An Open Letter to Advisory Bodies[†] Regarding Low Dose Radiation Cancer Risk
The linear no-threshold (LNT) model was adopted worldwide for radiation safety purposes in the 1950s following the recommendations of the various international and national advisory bodies . The decision to use a linear model was based on the observation of linear dependence of increased mutations in drosophila melanogaster subjected to high dose radiation, and linear dependence of increased leukemias in atomic bomb survivors exposed to high dose radiation. In spite of the considerable amount of evidence available in the 1950s for the presence of a large threshold dose both for radiation-induced mutations  and for leukemias , the concept of zero threshold dose was adopted by the advisory bodies, violating basic scientific principles . In addition, the consequent radiation safety policies recommended by the advisory bodies to keep the radiation doses as low as reasonably achievable prevented the study of radiation hormesis when it was proposed in 1980 . Thus, these recommendations derailed the scientific method, since one unverified hypothesis was used to prevent the study of a competing hypothesis, stalling scientific progress in the field, and leaving the simple question whether the health effects of low dose radiation are beneficial or harmful unresolved even after intense study for many decades .
Though there has been a considerable amount of published evidence against the LNT model for radiation-induced cancers during the past several decades [5, 7-9], the LNT model continues to be widely promulgated. The atomic bomb survivor data, for example, have been used to support the LNT model of cancer risk in the influential BEIR VII report  and in many peer-reviewed publications, e.g. . Even in the latest update to the atomic bomb survivor data , the authors have claimed that zero dose is the best estimate for a dose threshold for solid cancer mortality, apparently supporting the LNT model. However, their dose-threshold analysis should be considered faulty since it restricted the possible functional forms of the dose-response relationship a priori. An analysis that used a more general functional form to fit the data has demonstrated that the presence of a dose threshold cannot be excluded . In addition, a recent analysis of the atomic bomb survivor data using artificial neural networks has revealed the presence of a threshold dose that varied with organ, gender, etc. and the reduction of some cancers at low doses .
Another study used to justify carcinogenic concerns from low doses of radiation in the BEIR VII report and other publications  is the 15-country study of radiation workers [15, 16]. A re-analysis of the cancer mortality data of the Canadian nuclear workers  has resulted in a negation of the original conclusion of the entire 15‑country radiation worker study regarding cancer risks from low doses of radiation . Also, a Bayesian analysis of the 15‑country study data has shown there is too much scatter in the data to make a definitive conclusion about the cancer risk from low doses of radiation, and that the dismissal of reduction in overall cancers in the radiation workers is unjustified [19, 20].
Thus, the main arguments in the BEIR VII report (and other publications) supporting the LNT model and increased cancer risks from low doses of radiation cannot be considered valid. Further, evidence supporting alternate (non-LNT) models and the beneficial effects of low doses of radiation (i.e. radiation hormesis) have been published since the time of the BEIR VII report [21-26], and the evidence presented in these publications have not been challenged or repudiated in any peer-reviewed publication. The advisory bodies have however ignored such publications without clearly stating why the evidence and arguments presented in such publications are invalid, and they continue to promote the use of the LNT model.
The continuing recommendations supporting the use of the LNT model by the advisory bodies has had significant adverse societal implications, particularly with regard to radiation protection policies and public perception regarding radiation risk. For example, use of the LNT model has led to substantial casualties in real-life situations because of the ensuing fear of low doses of radiation among the general public, and the actions taken by governments when handling radiological emergencies, e.g. in Fukushima . The use of the LNT model has also led to frivolous lawsuits when emergency responders were exposed to low levels of radiation near Fukushima . The unwarranted concerns regarding low doses of radiation have discouraged study of the use of low dose radiation for the prevention and treatment of cancer, even though animal and human studies have demonstrated its positive potential . Such concerns have also discouraged the study of low dose radiation for reducing neurodegenerative diseases for which presently there are no methods of prevention or control, even though animal studies have shown promise [29, 30]. Finally, unwarranted concerns about the low doses of radiation used in medical imaging have led some patients to forego medically appropriate examinations, even when such exams are necessary for accurate diagnosis or therapeutic planning . Thus, though the LNT model was touted as a conservative measure and a simplified, straightforward regulatory approach, its actual use has led to tremendous harm, and it is imperative that alternative paradigms for radiation safety are considered and adopted.
Considering the overwhelming amount of data that supports the validity of low dose radiation adaptive protection  and the resultant invalidation of the LNT model, we urge you to recognize this publicly with a declaration and recommend to governments that they discontinue the use of the LNT model for radiation safety purposes, supplanting it with a threshold model.
We would be happy to discuss this matter with you or provide additional information for your consideration. Thank you for your kind attention to this important issue.
