Today: 17.Oct.2017
Low Dose Radiation
Low Dose Radiation (109)

13.Oct.2017 Written by

Edward Calabrese, Professor of Toxicology at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst: This article summarizes substantial recent historical revelations of the history of low dose radiation exposure, which profoundly challenge the standard and widely acceptable history of cancer risk assessment, showing multiple significant scientific errors and incorrect interpretations, mixed with deliberate misrepresentation of the scientific record by leading ideologically motivated radiation geneticists.

03.Oct.2017 Written by

Vincent E. Giuliano, Applied Physicist, Independent longevity researcher-writer and consultant. He is a follower and interpreter of current longevity-related research and has developed an in-depth and dynamic grasp of the advanced areas of science involved - including cell and molecular biology, genomics, epigenomics, stem cells, metabolemics, nutritional science and age-related diseases. MULTIFACTORIAL HORMESIS. PART 2. AN IMPORTANT CONTEXT FOR HEALTH AND LONGEVITY ON THE ROAD TO A GRAND UNIFIED THEORY (GUT) FOR BIOLOGY.

03.Oct.2017 Written by

Vincent E. Giuliano, Applied Physicist, Independent longevity researcher-writer and consultant. He is a follower and interpreter of current longevity-related research and has developed an in-depth and dynamic grasp of the advanced areas of science involved - including cell and molecular biology, genomics, epigenomics, stem cells, metabolemics, nutritional science and age-related diseases. MULTIFACTORIAL HORMESIS. PART 1. AN IMPORTANT CONTEXT FOR HEALTH AND LONGEVITY ON THE ROAD TO A GRAND UNIFIED THEORY (GUT) FOR BIOLOGY.

21.Sep.2017 Written by

Howard Cork Hayden, Emeritus Physics Professor, University of Connecticut: The article in Nuclear News (Sept. 17, 2017) by Jerry M. Cuttler and William H. Hannum about the linear-no-threshold (LNT) model shows that not only are the no-threshold and collective dose aspects wrong, but that low-dose radiation has beneficial effects. For almost all cases, the Linear No-Threshold and Collective Dose radiation safety guidelines are based entirely on the notion that exposure is an additive quantity. It is not. To read the article by Dr. Cuttler and Dr. Hannum use the search box on this website and enter "Cuttler Hannum LNT".

20.Sep.2017 Written by

Jerry Cuttler, Ph.D. Nuclear Sciences and Engineering, past president of Canadian Nuclear Society. William Hannum, Ph.D. retired Argonne National Laboratory, (reactor physics and safety, former Deputy Director General of the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, Paris, France): Current EPA regulations are based on the linear no-threshold (LNT) dose-response model. These regulations have long been considered to be conservative, and it is widely recognized that they are excessively restrictive. There is emerging evidence that the effects of low or even moderate levels of ionizing radiation are in fact beneficial. Researchers are now postulating that rather than being a simple cause of additional cell damage, the principal effect of low-level radiation is to stimulate the body’s natural defense mechanisms — for instance, against cancer cells. To see discussion on this article go to the search box on this website and enter "Hayden LNT".

04.Sep.2017 Written by

Wade Allison, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Oxford University, UK: Bottom up, on radiation and nuclear energy we need a fresh programme of science-wide public education in schools and in the community as a whole via the media, omitting the ghoulish images used in the past. Local UK-based initiatives should contribute to worldwide re-education, for example through the BBC. Top down, on radiation safety we need a complete sea change in international guidance. This should be based on scientific understanding and evidence, not the unjustified precaution inherent in the ALARA/LNT philosophy.

25.Aug.2017 Written by

Edward Calabrese, Professor of Toxicology at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst: Dr. Calabrese recently made the startling discovery that the linear no-threshold or LNT hypothesis, which governs radiation and chemical protection policy today, was founded on a deliberate lie to further a political agenda. According to LNT, there is no safe dose of radiation; the known deleterious effects of very high dose levels, under LNT, can be extrapolated linearly down to a zero dose.

11.Jun.2017 Written by

Timothy J. Jorgensen, Director of the Health Physics and Radiation Protection Graduate Program and Associate Professor of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University - You might guess that a frequent flyer’s radiation dose is coming from the airport security checkpoints, with their whole-body scanners and baggage x-ray machines, but you’d be wrong. The radiation doses to passengers from these security procedures are trivial. The major source of radiation exposure from air travel comes from the flight itself. Most people do not fly 370,000 miles (equal to 150 flights from Los Angeles to New York) within their lifetimes. So for the average flyer, the increased risk is far less than 0.01 percent.

01.May.2017 Written by

Jay Lehr, Ph.D. Science Director at The Heartland Institute: New research shows people exposed to low-doses of radiation, contrary to the assumptions behind the regulatory standards of U.S. agencies, are not at increased risk of developing cancer. Scientific and regulatory bodies currently estimate the risk of low doses by extrapolating directly (linearly) from the risk known to exist from high doses. They assume there is no threshold of exposure to radiation below which cancer might not be caused and that a low dose of radiation might have a protective effect called hormesis.

01.May.2017 Written by

Edward Calabrese, Professor of Toxicology at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst: Considerable recent findings have revealed that the linear dose response for cancer risk assessment has not only outlived its utility in predicting risk but is based on a flawed scientific foundation. The present article characterizes this demise of a key concept of environmental risk assessment, in the framework of a figurative obituary of a long-lived concept that has poorly served society. This obituary is intended to illustrate an integrated mix of poignant and improper historical judgments that led to both the acceptance and ultimately the demise of this once intellectually facile and nearly universally accepted concept.

Newsletter Subscription

  • Latest
  • Popular
  • Michael Shellenberger, Environmental Progress: Since the Fukushima…
  • Clinton Crackel, Co-founder and Co-chairman Nuclear Fuels…
  • Clinton Crackel, Co-founder and Co-chairman Nuclear Fuels…
  • Walter Horsting, Principal Business Development International: The…
  • Paul Driessen, senior policy analyst for the…
  • Clinton Crackel, Co-founder and Co-chairman Nuclear Fuels…
  • Walter Horsting, Principal Business Development International: The…
  • Michael Shellenberger, Environmental Progress: Since the Fukushima…