Subjecting Radiologic Imaging to the Linear No-Threshold Hypothesis: A Non Sequitur of Non-Trivial Proportion...

Jan 29, 2017 by

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27493264 Abstract 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). Credible evidence of imaging-related low-dose (<100 mGy) carcinogenic risk is nonexistent; it is a hypothetical risk derived from the demonstrably false LNTH. On the contrary, low-dose radiation does not cause, but more likely helps prevent, cancer. The LNTH and its offspring, ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable), are fatally flawed, focusing only on molecular damage while ignoring protective, organismal biologic responses. Although some grant the absence of low-dose harm, they nevertheless advocate the “prudence” of dose optimization (i.e., using ALARA doses); but this is a radiophobia-centered, not scientific, approach. Medical imaging studies achieve a diagnostic purpose and should be governed by the highest science-based principles and policies. The LNTH...

read more

DOE Misconduct Related to the Low Dose Radiation Research Program...

Dec 28, 2016 by

House GOP Panel Alleges Misconduct and Intimidation at DOE Full report below. 2016-12-19-Final-Staff-Report-LDRR...

read more

A Certified Health Physicist’s Reflections on a 40-Year Career in Radiation Protection...

Nov 17, 2016 by

This is a reflection from a certified health physicist regarding his becoming aware, during his 40-year career, that the linear no-threshold (LNT) model and the associated As Low As Reasonably Achievable concept have no scientific basis and make no positive contribution to radiation safety. They should be replaced by an alternative, scientifically based model that includes a threshold, below which there is no harm, and recognition of hormesis and the adaptive response, which reflect the benefits of low-dose and low-dose-rate radiation exposure. Continued use of the unscientific LNT model is not conservative, as most regulators complacently claim but actually harmful. Examples of these harmful impacts in the areas of nuclear power, nuclear medicine, and environmental management are included.  To read this article in full, please visit the International Dose-Response Society...

read more

Epidemiology Without Biology: False Paradigms, Unfounded Assumptions, and Specious Statistics in Radiation Science...

Jun 20, 2016 by

Anyone can obtain a free PDF version from this email by clicking on the website in the blue box below, headed “Download Your e-Offprint (PDF File).” It will be available in this form for 4 weeks, i.e., until July 17, 3:25 PM (US MST). Epidemiology Without Biology-Springer-2016...

read more

Rectifying Radon’s Record: An Open Challenge to the EPA...

Jun 18, 2016 by

Rectifying Radons Record-An Open Challenge to the EPA Good article by: Jeffry A Siegel, Charles W Pennington, Bill Sacks and James S Welsh...

read more

Epidemiology Without Biology: False Paradigms, Unfounded Assumptions, and Specious Statistics in Radiation Science...

Jun 18, 2016 by

Epi Without Biology (BT) (1)   Excellent article by: Bill Sacks, Gregory Meyerson & Jeffry A....

read more

The High Price of Public Fear of Low-dose Radiation...

Jun 14, 2016 by

Waltar et al-2016Jun_High price public fear...

read more