THE NEW RADIOBIOLOGY: RETURNING TO OUR ROOTS

In 2005, two expert advisory bodies examined the evidence on the effects of low doses of ionizing radiation. The U.S. National Research Council concluded that current scientific evidence is consistent with the linear no-threshold dose-response relationship (NRCNA 2005) while the French National Academies of Science and Medicine concluded the opposite (Aurengo et al. 2005). These contradictory conclusions may stem in part from an emphasis on epidemiological data (a “top down” approach) versus an emphasis on biological mechanisms (a “bottom up” approach). In this paper, the strengths and limitations of the top down and bottom up approaches are discussed, and proposals for strengthening and reconciling them are suggested. The past seven years since these two reports were published have yielded increasing evidence of nonlinear responses of biological systems to low radiation doses delivered at low dose-rates. This growing body of evidence is casting ever more doubt on the extrapolation of risks observed at high doses and dose-rates to estimate risks associated with typical environmental and occupational exposures. This paper compares current evidence on low dose, low dose-rate effects against objective criteria of causation. Finally, some questions for a post-LNT world are posed

Are Risks from Medical Imaging Still too Small to be Observed or Nonexistent?

Several radiation-related professional societies have concluded that carcinogenic risks associated with doses below 50–100 mSv are either too small to be detected, or are nonexistent. This is especially important in the context of doses from medical imaging. Radiation exposure to the public from medical imaging procedures is rising around the world, primarily due to increased utilization of computed tomography. Professional societies and advisory bodies consistently recommend against multiplying small doses by large populations to predict excess radiation-induced cancers, in large part because of the potential for sensational claims of health impacts which do not adequately take the associated uncertainties into account. Nonetheless, numerous articles have predicted thousands of future cancers as a result of CT scanning, and this has generated considerable concern among patients and parents. In addition, some authors claim that we now have direct epidemiological evidence of carcinogenic risks from medical imaging. This paper critically examines such claims, and concludes that the evidence cited does not provide direct evidence of low-dose carcinogenicity. These claims themselves have adverse public health impacts by frightening the public away from medically justified exams. It is time for the medical and scientific communities to be more assertive in responding to sensational claims of health risks

The New Radiobiology: Returning to Our Roots

In 2005, two expert advisory bodies examined the evidence on the effects of low doses of ionizing radiation. The U.S. National Research Council concluded that current scientific evidence is consistent with the linear no-threshold dose-response relationship ( NRCNA 2005 ) while the French National Academies of Science and Medicine concluded the opposite ( Aurengo et al. 2005 ). These contradictory conclusions may stem in part from an emphasis on epidemiological data (a “top down” approach) versus an emphasis on biological mechanisms (a “bottom up” approach). In this paper, the strengths and limitations of the top down and bottom up approaches are discussed, and proposals for strengthening and reconciling them are suggested. The past seven years since these two reports were published have yielded increasing evidence of nonlinear responses of biological systems to low radiation doses delivered at low dose-rates. This growing body of evidence is casting ever more doubt on the extrapolation of risks observed at high doses and dose-rates to estimate risks associated with typical environmental and occupational exposures. This paper compares current evidence on low dose, low dose-rate effects against objective criteria of causation. Finally, some questions for a post-LNT world are posed

It Is Time to Move Beyond the Linear No-Threshold Theory for Low-Dose Radiation Protection

The US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is the primary federal agency responsible for promulgating regulations and policies to protect people and the environment from ionizing radiation. Currently, 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. This article (1) provides the scientific basis for discontinuing use of the LNT model in LDDR radiation environments, (2) shows that there is no scientific consensus for using the LNT model, (3) identifies USEPA reliance on outdated scientific information, and (4) identifies regulatory reliance on incomplete evaluations of recent data contradicting the LNT. It is the time to reconsider the use of the LNT model in LDDR radiation environments. Incorporating the latest science into the regulatory process for risk assessment will (1) ensure science remains the foundation for decision making, (2) reduce unnecessary burdens of costly cleanups, (3) educate the public on the real effects of LDDR radiation exposures, and (4) harmonize government policies with the rest of the radiation scientific community