How self-interest and deception led to the adoption of the linear non-threshold dose response (LNT) model for cancer risk assessment

The paper reassesses William L. Russell’s mouse experiments from Oak Ridge, which were historically used to justify the Linear No-Threshold (LNT) model for radiation risk.
Russell’s studies suggested all radiation doses are harmful, but later evidence revealed significant methodological flaws and data misinterpretation.
Errors included misclassification of spontaneous mutations as radiation-induced, inflating perceived genetic damage.
The findings were central to the 1956 NAS BEAR I Genetics Panel, which strongly supported LNT without revealing underlying uncertainties.
Later, Russell’s own corrected data showed lower mutation rates than initially reported, contradicting the original LNT conclusion.
Despite this, regulatory agencies and international bodies continued basing radiation safety standards on the flawed early interpretation.
The authors argue that low-dose radiation risks have been exaggerated for decades due to these misrepresentations.
They suggest that radiation effects likely exhibit thresholds or nonlinear responses, meaning small exposures may be harmless.
The historical misuse of Russell’s work has led to overly strict radiation policies and widespread public fear.
The paper calls for a reevaluation of safety standards, urging policymakers to rely on updated scientific evidence rather than outdated assumptions.