linear No-Threshold Era?
Dec 1, 2018 · The present analysis indicates that advisory bodies would be compelled to reject the LNT model. Hence, we may be approaching the end of the LNT model era.Missing: debates | Show results with:debates
[24]
The Linear, No-Threshold Model - Radiation In Medicine - NCBI - NIH
A series of developments from 1954 through 1972 marked the transition to adoption of the linear, no-threshold model as a predictive model of radiation injury ...
[25]
Solid Cancer Risks among Atomic-bomb Survivors
During the period from 1958 to 1998, 7,851 malignancies (first primary) were observed among 44,635 LSS survivors with estimated doses of >0.005 Gy. The excess ...Missing: Span | Show results with:Span
[26]
Leukemia Risks among Atomic-bomb Survivors – Radiation Effects ...
As of the year 2000, there were 204 leukemia deaths among 49,204 LSS survivors with a bone marrow dose of at least 0.005 Gy, an excess of 94 cases (46%) ...
[27]
6 Atomic Bomb Survivor Studies | Health Risks from Exposure to ...
Pierce and colleagues estimated that 78 of 176 (44%) leukemia deaths among survivors with doses exceeding 0.005 Sv were due to radiation exposure.
[28]
[PDF] Beir VII: Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing ...
BEIR VII estimates cancer risk from low-level radiation using a linear-no-threshold model, finding a linear dose-response relationship for solid cancers. Other ...Missing: equations | Show results with:equations
[29]
Dose-Response Relationships for Female Radium Dial Workers
Nov 1, 1978 · Among 1474 women employed in the United States radium dial-painting industry before 1930, there are 61 known cases of bone sarcoma and 21 ...
[30]
Bone cancer among female radium dial workers. Latency periods ...
The lowest radium intake dose associated with bone cancer, among 751 women whose intake doses had been determined, was 202.5 muCi. Mean and median bone cancer ...
[31]
Second solid cancers after radiotherapy: a systematic review of the ...
All three studies found approximately linear dose-response relationships with breast cancer risk and no evidence of a downturn in risk even at doses of 30 Gy or ...
[32]
Therapeutic radiation and the potential risk of second malignancies
Mar 7, 2016 · Risk increased linearly by 8.5% per Gy among patients who developed a primary lung cancer ≥5 years after treatment for breast cancer. h In ...
[33]
Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation ...
At low doses, damage is caused by the passage of single particles that can produce multiple, locally damaged sites leading to DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs).
[34]
Quantification of radiation-induced DNA double strand break repair ...
DNA double strand breaks (DSB) are recognized as the most deleterious form of DNA damage in radiation biology because they cause the loss of genetic ...
[35]
The Linear No-Threshold Model of Low-Dose Radiogenic Cancer
We have herein shown the robust, counter-epistemological evidence against the LNT model for LDR, and scientific empiricism requires robust, epistemological ...
[36]
Subjecting Radiologic Imaging to the Linear No-Threshold Hypothesis
Aug 4, 2016 · Radiologic imaging is claimed to carry an iatrogenic risk of cancer, based on an uninformed commitment to the 70-y-old linear no-threshold hypothesis (LNTH).Missing: equation | Show results with:equation
[37]
The Linear No-Threshold Relationship Is Inconsistent with Radiation ...
The LNT model was introduced as a concept to facilitate radiation protection (7). ... The linear no-threshold model does not hold for low-dose ionizing radiation.
[38]
Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation ...
This report focuses on the health effects of low-dose, low-LET (low linear energy transfer) radiation. ... RBEs have on low-LET radiation risk estimates.
[39]
Mechanistic Basis for Nonlinear Dose-Response Relationships for ...
We introduce a mechanism-based model for low-dose, radiation-induced, stochastic effects (genomic instability, apoptosis, mutations, neoplastic transformation)
[40]
The Linear Non-Threshold Hypothesis-A Failed Concept - Qeios
May 11, 2024 · The linear non-threshold (LNT) hypothesis is based on the premise that the smallest amount of ionizing radiation produces a biological detriment.Missing: controversies | Show results with:controversies
[41]
The Healthy Worker Effect and Nuclear Industry Workers - PMC - NIH
A meta-analysis of mortality vs lifetime dose showed a lower cancer mortality for nuclear workers who received lifetime doses below 100 mSv (Luckey 2007).
