Skip to main content
Log in

Linear-no-threshold is a radiation-protection standard rather than a mechanistic effect model

  • Controversial Issue
  • Published:
Radiation and Environmental Biophysics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The linear-no-threshold (LNT) controversy covers much more than the mere discussion whether or not “the LNT hypothesis is valid”. It is shown that one cannot expect to find only one or even the only one dose–effect relationship. Each element within the biological reaction chain that is affected by ionizing radiation contributes in a specific way to the final biological endpoint of interest. The resulting dose–response relationship represents the superposition of all these effects. Till now there is neither a closed and clear picture of the entirety of radiation action for doses below some 10 mSv, nor does clear epidemiological evidence exist for an increase of risk for stochastic effects, in this dose range. On the other hand, radiation protection demands for quantitative risk estimates as well as for practicable dose concepts. In this respect, the LNT concept is preferred against any alternative concept. However, the LNT concept does not necessarily mean that the mechanism of cancer induction is intrinsically linear. It could hold even if the underlying multi-step mechanisms act in a non-linear way. In this case it would express a certain “attenuation” of non-linearities. Favouring LNT against threshold-, hyper-, or sub-linear models for radiation-protection purposes on the one hand, but preferring one of these models (e.g. for a specific effect) because of biological considerations for scientific purposes on the other hand, does not mean a contradiction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. ICRP (2004) Low-dose extrapolation of radiation-related cancer risk. Task Group Report Committee 1 of ICRP, Draft 12/421/04

  2. Preston DL, Shimizu Y, Pierce DA, Suyama A, Mabuchi K (2003) Studies of mortality of atomic bomb survivors. Report 13: solid cancer and noncancer disease mortality: 1950–1997. Radiat Res 160:381–407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Pierce DA, Preston DL (2000) Radiation-related cancer risks at low doses among atomic bomb survivors. Radiat Res 154:178–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Preston DL, Pierce DA, Shimizu Y, Cullings HM, Fujita S, Funamoto S, Kodama K (2004) Effect of recent changes in atomic bomb survivor dosimetry on cancer mortality risk estimates. Radiat Res 162:377–389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. UNSCEAR (2000) Report to the General Assembly, sources and effects of ionizing radiation, volume II: effects, annex I: epidemiological evaluation of radiation-induced cancer. http://www.unscear.org/reports/2000_2.html

  6. Kellerer AM, Rossi HH (1972) The theory of dual radiation action. Curr Top Radiat Res Q8:85–158

    Google Scholar 

  7. Berrington de Gonzalez A, Darby S (2004) Risk of cancer from diagnostic X-rays: estimations for the UK and 14 other countries. Lancet 363:345–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Darby S, Hill D, Auvinen A, Barros-Dios JM, Baysson H, Bochicchio F, Deo H, Falk R, Forastiere F, Hakama M, Heid I, Kreienbrock L, Kreuzer M, Lagarde F, Mäkeläinen I, Muirhead C, Oberaigner W, Pershagen G, Ruano-Ravina A, Ruosteenoja E, Schaffrath Rosario A, Tirmarche M, Tomášek L, Whitley E, Wichmann HE, Doll R (2005) Radon in homes and risk of lung cancer: collaborative analysis of individual data from 13 European case-control studies. Br Med J 330:223–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cardis E, Vrijheid M, Blettner M, Gilbert E, Hakama M, Hill C, Howe G, Kaldor J, Muirhead CR, Schubauer-Berigan M, Yoshimura T, Bermann F, Cowper G, Fix J, Hacker C, Heinmiller B, Marshall M, Thierry-Chef I, Utterback D, Ahn YO, Amoros E, Ashmore P, Auvinen A, Bae JM, Bernar Solano J, Biau A, Combalot E, Deboodt P, Diez Sacristan A, Eklof M, Engels H, Engholm G, Gulis G, Habib R, Holan K, Hyvonen H, Kerekes A, Kurtinaitis J, Malker H, Martuzzi M, Mastauskas A, Monnet A, Moser M, Murata M, Pearce MS, Richardson DB, Rodriguez-Artalejo F, Rogel A, Tardy H, Telle-Lamberton M, Turai I, Usel M, Veress K (2005) Risk of cancer after low doses of ionising radiation: retrospective cohort study in 15 countries. Br Med J 331(7508):77–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. ICRP (1991) The 1990 recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Publication 60, Annals of the ICRP, Pergamon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  11. SSK (2004) Comments on the “Draft for Consultation” of the 2005 recommendations of the ICRP. Stellungnahme der Strahlenschutzkommission (194. Sitzung der SSK am 23./24.09.2004)

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joachim Breckow.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Breckow, J. Linear-no-threshold is a radiation-protection standard rather than a mechanistic effect model. Radiat Environ Biophys 44, 257–260 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00411-006-0030-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00411-006-0030-y

Keywords

Navigation