Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Current misinterpretations of the linear no-threshold hypothesis

V P Bond1, L Wielopolski, G Shani

  • 1Medical Department, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973, USA.

Health Physics
|June 1, 1996
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Dynamics of hemopoietic proliferation in man and mice studied by H3-thymidine incorporation into DNA.

Progress in nuclear energy. Series 6 Biological sciences·2014
Same author

Determination of ruthenium on DNA by XRF.

Biological trace element research·2013
Same author

Description of an XRF system for multielemental analysis.

Biological trace element research·2013
Same author

Nuclear spectroscopy for in situ soil elemental analysis: Monte Carlo simulations.

Applied radiation and isotopes : including data, instrumentation and methods for use in agriculture, industry and medicine·2012
Same author

Pharmacologic properties of p-carbamidophenylarsenous oxide.

Federation proceedings·2010
Same author

Pathologic study of natural amebic infection in macaques.

The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene·2010
Same journal

Assessment of Health Risks of Adults and Children Due to Consumption of Uranium in Groundwater from Chengalpattu District, Tamil Nadu, India.

Health physics·2026
Same journal

Radiation Protection Abstracts, Volume 46, Number 1.

Health physics·2026
Same journal

Specialized Radiological Assets for Navigable Two-dimensional and Three-dimensional Virtual and Augmented Reality.

Health physics·2026
Same journal

DoseBusters: A Fully Immersive Virtual Reality Game for Radiation Protection and Detection.

Health physics·2026
Same journal

Radioactivity in Bottled Drinking Water from Greater Dhaka City and Concomitant Ingestion Doses to Consumers.

Health physics·2026
Same journal

Assessment of Radiation Dose and Protection Practices in Neonatal Radiography in NICUs.

Health physics·2026
See all related articles

The linear no-threshold hypothesis is flawed; only large radiation energy amounts pose cancer risks. Distinguishing imparted energy (joules) from absorbed dose (Gy) reveals this, suggesting a minimum energy threshold for radiation-induced cancers.

Area of Science:

  • Radiation biology
  • Radiobiology
  • Radiation oncology

Background:

  • The linear no-threshold hypothesis (LNTH) posits that any radiation exposure, however small, increases cancer risk.
  • This hypothesis is foundational to current radiation protection standards and practices.
  • The LNTH relies on absorbed dose (energy concentration) rather than total imparted energy.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To challenge the LNTH by demonstrating that significant radiation-induced effects require substantial imparted energy.
  • To differentiate between absorbed dose and total imparted energy in assessing radiation risk.
  • To propose a revision of radiation protection principles based on energy amount rather than concentration.

Main Methods:

  • Analysis of radiation-induced quantal responses (e.g., mutations, cell death) in cellular systems.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Distinguishing between imparted energy (epsilon, in joules) and absorbed dose (epsilon/m, in Gy).
  • Evaluating statistical significance by plotting responses against absolute imparted energy versus absorbed dose concentration.

    • Main Results:

    • Statistical significance at low absorbed doses can be artificially achieved by increasing cell numbers, not by increasing actual energy.
    • When plotting responses against absolute imparted energy, low-dose significance points shift to higher energy levels.
    • This indicates a fallacy in LNTH's reliance on concentration-response curves.

    Conclusions:

    • The LNTH should be abandoned as the basis for radiation protection.
    • A minimum average energy threshold is likely required for radiation-attributable cancer.
    • Radiation risk assessment should consider the total amount of imparted energy, not just its concentration.