Low-dose radiation from A-bombs elongated lifespan and reduced cancer mortality relative to un-irradiated individuals

Abstract

The US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) presented the linear no-threshold hypothesis (LNT) in 1956, which indicates that the lowest doses of ionizing radiation are hazardous in proportion to the dose. This spurious hypothesis was not based on solid data. NAS put forward the BEIR VII report in 2006 as evidence supporting LNT. The study described in the report used data of the Life Span Study (LSS) of A-bomb survivors. Estimation of exposure doses was based on initial radiation (5%) and neglected residual radiation (10%), leading to underestimation of the doses. Residual radiation mainly consisted of fallout that poured down onto the ground along with black rain. The black-rain-affected areas were wide. Not only A-bomb survivors but also not-in-the-city control subjects (NIC) must have been exposed to residual radiation to a greater or lesser degree. Use of NIC as negative controls constitutes a major failure in analyses of LSS. Another failure of LSS is its neglect of radiation adaptive responses which include low-dose stimulation of DNA damage repair, removal of aberrant cells via stimulated apoptosis, and elimination of cancer cells via stimulated anticancer immunity. LSS never incorporates consideration of this possibility. When LSS data of longevity are examined, a clear J-shaped dose-response, a hallmark of radiation hormesis, is apparent. Both A-bomb survivors and NIC showed longer than average lifespans. Average solid cancer death ratios of both A-bomb survivors and NIC were lower than the average for Japanese people, which is consistent with the occurrence of radiation adaptive responses (the bases for radiation hormesis), essentially invalidating the LNT model. Nevertheless, LNT has served as the basis of radiation regulation policy. If it were not for LNT, tremendous human, social, and economic losses would not have occurred in the aftermath of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant accident. For many reasons, LNT must be revised or abolished, with changes based not on policy but on science.

The prospective mathematical idea satisfying both radiation hormesis under low radiation doses and linear non-threshold theory under high radiation doses

“…Certainly, a proportional relationship has been described at ≥100 mSv, but it has not been confirmed whether there is a proportional relationship for cases of < 100 mSv [1]. In addition, the radiation hormesis theory is thought to actually have beneficial effects on health [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. Therefore, I wondered if there was an idea that LNT and hormesis could hold at the same time.…”

Temporal Trends in X-Ray Exposure during Coronary Angiography and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

“…Most data on stochastic effects are derived from survivors from the Hiroshima bomb where high exposures lead to increased risk of cancer [ 2 ]. Although the effect of low-dose radiation is still debated [ 3 , 4 ], there are growing concerns among interventional cardiologists about the potential harmful health impact of long-term exposure to scatter radiation [ 5 – 9 ]. The International Commission on Radiation Protection recommends that X-ray exposure should be kept as low as reasonably achievable with recommended dose limits of <20 millisievert (mSv) effective dose per year for staff working in the cardiac catheterization lab (cath lab) [ 10 ].…”

Prelude and premise to the special issue: disruption of homeostasis-induced signaling and crosstalk in the carcinogenesis paradigm “Epistemology of the origin of cancer”

“…It was even pointed out that radiation cannot serve as the example to prove the SMT [31]. This is strongly supported by most recently findings, that the linear no-threshold hypothesis (LNT) from A-bombs elongated lifespan and reduced cancer mortality relative to nonirradiated individuals [58].…”