A Revised System of Radiological Protection Is Needed

Abstract

The system of radiological protection has been based on linear no-threshold theory and related dose-response models for health detriment (in part related to cancer induction) by ionizing radiation exposure for almost 70 y. The indicated system unintentionally promotes radiation phobia, which has harmed many in relationship to the Fukushima nuclear accident evacuations and led to some abortions following the Chernobyl nuclear accident. Linear no-threshold model users (mainly epidemiologists) imply that they can reliably assess the cancer excess relative risk (likely none) associated with tens or hundreds of nanogray (nGy) radiation doses to an organ (e.g., bone marrow); for 1,000 nGy, the excess relative risk is 1,000 times larger than that for 1 nGy. They are currently permitted this unscientific view (ignoring evolution-related natural defenses) because of the misinforming procedures used in data analyses of which many radiation experts are not aware. One such procedure is the intentional and unscientific vanishing of the excess relative risk uncertainty as radiation dose decreases toward assigned dose zero (for natural background radiation exposure). The main focus of this forum article is on correcting the serious error of discarding risk uncertainty and the impact of the correction. The result is that the last defense of the current system of radiological protection relying on linear no-threshold theory (i.e., epidemiologic studies implied findings of harm from very low doses) goes away. A revised system is therefore needed.

Cancer Risk Assessment Concern Regarding the Publication “Assessing the Risk of Secondary Cancer Induction in Radiosensitive Organs During Trigeminal Neuralgia Treatment With Gamma Knife Radiosurgery: Impact of Extracranial Dose”: A Letter to the Editor

“…3 With LNT theory for cancer induction, both EAR and ERR for a gamma-ray dose of 1000 nGy are assigned illogical values 1000 times larger than the assigned > 0 values for a harmless 1 nGy dose. 4 The illogicalness of LNT theory for cancer induction is revealed by the fact that even though we humans reside in a sea of natural background ionizing radiation, we have not perished from Earth, but remain in large numbers. We are exposed to gamma-ray photons (related to cosmic rays 5 and thunderstorms 6 ) and other natural background radiation throughout our lives, including photons with energies 5 > 10 GeV.…”

“…3 With LNT theory for cancer induction, both EAR and ERR for a gamma-ray dose of 1000 nGy are assigned illogical values 1000 times larger than the assigned > 0 values for a harmless 1 nGy dose. 4…”

“…They however employ misinforming procedures in their data analyses that can essentially guarantee apparent LNT results. 4,7 It is recommended that cancer risks (EAR, ERR) associated with out-of-field, gamma-ray exposure, related to gamma-knife radiosurgery, not be assigned based on BEIR VII LNT models. This is because for low radiation doses (e.g., < 0.1 Gy), the assigned values for EAR and ERR are likely to be unreliable and promote secondary-cancer-related, radiation phobia among patients that undergo radiosurgery.…”