Validity of the linear no-threshold theory of radiation carcinogenesis at low doses

A great deal is known about the cancer risk of high radiation doses from studies of Japanese A-bomb survivors, patients exposed for medical therapy, occupational exposures, etc. But the vast majority of important applications deal with much lower doses, usually accumulated at much lower dose rates, referred to as 'low-level radiation' (LLR). Conventionally, the cancer risk from LLR has been estimated by the use of linear no-threshold theory (LNT). For example, it is assumed that the cancer risk from 0.001 Sr (100 mrem) of dose is 0.001 times the risk from 1 Sv (100 rem). In recent years, the former risk estimates have often been reduced by a 'dose and dose rate reduction factor', which is taken to be a factor of 2. But otherwise, the LNT is frequently used for doses as low as one hundred-thousandth of those for which there is direct evidence of cancer induction by radiation. It is the origin of the commonly used expression 'no level of radiation is safe' and the consequent public fear of LLR. The importance of this use of the LNT can not be exaggerated and is used in many applications in the nuclear industry. The LNT paradigm has also been carried over to chemical carcinogens, leading to severe restrictions on use of cleaning fluids, organic chemicals, pesticides, etc. If the LNT were abandoned for radiation, it would probably also be abandoned for chemical carcinogens. In view of these facts, it is important to consider the validity of the LNT. That is the purpose of this paper.