lovelace resp res inst
<div style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">=</span></div><div style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">API $</span></div><div style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">=</span></div><div style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">DDS bs</span></div><div style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</span></div><div style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Low-Dose Radiation Benefits: a Cure for Radiation Phobia. </span>Bobby Scott, Ph.D.</div><div style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Dr. Scott, senior scientist,<b> Loveland Respiratory Research Institute, </b>studies</div><div style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">mechanism-based modeling of radiation effects.</div><div style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"></div><div style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">researchgate</div><div style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div></div><div>122SPECIAL ISSUE INTRODUCTIONBobby R. Scott 䊐 Senior Scientist, Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute,Albuquerque, </div><div>
</div><div>NMIonizing radiation protection regulations for humans are based onthe presumption that any amount or radiation, no matter how small, willcause cancer in a very large population. The regulations impact on theuse of ionizing radiation in routine diagnostic procedures (e.g., comput-ed tomography), on allowable radiation levels in the environment (e.g.,residential radon levels), and on allowable radiation exposures in theworkplace (e.g., nuclear facilities). Cancer risks evaluations are based onthe linear-no-threshold (LNT) paradigm for which risk is assumed toincrease linearly as the radiation dose increases (Puskin 2009).</div><div>
</div><div>Organizations such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, and theInternational Commission on Radiological Protection rely on the <b>LNTrisk model</b> for establishing limits for human exposure to radiation. Indeed,dose units such as millisievert (mSv), which apply to all forms of ionizing radia-tion and their combinations, depend on the LNT hypothesis for their justifiable use. Justification for the continued use of the LNT risk model is basedlargely on results from epidemiological studies that employ inappropriatemethods (Scott et al. 2008) such as the following: (1) giving considerableweight to high-dose, high-dose-rate data where excess cancers clearlyoccur while ignoring the absence of excess cancers after low doses anddose rates; (2) dose lagging (i.e., discarding some of the dose therebyshifting the dose-response curve to the left, making smaller doses appearmore harmful than they actually are); (3) attributing observed low-dose-associated reductions in the cancer incidence among radiation workers toa presumed healthy worker effect; (4) not allowing for the possibility thata threshold or a reduction in risk at low doses may occur because of radi-ation-stimulated adaptive protection; and (5) averaging over wide doseintervals so that nonlinearity is removed.This issue provides additional support for the rapidly growing viewthat the LNT risk model should not be used for low-dose cancer riskassessment.</div><div>
</div><div> The paper by Fornalski and Dobrzy´nski (2010) discusses theinappropriate use of the healthy worker effect assumption in attempts toDose-Response, 8:122–124, 2010Formerly Nonlinearity in Biology, Toxicology, and MedicineCopyright © 2010 University of MassachusettsISSN: 1559-3258DOI: 10.2203/dose-response.09-060.ScottAddress correspondence to Bobby R. Scott, Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute, 2425Ridgecrest Drive SE, Albuquerque, NM 87108; E-mail: bscott@LRRI.org</div></div><div style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"></div>