Preserving the Anti-Scientific Linear No-Threshold Myth: Authority, Agnosticism, Transparency, and the Standard of Care.
Preserving the Anti-Scientific Linear No-Threshold Myth: Authority, Agnosticism, Transparency, and the Standard of Care.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1177/1559325817717839
复制
发表时间：
2017-07
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Siegel JA
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Sacks B;Siegel JA
线性无阈值假设已有70多年的历史，认为所有电离辐射照射都会产生累积效应，无论剂量或剂量率有多低，所有这些效应都是有害的。声称的危害集中在未来放射性癌症的风险上。这已经被无数次证明是错误的，数百项科学研究-实验和观察/流行病学-表明，在足够低的剂量和剂量率下，电离辐射刺激进化的适应性反应，因此对健康有益，降低而不是增加癌症风险。然而，未经纠正的终生累积风险的神话仍然弥漫在辐射科学领域，并成为世界各地几乎所有监管机构政策的基础。本文探讨了背后的一些动机，以及用于确保LNT神话的极端持久性的方法，面对大量相反的证据和辐射恐惧症的明显危害。这些包括屈从于权威的声音，诸如代表整个领域声称不可知论的策略，透明地引用相反的证据，同时不加反驳地驳回调查结果，以及寻求法律保护性医疗护理标准的庇护。
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 observational/epidemiological—demonstrate that at low enough doses and dose rates, ionizing radiation stimulates an evolved adaptive response and therefore is beneficial to health, lowering rather than raising the risk of cancer. Yet the myth of uncorrected lifetime cumulative risk still pervades the field of radiation science and underlies the policies of virtually all regulatory agencies around the world. This article explores some of the motivations behind, and methods used to assure, the extreme durability of the LNT myth in the face of the preponderance of contrary evidence and the manifest harms of radiophobia. These include subservience to the voice of authority, tactics such as claiming agnosticism on behalf of the entire field, transparent references to contrary evidence while dismissing the findings without refutation, and seeking shelter behind the legally protective medical standard of care.
登录
查看更多内容
DOI：
10.1073/pnas.0501895102
发表时间：
2005-06-21
影响因子：
11.1
作者：
Löbrich, M;Rief, N;Uder, M
通讯作者：
Uder, M
影响因子：
9.3
作者：
Siegel, Jeffiy A.;Pennington, Charles W.;Sacks, Bill
通讯作者：
Sacks, Bill
DOI：
10.1007/s13752-016-0244-4
发表时间：
2016
期刊：
Biological theory
影响因子：
--
作者：
Sacks B;Meyerson G;Siegel JA
通讯作者：
Siegel JA
影响因子：
24.7
作者：
Leuraud, Klervi;Richardson, David B.;Kesminiene, Ausrele
通讯作者：
Kesminiene, Ausrele
影响因子：
2.8
作者：
Siegel, Jeffry A.;Welsh, James S.
通讯作者：
Welsh, James S.