Today: 24.Aug.2019
Low Dose Radiation
Low Dose Radiation (154)

The graphic to the left show three graphs for radiation health effects. The straight line is the Linear No-Threshold model. The two straight lines are the Threshold model, The J curve is the actual biological effects data curve showing positive effects in the low dose region. The LOW DOSE RADIATION section contains articles, PowerPoint Presentations and videos about the safety and potential benefits of low dose radiation and positive health effects, hormesis. It discusses the huge problems with the Linear No-Threshold model for radiation safety guidelines. LNT has to be changed to a Threshold model in order to gain a lot more benefits in nuclear medicine and nuclear energy.

09.Mar.2015 Written by

Wade Allison - Much is known of the biological impact of radiation on life. Like sunshine, low levels of radiation can be beneficial and only very high levels in acute exposures can cause death or cancer. Only the extremely conservative advice from ICRP continues to support ALARA as a basis for nuclear safety. This influence, however discredited, still entrenches the bureaucratic structure of radiation protection today. Current “safety” standards are unfounded in science.

11.Jun.2017 Written by

Timothy J. Jorgensen, Director of the Health Physics and Radiation Protection Graduate Program and Associate Professor of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University - You might guess that a frequent flyer’s radiation dose is coming from the airport security checkpoints, with their whole-body scanners and baggage x-ray machines, but you’d be wrong. The radiation doses to passengers from these security procedures are trivial. The major source of radiation exposure from air travel comes from the flight itself. Most people do not fly 370,000 miles (equal to 150 flights from Los Angeles to New York) within their lifetimes. So for the average flyer, the increased risk is far less than 0.01 percent.

18.Feb.2018 Written by

Neil Alexander, Ph.D. radiation damage in steels, business strategist, consultant and advocate for nuclear energy: Eating is a risk, but not eating is a greater one. Let us remember that many other things that are not radioactive can also initiate cancer. Bacon for example. And for all we know that works on a LNT basis. That next rasher may literally be the death of you, or that cup of coffee. And don’t get me on the subject of beer, wine or anything else with alcohol in it.

07.Oct.2018 Written by

John Dunn, MD, JD: The United States Environmental Protection Agency is charged with identifying and mitigating environmental risks. This article discusses US EPA’s misguided decision to use the Linear-No-Threshold (LNT) cancer risk model as a basis for regulating exposure of the public to ionizing radiation such as is associated with residential radon. The Health Physics Society has stated that reliance on the LNT model “…tends to foment the public’s fear of all types of radiation . . . reliance on the LNT model, especially at very low doses and dose rates, is inappropriate and can exaggerate the risk.” The HPS also condemns “collective” (cumulative) dose as a measure of radiation health risk.

06.Nov.2015 Written by

Javad Mortazavi: All living organisms evolved and exist in a sea of ionizing radiation, much of which is internal. It is a general belief that low doses of ionizing radiation produce detrimental effects. Over the past decades, however, some pioneer scientists reported that low-dose ionizing radiation is not only a harmless agent but often has a beneficial or hormetic effect.

13.Mar.2015 Written by

SARI - The nuclear reactor accident at Fukushima Daiichi that followed the earthquake and tsunami in 2011 prompted well-intended measures that have had disastrous consequences. These were not caused by the radiation itself but by the social stress, the forced evacuation, and the ongoing displacement of tens of thousands of people.

13.Mar.2015 Written by

SARI - Considerable evidence has accumulated on the invalidity of the linear no-threshold (LNT) model that has been used for radiation safety purposes worldwide since the 1950s. The continuing reluctance of the advisory bodies to discard the LNT model in spite of the overwhelming evidence against it presents a dilemma to professional bodies.

04.Feb.2017 Written by

American Nuclear Society - Health Physics Society: Joint Topical Meeting September 23 - 26, 2018. Call for Abstracts by May 1, 2017. For more than thirty years, the scientific community has discussed and debated assumptions and models for low-dose radiation exposures. The American Nuclear Society and Health Physics Society are joining forces to host a joint topical meeting on Applicability of Radiation Response Models to Low Dose Protection Standards. Topics will include: • Scientific foundations for radiation protection standards and emergency action guidelines, • Molecular basis of radiation response at low dose, • Applicability of linear no-threshold dose-response models, • Public perceptions of radiation risk. • Implementation of radiation protection regulations, • Opportunities for beneficial changes to radiation protection regulations. Please submit your abstract before May 1, 2017.

02.Mar.2015 Written by

James Muckerheide - Low-dose, low-dose-rate, radiation enhances biological responses: for immune systems, enzymatic repair, physiological functions, and apoptotic removal of cellular damage, etc., enhancing biological capability and health, including prevention and removal of cancers and other diseases.

Low level radiation research has also shown no adverse effects in studies with the power to demonstrate such effects. Studies have shown beneficial biological and health effects in many substantial human biological and epidemiological studies, and animal experiments.

However, radiation protection policies and rules do not consider such valid data.

10.Sep.2016 Written by

Bobby Scott, scientist emeritus at Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute, Albuquerque, NM: Findings reported here point out the lack of any solid evidence for cancer induction by low radiation doses (< 100 mGy) such as are received from single or several applications of CT or chest X-rays. Particularly disturbing is the application of the Linear No-Threshold model. The notion that multiple uses of diagnostic imaging, when separated by weeks or months or longer, is cumulative with respect to damage induction, is not supported by the fact that lifetime exposure to ionizing radiation in regions of elevated background radiation does not increase cancer risk. The claims of harm from such exposures are based mainly on seriously flawed epidemiological studies that usually rely on the unscientific and forced LNT default model.