[42]
Risk of cancer from occupational exposure to ionising radiation
Oct 20, 2015 · The study provides a direct estimate of the association between protracted low dose exposure to ionising radiation and solid cancer mortality.
[43]
Low Dose Radiation and Solid Tumors Mortality Risk - LWW
Radiation workers with a median life-time dose at 0.82 mSv had a significantly lower solid tumor mortality risk (relative risk [RR]: 0.96, 95% confidence ...
[44]
Residential Radon Appears to Prevent Lung Cancer - Sage Journals
Oct 14, 2011 · Residential radon has been found to be associated with lung cancer in epidemiological/ecological studies and the researchers have ...
[45]
BEIR VI radon: The rest of the story - ScienceDirect
Mar 1, 2019 · This paper shows that in contrary to the BEIR VI report, risk of lung cancer from residential radon is not increased and radon in homes appears to be helping.
[46]
Are the studies on cancer risk from CT scans biased by indication ...
Oct 14, 2014 · Recent epidemiological results suggested an increase of cancer risk after receiving computed tomography (CT) scans in childhood or ...
[47]
Are the studies on cancer risk from CT scans biased by indication ...
May 26, 2015 · In particular, CT exposure was associated with reduced cancer risks in children with PFs, and the risk estimates in patients without PF were ...
[48]
(PDF) The Linear Non-Threshold Hypothesis-A Failed Concept
May 11, 2024 · Most are efficiently eliminated by the DNA repair mechanisms. The number of natural mutations is significantly larger than those created by low- ...
[49]
Re-evaluation of the linear no-threshold (LNT) model using new ...
Low-dose radiation can activate cellular defense mechanisms that repair DNA damage, remove cells via autophagy and apoptosis that cannot be repaired, and ...
[50]
Radiation-hormesis phenotypes, the related mechanisms and ... - NIH
Many studies have demonstrated that a low radiation dose can prevent harm from subsequent high radiation dose. This type of radiation adaptive response has been ...
[51]
Low-dose radiation: Thresholds, bystander effects, and adaptive ...
The bystander effect is typically induced by the more-damaging α-particles, whereas the adaptive response is typically induced with γ-rays. Rothkamm and Löbrich ...
[52]
Radiation-induced bystander effect and adaptive response in ...
Two conflicting phenomena, bystander effect and adaptive response, are important in determining the biological responses at low doses of radiation and have ...
[53]
Appendix D: Hormesis | Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels ...
Two studies have reported a significant reduction in tumor incidence of lymphoma in animals that have a high spontaneous tumor incidence (>40%; Covelli and ...
[54]
A Meta-Analysis of Evidence for Hormesis in Animal Radiation ...
Mar 29, 2012 · A meta-analysis was conducted to determine whether there was an excess of dose groups with decreases in tumor response below that in controls at ...
[55]
Radiation Hormesis: Historical Perspective and Implications for Low ...
With the hormetic model, low doses of radiation reduce the cancer incidence while it is elevated after high doses.
[56]
Cancer Risk of Low Dose Ionizing Radiation - Frontiers
Epidemiological studies suggest that the lowest dose value of ionizing radiation at which good evidence of increased cancer risks in human exists is ≈10–50 mSv ...<|separator|>
[57]
Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation - NIH
The epidemiological data suggest that it is ≈10–50 mSv for an acute exposure and ≈50–100 mSv for a protracted exposure. Second, what is the most appropriate way ...
[58]
Low Dose Ionising Radiation-Induced Hormesis: Therapeutic ... - MDPI
Radiation hormesis is the phenomena whereby low doses of ionising radiation provoke a stimulatory or beneficial effect in otherwise unstressed cells, but ...
[59]
Radiation Hormesis: Historical and Current Perspectives
Dec 1, 2015 · That study concluded that doses below 200 mGy stimulate DNA repair mechanisms and produce a positive response by cells; therefore, the linear no ...
[60]
Radiation hormesis. A new concept in radiological science - PubMed
Low-dose ionizing radiation caused definite stimulation of immune reactions both in humans and mice.
