An article by Jerome Puskin attempts to justify the continued use of the linear no-threshold (LNT) assumption in radiation protection and risk assessment. In view of the substantial and increasing amount of data that contradicts this assumption; it is difficult to understand the reason for endorsing this unscientific behavior, which severely constrains nuclear energy projects and the use of CT ...

The linear no-threshold (LNT) assumption is over 70 years old and holds that all ionizing radiation exposure leaves cumulative effects, all of which are harmful regardless of how low the dose or dose rate is. The claimed harm centers on the risk of future radiogenic cancer. This has been shown countless times to be fallacious, and hundreds of scientific studies-both experimental and observation...

The concept of dose-response linearity has been in practice for risk assessment of chemical carcinogens and ionising radiation for the past 30 years. But in recent years the evidence from cancer mortality studies and new radiobiological phenomena such as genomic instability, the bystander effect and adaptive response have challenged this accepted hypothesis questioning whether low dose linearit...

There is considerable interest in revisiting LNT theory as the basis for the system of radiation protection in the US and worldwide. Arguing the scientific merits of policy options is not likely to be fruitful because the science is not robust enough to support one theory to the exclusion of others. Current science cannot determine the existence of a dose threshold, a key piece to resolving the...

Although almost 120 y of medical experience and data exist on human exposure to ionizing radiation, advisory bodies and regulators claim there are still significant uncertainties about radiation health risks that require extreme precautions be taken. Decades of evidence led to recommendations in the 1920s for protecting radiologists by limiting their daily exposure. These were shown in later st...

There is no doubt that prudence and risk aversion must guide public decisions when the associated adverse outcomes are either serious or irreversible. With any carcinogen, the levels of risk and needed protection before and after an event occurs, are determined by dose-response models. Regulatory law should not crowd out the actual beneficial effects from low dose exposures-when demonstrable-th...