Skip to main content
Log in

Common misinterpretations of the “linear, no-threshold” relationship used in radiation protection

  • Published:
Radiation and Environmental Biophysics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

Absorbed doseD is shown to be a composite variable, the product of the fraction of cells hit (I H ) and the mean “dose” (hit size)z to those cells.D is suitable for use with high level exposure (HLE) to radiation and its resulting acute organ effects because, sinceI H = 1.0, it approximates closely enough the mean energy density in the cell as well as in the organ. However, with low level exposure (LLE) to radiation and its consequent probability of cancer induction from a single cell, stochastic delivery of energy to cells results in a wide distribution of hit sizesz, and the expected mean value,z, is constant with exposure. Thus, with LLE, onlyI H varies withD so that the apparent proportionality between “dose” and the fraction of cells transformed is misleading. This proportionality therefore does not mean that any (cell) dose, no matter how small, can be lethal. Rather, it means that, in the exposure of a population of individual organisms consisting of the constituent relevant cells, there is a small probability of particle-cell interactions which transfer energy. The probability of a cell transforming and initiating a cancer can only be greater than zero if the hit size (“dose”) to the cell is large enough. Otherwise stated, if the “dose” is defined at the proper level of biological organization, namely, the cell and not the organ, only a large dosez to that cell is effective.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Accident Facts. Annual publication of the US National Safety Council.

  • Bond VP (1982) The conceptual basis for evaluating risk from low level radiation exposure. In: Critical issues in setting radiation protection dose limits. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Bond VP (1986) Influence of dose rate and LET in radiation carcinogenesis: Theory and observations. In: Upton AC, Albert RE, Burns FJ, Shore RE (eds) Radiation carcinogenesis. Elsevier, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bond VP, Varma MN (1983) Low level radiation response explained in terms of fluence and cell critical volume dose. In: Eighth Symposium on Microdosimetry, Julich West Germany. Commission of the European Communities, Harwood, London, pp 423–439

    Google Scholar 

  • Bond VP, Varma MN, Sondhaus CA, Feinendegen LE (1985) An alternative to absorbed dose, quality, and RBE at low exposure. Radiat Res 104:S52-S57

    Google Scholar 

  • Finney DJ (1971) Probit analysis. 3rd Ed University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Skarrgard LD, Kihlmann BA, Parker L, Pujara CN, Richardson S (1967) Survival, chromosome abnormalities and recovery in heavy-ion- and X-irradiated cells. Radiat Res 7:208–221

    Google Scholar 

  • Varma MN, Bond VP (1983) Empirical evaluation of a cell critical volume dose vs. cell response function for pink mutations in Tradescantia. In: Eighth Symposium on Microdosimetry, Julich, West Germany. Commission of the European Communities, Harwood, London, pp 439–450

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Dedicated to Prof. L.E. Feinendegen on the occasion of his 60th birthday

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bond, V.P., Sondhaus, C.A. Common misinterpretations of the “linear, no-threshold” relationship used in radiation protection. Radiat Environ Biophys 26, 253–261 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01221970

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01221970

Keywords

Navigation