Mohan Doss, Fox Chase Cancer Center, USA (email@example.com)
Wade Allison, Oxford University, UK
Allen Brodsky, Georgetown University, USA
Mervyn D. Cohen, Indiana University School of Medicine, USA
Jerry Cuttler, Cuttler & Associates, Canada
Ludwik Dobrzynski, National Center for Nuclear Research, Poland
Vincent J. Esposito, University of Pittsburgh, USA
Ludwig E. Feinendegen, Heinrich-Heine University, Germany
Krzysztof W. Fornalski, Polish Nuclear Society, Poland
Leo S. Gomez, Leo S. Gomez Consulting, USA
Ed Hiserodt, Controls & Power, Inc, USA
Patricia Lewis, Free Enterprise Radon Health Mine, USA
Cynthia H. McCollough, Mayo Clinic, USA
Mark L. Miller, Sandia National Laboratories, USA
Steven S. Payne, National Nuclear Security Administration (Retired),
Col USAF (Retired), USA
Charles W. Pennington, Executive Consultant, USA
Jeffrey S. Philbin, Sandia National Laboratories (Retired), USA
Chary Rangacharyulu, University of Saskatchewan, Canada
Charles L. Sanders, Korea Adv. Inst. of Science and Technology,
S. Korea (Retired), USA
Bobby R. Scott, Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute, USA
Yehoshua Socol, Falcon Analytics, Israel
Michael G Stabin, Vanderbilt University, USA
Ruth F. Weiner, Former Member of the NRC Advisory Committee on
Nuclear Waste and Materials, USA
Note: All signers of this letter are members or associate members of SARI (Scientists for Accurate Radiation Information, http://radiationeffects.org/). The above letter represents the professional opinions of the signers, and does not necessarily represent the views of their affiliated institutions.
1. Calabrese EJ. The road to linearity: why linearity at low doses became the basis for carcinogen risk assessment. Arch Toxicol 2009;83:203-25. doi:10.1007/s00204-009-0412-4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19247635
2. Calabrese EJ. How the US National Academy of Sciences misled the world community on cancer risk assessment: new findings challenge historical foundations of the linear dose response. Arch Toxicol 2013. doi:10.1007/s00204-013-1105-6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23912675
3. Cuttler JM. Leukemia incidence of 96,000 Hiroshima atomic bomb survivors is compelling evidence that the LNT model is wrong. Archives of Toxicology 2014;Online First. doi:10.1007/s00204-014-1207-9. http://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00204-014-1207-9/fulltext.html
4. Doss M. Adoption of Linear No-Threshold Model Violated Basic Scientific Principles and Was Harmful. Archives of Toxicology 2014; (Pre Press). doi:10.1007/s00204-014-1208-8. http://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00204-014-1208-8/fulltext.html
6. Doss M. Correcting Systemic Deficiencies in Our Scientific Infrastructure. Dose Response 2014; In Press. doi:10.2203/dose-response.13-046.Doss. http://dose-response.metapress.com/link.asp?id=11h3l8t067886g08
7. Cohen BL. Cancer risk from low-level radiation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179:1137-43. doi:10.2214/ajr.179.5.1791137. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12388487
8. Feinendegen LE. Evidence for beneficial low level radiation effects and radiation hormesis. Br J Radiol 2005;78:3-7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15673519
9. Tubiana M. Dose-effect relationship and estimation of the carcinogenic effects of low doses of ionizing radiation: the joint report of the Academie des Sciences (Paris) and of the Academie Nationale de Medecine. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005;63:317-9. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16168825
10. NRC. Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation : BEIR VII Phase 2, National Research Council (U.S.). Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Level of Ionizing Radiation. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press; 2006. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11340
11. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography--an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 2007;357:2277-84. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18046031
12. Ozasa K, Shimizu Y, Suyama A, Kasagi F, Soda M, Grant EJ, et al. Studies of the mortality of atomic bomb survivors, report 14, 1950-2003: an overview of cancer and noncancer diseases. Radiat Res 2012;177:229-43. doi:10.1667/RR2629.1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22171960
13. Doss M. Linear No-Threshold Model vs. Radiation Hormesis. Dose Response 2013;11:480-97. doi:10.2203/dose-response.13-005.Doss. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24298226
14. Sasaki MS, Tachibana A, Takeda S. Cancer risk at low doses of ionizing radiation: artificial neural networks inference from atomic bomb survivors. J Radiat Res 2014; In Press. doi:10.1093/jrr/rrt133. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24366315
15. Cardis E, Vrijheid M, Blettner M, Gilbert E, Hakama M, Hill C, et al. Risk of cancer after low doses of ionising radiation: retrospective cohort study in 15 countries. BMJ 2005;331:77. doi:10.1136/bmj.38499.599861.E0. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15987704
16. Cardis E, Vrijheid M, Blettner M, Gilbert E, Hakama M, Hill C, et al. The 15-Country Collaborative Study of Cancer Risk among Radiation Workers in the Nuclear Industry: estimates of radiation-related cancer risks. Radiat Res 2007;167:396-416. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17388693
17. CNSC. INFO-0811. Verifying Canadian Nuclear Energy Worker Radiation Risk: A Reanalysis of Cancer Mortality in Canadian Nuclear Energy Workers (1957-1994) Summary Report, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. 2011;Accessed Sep 1, 2013. http://goo.gl/m4NW3p Published June 2011.
