Radiation risks in perspective: radiation-induced cancer among cancer risks

Abstract

The majority of the public in industrial countries believes that pollution and low doses of radiation are threats to good health. As a matter of fact, when these putative risks are compared to those originating from lifestyle, they appear very small. In particular, the risks associated with low doses of irradiation, even when they are assessed with the most pessimistic models, appear extremely small. Public anxiety is fuelled by the uncertainty regarding the magnitude of this risk and the use of the linear no threshold (LNT) hypothesis, which gives credence to the concept that even the smallest doses are harmful. There are a number of scientific and epidemiological data currently under debate that are not consistent with the LNT hypothesis. For example, no difference in the incidence of cancers or of birth defects has been observed between regions with low or high natural irradiation. This inconsistency between perceptions and data underlines the role of psychological factors studied since 1957 which should be placed in the perspective of the public's present attitude toward risk and technology. Social amplification or attenuation of risk may occur in several ways. Fearful concern about radiation began in 1955, with the beginning of the Cold War, when the possibility of a nuclear holocaust appeared very real. Analysis of the data shows that these fears of technology could have a detrimental effect; they should therefore be investigated and understood.

Estimated Risks of Radiation-Induced Fatal Cancer from Pediatric CT

“…The linear extrapolation without a dose threshold that is used to extrapolate cancer risks to very low doses has been the subject of much debate [37][38][39][40]; however, the main regulatory and advisory groups that have reported on this issue [12,13,41,42] have all concluded that the most scientifically credible approach to risk extrapolation to this dose range is a linear extrapolation from greater doses, which is the assumption implicitly adopted here.…”

Hormesis, an update of the present position

“…On the other hand, a simple dose-response relationship may disguise competing processes that have different dose dependencies, and the LNT model is not based on epidemiology rather than radiobiology. The scientific validity of the LNT model has been challenged from the radiobiological point of view by many scientists over the past decade [6,17,48,49,50]. Some scientists claim that there are now sufficient data to indicate that the LNT theory is overly restrictive and not correct for all cancers or for some types of cancer in the low-dose region, especially for protracted exposures; its appropriateness as a basis for radiation protection in general has also been questioned [7,51].…”

Are single fractions of radiotherapy suitable for plantar fasciitis?

“…The most significant potential complication of RT is carcinogenesis; nonetheless, the risks associated with low doses of irradiation, even when they are estimated with the most pessimistic models, appear extremely small 20 . Carcinogenesis could potentially occur in all of the tissues treated including skin, soft tissue and bone, each of which would receive at least 50% of the total dose using the technique described in this paper.…”