[61]
New understanding of the low-dose radiation-induced hormesis
Feb 19, 2020 · Jiang H, Li W, Li X, et al. Low-dose radiation induces adaptive response in normal cells, but not in tumor cells: in vitro and in vivo studies.
[62]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969724003139
[63]
Effects of Cobalt-60 Exposure on Health of Taiwan Residents ... - NIH
The observation that the cancer mortality rate of the exposed population is only about 3 percent of the cancer mortality rate of the general public (2.7 percent ...
[64]
[PDF] Health Effects of Low-Level Radiation - Phil Rutherford Consulting
Populations in areas with high background radiation rates show no adverse health effects when compared to low-dose populations.
[65]
Effects of serial radon spa therapy on pain and peripheral immune ...
Radon spa has a long tradition of application and small doses of about 0.2 to 0.5 mSv are believed to induce pain-relieving and anti-inflammatory effects in ...
[66]
Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Low-Dose Ionizing Radiation on ...
Nov 16, 2024 · Moreover, the evidence of hormesis obtained in some investigations implies that low levels of radiation can be helpful and further research ...
[67]
Dose limits - ICRPaedia
Dose limits ; Effective Dose, 20 mSv per year, averaged over defined periods of 5 years, with no single year exceeding 50 mSv
[68]
[PDF] ICRP Publication 103 The 2007 Recommendations of the ...
The dose limits for occupational and public exposures for practices are retained for application to regulated sources in planned exposure situations. (s) ...
[69]
[PDF] Denial of Petitions for Rulemaking Regarding Linear No-Threshold ...
Jul 2, 2021 · The petitioners assert that current science does not justify the use of the LNT model and that there is a threshold below which radiation ...
[70]
Guidelines for ALARA – As Low As Reasonably Achievable - CDC
Feb 26, 2024 · ALARA stands for “as low as reasonably achievable.” ALARA means avoiding exposure to radiation that does not have a direct benefit to you, even if the dose is ...
[71]
Until There Is a Resolution of the Pro-LNT/Anti-LNT Debate, We ...
Apr 26, 2020 · LNT has been used to help justify current dose limits, not by itself, but in association with a precautionary approach and ALARA, albeit that ...
[72]
Natural background radiation - Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
Nov 24, 2020 · The total worldwide average effective dose from natural radiation is approximately 2.4 mSv per year; in Canada, it is 1.8 mSv. In some parts of ...
[73]
[PDF] Radiation - World Nuclear Association
Typical background radiation is 2.4 mSv/yr. 1000 mSv short-term causes temporary radiation, 5000 mSv short-term would kill about half, and 10,000 mSv short- ...
[74]
[PDF] workload, use and occupancy factors; shielding design f
Discuss linear no threshold method. o Films are pasted on the linac head, identify the hot spot and put ion chamber close to it and measure the leakage. o ...
[75]
[PDF] A Critical Assessment of the Linear No-Threshold Hypothesis
Jun 7, 2019 · "3 The task group members concluded that the LNT model is not a practical basis for formulating radiation protection standards, and it does not ...
[76]
Questioning the Linear No-Threshold Model (LNT) - Sage Journals
Sep 6, 2025 · Radiation exposure is currently regulated by the linear no-threshold model (LNT), which assumes all radiation is harmful, even at the smallest ...<|separator|>
[77]
Questioning the Linear No-Threshold Model (LNT) - PubMed
Sep 6, 2025 · During the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster, the Japanese government, adhering to the LNT-based precautionary principle, evacuated residents ...Missing: radii | Show results with:radii
[78]
Disastrous consequences of LNT model at Fukushima Daiichi
Nov 4, 2014 · The mistakes made at Chernobyl concerning prolonged evacuation were repeated in Fukushima in spite of the acknowledged adverse health ...Missing: radii | Show results with:radii
[79]
Quantitative Benefit-Risk Analysis of Medical Radiation Exposures
Using the 'Linear, No-Threshold' (LNT) model of radiation carcinogenesis, many have provided numerical estimates of the risks of radiation exposure, sometimes ...
