(Charles Sanders) USofA - Move Beyond the Linear No-Threshold Theory for Low-Dose Radiation (J Cardarelli II, B Ulsh) USofA15.Jul.2018
John Cardarelli II, Captain US Public Health Service Officer, Cincinnati, OH, USA, Brant Ulsh, M. H. Chew & Associates, Livermore, CA, USA: The USEPA uses the linear no-threshold (LNT) model to estimate cancer risks and determine cleanup levels in radiologically contaminated environments. The LNT model implies that there is no safe dose of ionizing radiation; however, adverse effects from low dose, low-dose rate (LDDR) exposures are not detectable.
Mohn Doss, Medical Physicist in Diagnostic Imaging: The LNT Era (Linear No Threshold) has not ended yet. But, there are signs that we may be approaching its end. The problem with the LNT model for radiation-induced cancer is the absence of threshold results in the fear of the smallest amount of radiation. The LNT model was adopted by advisory bodies in the 1950 and has been endorsed by them repeatedly. Low-dose radiation boosts the immune system and so it should lead to reduction of cancers, a phenomenon known as radiation hormesis. Conclusion: The LNT mmodel is not valid and lives are being lost because of the LNT model and unjustified fear of low-dose radiation.
Donald Miller, MD: Fearful of the harm that radiation can do, the citizens of Sacramento, in a public referendum, had the city shut down its Rancho Seco nuclear power plant. The Sacramento Municipal Utility District put up windmills instead, which on a windy day produces 1 percent of the power the nuclear plant did.
(Ludwig Feinendegen, Jerry Cuttler) Germany Canada - Biological effects from low doses and dose rates29.May.2018
Ludwig Feinendegen, M.D., former director of the Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, Heinrich Heine University Duesseldorf, Germany, 2010 Marie Curie Prize - Jerry Cuttler, D.Sc. in nuclear sciences and engineering, recipient of 2011 International Dose-Response Society Award for Outstanding Career Achievement: There is considerable controversy regarding risk of health detriment after low-level exposure to ionizing radiation. This stems in part from a sort of distance between radiation biologists, epidemiologists, and radiation protection professionals, as well as regulatory institutions. This feeds seriously into a somewhat hazy fear of ionizing radiation that besets large portions of the public.