18. Zablotska LB, Lane RS, Thompson PA. A reanalysis of cancer mortality in Canadian nuclear workers (1956-1994) based on revised exposure and cohort data. Br J Cancer 2014;110:214-23. doi:10.1038/bjc.2013.592. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24231946
19. Fornalski K, Dobrzynski L. Ionising radiation and the health of nuclear industry workers. International Journal of Low Radiation 2009;6:57-78. doi:10.1504/IJLR.2009.026240. http://www.inderscience.com/info/inarticle.php?artid=26240
20. Fornalski KW, Dobrzynski L. The healthy worker effect and nuclear industry workers. Dose Response 2010;8:125-47. doi:10.2203/dose-response.09-019.Fornalski. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20585442
21. Tubiana M, Diallo I, Chavaudra J, Lefkopoulos D, Bourhis J, Girinsky T, et al. A new method of assessing the dose-carcinogenic effect relationship in patients exposed to ionizing radiation. A concise presentation of preliminary data. Health Phys 2011;100:296-9. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21595074
22. Sakamoto K. Radiobiological basis for cancer therapy by total or half-body irradiation. Nonlinearity Biol Toxicol Med 2004;2:293-316. doi:10.1080/15401420490900254. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19330149
23. Feinendegen LE, Pollycove M, Neumann RD. Hormesis by Low Dose Radiation Effects: Low-Dose Cancer Risk Modeling Must Recognize Up-Regulation of Protection. In: Baum RP, editor. Therapeutic Nuclear Medicine: Springer; 2013.
24. Thompson RE. Epidemiological Evidence for Possible Radiation Hormesis from Radon Exposure: A Case-Control Study Conducted in Worcester, MA. Dose Response 2011;9:59-75. doi:10.2203/dose-response.10-026.Thompson. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21431078
25. Cohen B. The Cancer Risk from Low-Level Radiation. In: Tack D, Gevenois P, editors. Radiation Dose from Adult and Pediatric Multidetector Computed Tomography. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 2007. p. 33-49.
26. Farooque A, Mathur R, Verma A, Kaul V, Bhatt AN, Adhikari JS, et al. Low-dose radiation therapy of cancer: role of immune enhancement. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2011;11:791-802. doi:10.1586/era.10.217. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21554054
27. Ichiseki H. Features of disaster-related deaths after the Great East Japan Earthquake. Lancet 2013;381:204. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60091-4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23332962
28. McLernon S. US Sailors Seek $1B From Tepco For Radiation Exposure. 2014. http://www.law360.com/articles/508457/us-sailors-seek-1b-from-tepco-for-radiation-exposure
29. Wei LC, Ding YX, Liu YH, Duan L, Bai Y, Shi M, et al. Low-dose radiation stimulates Wnt/beta-catenin signaling, neural stem cell proliferation and neurogenesis of the mouse hippocampus in vitro and in vivo. Curr Alzheimer Res 2012;9:278-89. doi:CAR-EPUB-20120123-014 [pii]. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22272614
30. El-Ghazaly MA, Sadik NA, Rashed ER, Abd El-Fattah AA. Neuroprotective effect of EGb761(R) and low-dose whole-body gamma-irradiationin a rat model of Parkinson's disease. Toxicol Ind Health 2014; In Press. doi:10.1177/0748233713487251. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23696346
31. Hendee WR, O'Connor MK. Radiation risks of medical imaging: separating fact from fantasy. Radiology 2012;264:312-21. doi:10.1148/radiol.12112678. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22821690
Note: This Letter was e-mailed to the following advisory bodies on Feb 28, 2014:
ICRP, NCRP, UNSCEAR, IAEA, WHO, NAS
Copyright © 2014 by Scientists for Accurate Radiation Information (SARI). You are encouraged to distribute this Open Letter widely. You are given the right to make copies of this letter in full or in part, provided the source of the copy is identified as Scientists for Accurate Radiation Information (SARI), with a link to the SARI website: http://radiationeffects.org