FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2474512344> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2474512344 endingPage "12" @default.
• W2474512344 startingPage "11" @default.
• W2474512344 abstract "Letter writers Jeffry Siegel, Charles Pennington, and Bill Sacks state that modern-day concepts of a linear dose response to ionizing radiation are based on fruit-fly data collected 70 years ago. Actually, fruit-fly data haven’t been important since William Russell’s Oak Ridge mice data became available in the 1960s. Today, linearity is based on fits to data for cancer incidence or mortality as a function of dose received by individuals in large exposed populations, such as the atomic-bomb survivors (125 000), the Techa River cohort in Russia (17 000), and radiation workers (300 000–600 000). A linear fit is taken as the conservative starting point for dose response, with quadratic terms turning out to be modest.11. National Research Council, Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation, Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII Phase 2, National Academies Press (2006). Widespread consensus exists that linearity holds at least down to 100 millisieverts, and there is a broad but not unanimous view that it is likely to continue to apply at lower doses—that risk will continue to decrease in proportion to dose.Arguments about repair and evolutionary protection are not sufficient. On occasion, repair systems can fail—for example, mismatched repairs of breaks in double-stranded DNA. Protective systems, such as tumor-suppression genes, can be damaged or turned off by ionizing radiation. Furthermore, ionizing radiation is a promoter, not just an initiator; it can affect cells already genetically damaged by other causes.Siegel and coauthors cite a claim Siegel makes22. J. A. Siegel, J. S. Welsh, Technol. Cancer Res. Treat. 15, 249 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1177/1533034615578011 that a graph of atomic-bomb-survivor data for cancer incidence suggests a threshold in the epidemiologic noise region of the dose response (below 100 mSv) where uncertainty of data points is great, but the comparable graph for mortality,33. K. Ozasa et al., Radiat. Res. 177, 229 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1667/RR2629.1 suggesting a supralinear response, is not shown. They also cite a 58-page review by the French Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Medicine,44. A. Aurengo et al., Dose-Effect Relationships and Estimation of the Carcinogenic Effects of Low Doses of Ionizing Radiation, French Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Medicine (2005). but they do not mention the more comprehensive 500-page BEIR VII report by 17 experts and 16 reviewers assembled by the US National Academies.11. National Research Council, Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation, Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII Phase 2, National Academies Press (2006). That review concluded “that the risk would continue in a linear fashion at lower doses without a threshold and that the smallest dose has the potential to cause a small increase in risk to humans” (page 7).In the decade since the French academies review, a wave of studies of protracted human exposure, as discussed in a 2009 meta-analysis,55. P. Jacob et al., Occup. Environ. Med. 66, 789 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.2008.043265 has suggested that protracted exposures have dose responses similar to or greater than single exposures. It is hard to justify a threshold if a dose accumulated from a large number of small exposures has an impact the same as or larger than the same dose delivered in a single exposure.The public-health and risk-assessment communities should ignore partisan views and assume the linear no-threshold (LNT) dose-response relationship at low doses, with uncertainty bands above and below the LNT that cover alternative hypotheses. Disputes over radiation dose-response models distract attention from the fact that the individual risks at the low-dose levels that are being debated are small, whether assessed using a linear, supralinear, or threshold model. However, for situations in which hundreds of thousands of people are irradiated, risk is spread over a huge population in a kind of reverse lottery. To estimate such social risks is considered inappropriate by some, but it is necessary for cost–benefit calculations in retrofit analysis of nuclear power plants or for seeing whether medical diagnostic procedures carry a net population benefit. Accounting for uncertainty should make such calculations more palatable. The concern that the public can’t handle bad news about risk is misplaced. What destroys public trust is the idea of a cover-up, which is implied by an unwillingness to calculate possible risks.REFERENCESSection:ChooseTop of pageREFERENCES <<CITING ARTICLES1. National Research Council, Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation, Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII Phase 2, National Academies Press (2006). Google Scholar2. J. A. Siegel, J. S. Welsh, Technol. Cancer Res. Treat. 15, 249 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1177/1533034615578011, Google ScholarCrossref, ISI3. K. Ozasa et al., Radiat. Res. 177, 229 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1667/RR2629.1, Google ScholarCrossref, ISI4. A. Aurengo et al., Dose-Effect Relationships and Estimation of the Carcinogenic Effects of Low Doses of Ionizing Radiation, French Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Medicine (2005). Google Scholar5. P. Jacob et al., Occup. Environ. Med. 66, 789 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.2008.043265, Google ScholarCrossref, ISI© 2016 American Institute of Physics." @default.
• W2474512344 created "2016-07-22" @default.
• W2474512344 creator A5019766255 @default.
• W2474512344 date "2016-07-01" @default.
• W2474512344 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W2474512344 title "The linear no-threshold theory: Readers weigh in" @default.
• W2474512344 cites W2037760119 @default.
• W2474512344 cites W2100018419 @default.
• W2474512344 cites W2140863495 @default.
• W2474512344 doi "https://doi.org/10.1063/pt.3.3213" @default.
• W2474512344 hasPublicationYear "2016" @default.
• W2474512344 type Work @default.
• W2474512344 sameAs 2474512344 @default.
• W2474512344 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W2474512344 countsByYear W24745123442017 @default.
• W2474512344 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2474512344 hasAuthorship W2474512344A5019766255 @default.
• W2474512344 hasBestOaLocation W24745123441 @default.
• W2474512344 hasConcept C111337013 @default.
• W2474512344 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W2474512344 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2474512344 hasConcept C149923435 @default.
• W2474512344 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2474512344 hasConcept C18231593 @default.
• W2474512344 hasConcept C185544564 @default.
• W2474512344 hasConcept C2779925993 @default.
• W2474512344 hasConcept C2989005 @default.
• W2474512344 hasConcept C33070731 @default.
• W2474512344 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2474512344 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2474512344 hasConceptScore W2474512344C111337013 @default.
• W2474512344 hasConceptScore W2474512344C121332964 @default.
• W2474512344 hasConceptScore W2474512344C144024400 @default.
• W2474512344 hasConceptScore W2474512344C149923435 @default.
• W2474512344 hasConceptScore W2474512344C17744445 @default.
• W2474512344 hasConceptScore W2474512344C18231593 @default.
• W2474512344 hasConceptScore W2474512344C185544564 @default.
• W2474512344 hasConceptScore W2474512344C2779925993 @default.
• W2474512344 hasConceptScore W2474512344C2989005 @default.
• W2474512344 hasConceptScore W2474512344C33070731 @default.
• W2474512344 hasConceptScore W2474512344C71924100 @default.
• W2474512344 hasConceptScore W2474512344C86803240 @default.
• W2474512344 hasIssue "7" @default.
• W2474512344 hasLocation W24745123441 @default.
• W2474512344 hasOpenAccess W2474512344 @default.
• W2474512344 hasPrimaryLocation W24745123441 @default.
• W2474512344 hasRelatedWork W1975259723 @default.
• W2474512344 hasRelatedWork W2118604851 @default.
• W2474512344 hasRelatedWork W2322460108 @default.
• W2474512344 hasRelatedWork W2552863537 @default.
• W2474512344 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2474512344 hasRelatedWork W2955664816 @default.
• W2474512344 hasRelatedWork W2963273911 @default.
• W2474512344 hasRelatedWork W3005495058 @default.
• W2474512344 hasRelatedWork W3029378593 @default.
• W2474512344 hasRelatedWork W2470420428 @default.
• W2474512344 hasVolume "69" @default.
• W2474512344 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2474512344 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2474512344 magId "2474512344" @default.
• W2474512344 workType "article" @default.