No reason to fear low dose radiation (SARI - Doss, Cohen, Corrice, Cuttler, Davey, Dobrzynski, Esposito, Feinendegen, Fornalski, Fellman, Gomez, Lewis, Mahn, Miller, Pennington, Philbin, Rangacharyulu, Strupczewski, Sutou)11.Apr.2015
SARI, Scientists for Accurate Radiation Information, says that there is no reason to fear low-dose radiation. They explain that the LNT model is a problem, why it was adopted, why it persists, and how it can be overcome.
The LNT model is probably the most egregious error ever made in the name of science, considering the long period over which it has been used worldwide in spite of there being no valid evidence for it and in spite of the casualties and calamities its use has caused.
Jerry Cuttler - Social concerns about the safety of all nuclear technologies is caused by ideological linkage of any (human-made) radiation exposure to an excess risk of health effects, namely cancer and genetic harm, using the LNT model to calculate excess health risks. This link, created in the 1950s to stop the development and production of nuclear weapons, is maintained in spite of the extensive biological evidence of beneficial effects from low dose or low dose rate exposures. .. .. .. The remedy is to discard this politicized science.
Jerry Cuttler - Cuttler & Associates, Inc. Toronto, Ontario, Canada explains the science of low dose radiation.
Ethical issues of current policies on low dose ionizing radiation (Socol, Dobrzynski, Doss, Feinendegen, Janiak, Miller, Sanders, Scott, Ulsh, Vaiserman)28.Feb.2015
The linear no-threshold (LNT) model of ionizing-radiation-induced cancer is based on the assumption that every radiation dose increment constitutes increased cancer risk for humans. The risk is hypothesized to increase linearly as the total dose increases. While this model is the basis for radiation safety regulations, its scientific validity has been questioned and debated for many decades. The recent memorandum of the International Commission on Radiological Protection admits that the LNT-model predictions at low doses are “speculative, unproven, undetectable and ‘phantom’.” The authors have made this report available at (http://www.pubfacts.com/author/Brant+Ulsh)