Advertisement

Radiation and Environmental Biophysics

, Volume 44, Issue 4, pp 257–260 | Cite as

Linear-no-threshold is a radiation-protection standard rather than a mechanistic effect model

  • Joachim Breckow
Controversial Issue

Abstract

The linear-no-threshold (LNT) controversy covers much more than the mere discussion whether or not “the LNT hypothesis is valid”. It is shown that one cannot expect to find only one or even the only one dose–effect relationship. Each element within the biological reaction chain that is affected by ionizing radiation contributes in a specific way to the final biological endpoint of interest. The resulting dose–response relationship represents the superposition of all these effects. Till now there is neither a closed and clear picture of the entirety of radiation action for doses below some 10 mSv, nor does clear epidemiological evidence exist for an increase of risk for stochastic effects, in this dose range. On the other hand, radiation protection demands for quantitative risk estimates as well as for practicable dose concepts. In this respect, the LNT concept is preferred against any alternative concept. However, the LNT concept does not necessarily mean that the mechanism of cancer induction is intrinsically linear. It could hold even if the underlying multi-step mechanisms act in a non-linear way. In this case it would express a certain “attenuation” of non-linearities. Favouring LNT against threshold-, hyper-, or sub-linear models for radiation-protection purposes on the one hand, but preferring one of these models (e.g. for a specific effect) because of biological considerations for scientific purposes on the other hand, does not mean a contradiction.

Keywords

Radiation Protection Life Span Study Hormetic Effect Nuclear Worker Biological Argument 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    ICRP (2004) Low-dose extrapolation of radiation-related cancer risk. Task Group Report Committee 1 of ICRP, Draft 12/421/04Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Preston DL, Shimizu Y, Pierce DA, Suyama A, Mabuchi K (2003) Studies of mortality of atomic bomb survivors. Report 13: solid cancer and noncancer disease mortality: 1950–1997. Radiat Res 160:381–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pierce DA, Preston DL (2000) Radiation-related cancer risks at low doses among atomic bomb survivors. Radiat Res 154:178–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Preston DL, Pierce DA, Shimizu Y, Cullings HM, Fujita S, Funamoto S, Kodama K (2004) Effect of recent changes in atomic bomb survivor dosimetry on cancer mortality risk estimates. Radiat Res 162:377–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    UNSCEAR (2000) Report to the General Assembly, sources and effects of ionizing radiation, volume II: effects, annex I: epidemiological evaluation of radiation-induced cancer. http://www.unscear.org/reports/2000_2.html
  6. 6.
    Kellerer AM, Rossi HH (1972) The theory of dual radiation action. Curr Top Radiat Res Q8:85–158Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Berrington de Gonzalez A, Darby S (2004) Risk of cancer from diagnostic X-rays: estimations for the UK and 14 other countries. Lancet 363:345–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Darby S, Hill D, Auvinen A, Barros-Dios JM, Baysson H, Bochicchio F, Deo H, Falk R, Forastiere F, Hakama M, Heid I, Kreienbrock L, Kreuzer M, Lagarde F, Mäkeläinen I, Muirhead C, Oberaigner W, Pershagen G, Ruano-Ravina A, Ruosteenoja E, Schaffrath Rosario A, Tirmarche M, Tomášek L, Whitley E, Wichmann HE, Doll R (2005) Radon in homes and risk of lung cancer: collaborative analysis of individual data from 13 European case-control studies. Br Med J 330:223–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cardis E, Vrijheid M, Blettner M, Gilbert E, Hakama M, Hill C, Howe G, Kaldor J, Muirhead CR, Schubauer-Berigan M, Yoshimura T, Bermann F, Cowper G, Fix J, Hacker C, Heinmiller B, Marshall M, Thierry-Chef I, Utterback D, Ahn YO, Amoros E, Ashmore P, Auvinen A, Bae JM, Bernar Solano J, Biau A, Combalot E, Deboodt P, Diez Sacristan A, Eklof M, Engels H, Engholm G, Gulis G, Habib R, Holan K, Hyvonen H, Kerekes A, Kurtinaitis J, Malker H, Martuzzi M, Mastauskas A, Monnet A, Moser M, Murata M, Pearce MS, Richardson DB, Rodriguez-Artalejo F, Rogel A, Tardy H, Telle-Lamberton M, Turai I, Usel M, Veress K (2005) Risk of cancer after low doses of ionising radiation: retrospective cohort study in 15 countries. Br Med J 331(7508):77–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    ICRP (1991) The 1990 recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Publication 60, Annals of the ICRP, Pergamon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    SSK (2004) Comments on the “Draft for Consultation” of the 2005 recommendations of the ICRP. Stellungnahme der Strahlenschutzkommission (194. Sitzung der SSK am 23./24.09.2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fachhochschule Gießen-FriedbergInstitut für Medizinische Physik und StrahlenschutzGießenGermany

Personalised recommendations