Tremendous XXXX , Social, and Economic Losses Caused by Obstinate Application of the Failed Linear No-threshold Model.

@entity1 @entity5 @entity1778 @entity2073 @entity105
The linear no-threshold model (LNT) was recommended in 1956, with abandonment of the traditional threshold dose-response for genetic risk assessment. Adoption of LNT by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) became the standard for radiation regulation worldwide. The ICRP recommends a dose limit of 1 mSv/ @entity2073 r for the public, which is too low and which terrorizes innocent peop @entity1 deed, LNT arose mainly from the lifespan survivor study (LSS) of atomic bomb survivors. The LSS, which asserts linear dose-response and no threshold, is challenged mainly on three points. 1) Radiation doses were underestimated by half because of disregard for major residual radiation, resulting in canc @entity5 k overestimation. 2) The dose and dose-rate effectiveness factor (DDREF) of 2 is used, but the actual DDREF is estimated as 16, resulting in canc @entity5 k overestimation by several times. 3) Adaptive response (hormesis) is observed in leuk @entity1778 solid canc @entity5 es, consistently contradicting the linearity of LNT. Dras @entity5 k moves the dose-response curve close to the control line, allowing the setting of a threshold. Living organisms have been evolving for 3.8 billion years under radiation exposure, naturally acquiring various defense mechanisms such as DNA repair mechanisms, apoptosis, and immune response. The failure of LNT lies in the neglect of carc @entity105 these biological mechanisms. Obstinate application of LNT continues to cause tremendous huma @entity1 cial, and economic losses. The 60-year-old LNT must be rejected to establish a new scientific knowledge-based system.