[80]
HOW TO ADDRESS PAST AND FUTURE RADIATION EXPOSURES ...
The LNT model implies that in any clinical scenario, if the benefit of an imaging test exceeds its risks, then it is warranted, regardless of whether or not a ...
[81]
Image Gently: Pediatric Radiology & Imaging | Radiation Safety
The Mission of Image Gently is Radiation Safety in Pediatric Imaging to improve safe and effective imaging care of children worldwide like: pediatric X ray ...Computed Tomography · Campaign Overview · The Alliance · Protocols
[82]
ten steps to help manage radiation dose in pediatric digital ...
The Image Gently campaign raises awareness of opportunities for lowering radiation dose while maintaining diagnostic quality of images of children.
[83]
Can imaging help improve the survival of cancer patients? - PMC - NIH
The article presents evidence to show that the incorporation of imaging into clinical management can improve the survival and/or mortality of patients with ...
[84]
Radiation Is Not the Only Risk | AJR
Using the generic factor of 5% per sievert for cancer mortality [28], this yields an upper limit of the single procedure risk of 0.2% of inducing a fatal cancer ...
[85]
[PDF] Linear No-Threshold Model and Standards for Protection Against R
Aug 11, 2015 · It limited radiation exposures to a "tolerance dose" rate of 0.2 roentgen per day, a threshold level that amounts to an annual dose of about 500 ...Missing: anti- | Show results with:anti-
[86]
Perspective on the Use of LNT for Radiation Protection and Risk ...
LNT has long been accepted as the basis for assessing risks from ionizing radiation. This approach has been repeatedly endorsed by National Academy of Sciences ...
[87]
Perspective on the use of LNT for Radiation Protection and Risk ...
Jun 2, 2025 · This paper discusses EPA's views on the controversy surrounding the use of the linear, no-threshold (LNT) model in radiation risk assessment, guidelines, and ...
[88]
UNSCEAR 2020/2021 Report Volume I
The UNSCEAR 2020/2021 Report Volume I is comprised of the main text of the 2021 report to the General Assembly (A/76/46) and scientific annex A.Missing: persistence LNT 2020-2023
[89]
UNSCEAR 2020/2021 Report Volume II
The UNSCEAR 2020/2021 Report Volume II comprises scientific annex B: Levels and effects of radiation exposure due to the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi ...Missing: persistence LNT
[90]
How To Regulate Radiation Exposure - The Breakthrough Institute
Jun 9, 2025 · One way that the NRC has long applied the LNT model is through the establishment of the “As Low as Reasonably Achievable” (ALARA) principle.
[91]
The LNT Debate in Radiation Protection: Science vs. Policy - PMC
One issue is LNT theory is used to justify dose reduction to levels at or close to zero above natural background based on the idea that no dose is acceptable.Missing: anti- | Show results with:anti-
[92]
Cleaning Up America's Nuclear Weapons Complex: 2023 Update ...
Apr 12, 2023 · Progress continues, but substantial work remains. Completing the cleanup is projected to cost between $652 and $887 billion (in 2022 dollars) and last through ...
[93]
Environmental and Legacy Management - Department of Energy
The atomic legacy of these nuclear programs resulted in trillions of liters of contaminated groundwater; millions of cubic meters of soil and debris ...
[94]
Cost Increasing Results of Accepting the Linear No Threshold (LNT ...
The LNT is the source of a substantial portion of the costs associated with nuclear energy. Its application has increased both capital costs and operational ...
[95]
The Urgency of Rethinking U.S. Nuclear Energy Regulation - FREOPP
Jun 29, 2022 · The decision to adopt a combination of ALARA and the LNT model has reduced the competitiveness of the U.S. nuclear power sector. Applying ALARA ...
[96]
Would widespread adoption of third-generation nuclear power ...
Mar 21, 2025 · Existing studies suggest that the capacity to reduce carbon emissions through nuclear power is around 0.8–1.0 Gt CO2e globally. Despite its ...
[97]
Fukushima Daiichi Accident - World Nuclear Association
There have been no deaths or cases of radiation sickness from the nuclear accident, but over 100,000 people were evacuated from their homes as a preventative ...
