Ionizing radiation protection and the linear No-threshold controversy: Extent of support or counter to the prevailing paradigm

This study has developed a relationship that categorized radiation protection and allows for a proper, clear, and concise review of the different classifications in terms of principles of protection, dose criteria, categories, fundamental tools, exposure situations, applications and control measures. With the groundwork laid, advances of the linear no-threshold (LNT) model which has attracted attention in the field of radiobiology and epidemiology were examined in detail. Various plausible dose-response relationship scenarios were x-rayed under lowdose extrapolation. Intensive review of factors opposing the LNT model involving radiophobia (including misdiagnosis, alternative surgery/imaging, suppression of ionizing radiation (IR) research); radiobiology (including DNA damage repair, apoptosis/necrosis, senescence protection) and cost issues (including-high operating cost of LNT, incorrect prioritization, exaggeration of LNT impact, risk-to-benefit analysis) were performed. On the other hand, factors supporting the use of LNT were equally examined, they include regulatory bodies' endorsement, insufficient statistical significance, partial DNA repair, variability of irradiated bodies, different latency periods for cancer, dynamic nature of threshold and conflicting interests. After considering the gaps in the scientific investigations that either support or counter the scientific paradigm on the use of LNT model, further research and advocacy is recommended that will ultimately lead to the acceptance of an alternative paradigm by the international regulators.

Automated summary

This study develops a relationship for categorizing radiation protection and examines the advances and factors supporting or countering the use of the linear no-threshold (LNT) model. The study recommends further research and advocacy to promote the acceptance of an alternative paradigm by international regulators.