4.7 Review

On the origins of the linear no-threshold (LNT) dogma by means of untruths, artful dodges and blind faith

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH
Volume 142, Issue -, Pages 432-442

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2015.07.011

Keywords

Risk assessment; Dose-response; Linear dose response; Cancer; Mutation; LNT; Ionizing radiation

Funding

  1. United States Air Force
  2. ExxonMobil Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper is an historical assessment of how prominent radiation geneticists in the United States during the 1940s and 1950s successfully worked to build acceptance for the linear no-threshold (LNT) dose response model in risk assessment, significantly impacting environmental, occupational and medical exposure standards and practices to the present time. Detailed documentation indicates that actions taken in support of this policy revolution were ideologically driven and deliberately and deceptively misleading; that scientific records were artfully misrepresented; and that people and organizations in positions of public trust failed to perform the duties expected of them. Key activities are described and the roles of specific individuals are documented. These actions culminated in a 1956 report by a Genetics Panel of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) on Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation (BEAR). In this report the Genetics Panel recommended that a linear dose response model be adopted for the purpose of risk assessment, a recommendation that was rapidly and widely promulgated. The paper argues that current international cancer risk assessment policies are based on fraudulent actions of the U.S. NAS BEAR I Committee, Genetics Panel and on the uncritical, unquestioning and blind-faith acceptance by regulatory agencies and the scientific community. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available