[98]
EVACUATION EFFECT ON EXCESS MORTALITY AMONG ... - J-Stage
Total number of deaths over 1 year before the Fukushima NPP accident was 141 and increased by a factor of 2.5 to 349 after the accident. Changes of mortality ...
[99]
Risks and benefits of evacuation in TEPCO's Fukushima Daiichi ...
It is concluded that the loss of life expectancy (LLE) due to the evacuation was two to three orders of magnitude higher than the radiation dose assumed to be ...
[100]
The scientific nature of the linear no-threshold (LNT) model used in ...
Sep 2, 2024 · The aim of this publication is to demonstrate that the LNT concept can be tested in principle and fulfils the criteria of a scientific hypothesis.
[101]
Linear No-Threshold Model VS. Radiation Hormesis - PMC - NIH
The LNT model that the authors used cannot explain this significant reduction in cancers with increasing dose at low doses, since the fundamental idea behind ...<|separator|>
[102]
A test of the linear-no threshold theory of radiation carcinogenesis
The linear-no threshold theory predicts a substantial positive correlation between the average radon exposure in various counties and their lung cancer ...Missing: LNT criticism
[103]
The threshold vs LNT showdown: Dose rate findings exposed flaws ...
This paper reveals that nearly 25 years after the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) I Committee (1972) used ...
[104]
[PDF] Report on the Hormesis/Linear No-Threshold Petitions
Oct 14, 2015 · The study did show that a concave (linear quadratic) curve was the best fit for data restricted to doses less than 2 Gy, as the risk estimates ...
[105]
Linear non-threshold (LNT) fails numerous toxicological stress tests
Sep 25, 2022 · The findings indicate a lack of flexibility and robustness in the LNT model. •. LNT should not be used to derive cancer risks for public health ...
[106]
The linear no-threshold model is less realistic than threshold or ...
Mar 1, 2019 · The LNT model is biologically unrealistic compared to threshold and hormetic models. If LNT were correct, the evolution of life on Earth would not have been ...
[107]
[PDF] scientific-basis-use-Linear-No-Threshold-model-radiological ... - IRSN
Jun 29, 2023 · The linear no-threshold (LNT) model was introduced into the radiological protection system about 60 years ago, but this model and its use in ...
[108]
[PDF] UNSCEAR 2024 Report Vol. I
Jun 16, 2025 · Kingdom), and in 1956 at Stanford University ... the parameters of the linear-no-threshold model for tumour induction were approached.
[109]
Adaptive Response: A Scoping Review of Its Implications in ...
Jul 19, 2025 · Some studies indicate that the cells respond to ionizing radiation by activating genes involved in DNA repair, stress response, cell cycle ...
[110]
Population Studies and Molecular Mechanisms of Human ... - NIH
Dec 18, 2024 · The essence of the concept of radiation hormesis is the existence of an adaptive two-phase response to IR, in which low doses lead to protective ...
[111]
Re-evaluation of the linear no-threshold (LNT) model using new ...
Mar 1, 2019 · The linear no-threshold (LNT) model is currently used to estimate low dose radiation (LDR) induced health risks. This model lacks safety thresholds.
[112]
High Natural Background Radiation Areas: A Literature Review that ...
Aug 31, 2025 · All studies concerning the length of telomeres concluded that no aging effect was observed after exposure to IR in HBRA. Regarding aging ...Missing: longevity | Show results with:longevity
[113]
86 FR 45923 - Linear No-Threshold Model and Standards for ...
Aug 17, 2021 · The NRC is denying the three petitions because they fail to present an adequate basis supporting the request to discontinue use of the LNT model ...
[114]
https://www.icrp.org/publication.asp?id=ICRP%20Publication%20152
[115]
[PDF] Reevaluation of Radiation Protection Standards for Workers and the ...
Jul 21, 2025 · In particular, the NRC shall reconsider reliance on the linear no-threshold (LNT) model for radiation exposure and the 'as low as reasonably ...
[116]
[PDF] Drawing the Line - Radiation Protection White Paper - ML25197A463
Jul 16, 2025 · The NRC has been ordered to “adopt science-based radiation limits. In particular, the NRC shall reconsider reliance on the linear no-threshold ...