Discover Community Create You

Loading publication...

Noodle always counts identifier-free feature events for service operation. With your permission, Google Analytics can also estimate audience and engagement. Search text, publication identifiers, cookies, IP addresses and browser fingerprints are never included in Noodle's first-party event counters.

Privacy details

Article

The threshold vs LNT showdown: Dose rate findings exposed flaws in the LNT model part 2. How a mistake led BEIR I to adopt LNT.

Environmental research - 1 Apr 2017

Calabrese Edward J

Abstract excerpt

This paper reveals that nearly 25 years after the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) I Committee (1972) used Russell's dose-rate data to support the adoption of the linear-no-threshold (LNT) dose response model for genetic and cancer risk assessment, Russell acknowledged a significant under-reporting of the mutation rate of the historical control group. This error,...

Read the complete abstract on PubMed

Topics

Share this publication in a Topic to start or enrich a Post.

Share to Dose-Response Relationship, Radiation
Share to History, 20th Century

Methodology Data sources Editorial policy Privacy About Contact Helena Bioinformatics

Share to History, 21st Century

Share to Neoplasms, Radiation-Induced

Share to Nonlinear Dynamics

Share to Radiation Dosage

Share to Radiation, Ionizing

Share to Risk Assessment

Source

Identifiers

PMID: 27974149
DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2016.11.024

Provenance

PubMed metadata and Literature Corpus relationships. Corpus snapshot updated 4 Sept 2026.

Related research

Semantic proximity does not establish scientific evidence.

Research trail→

Click a neighbor to travelStep 1 · 12 closest

The threshold vs LNT showdown: Dose rate findings exposed flaws in the LNT model part 2. How a mistake led BEIR I to adopt LNT.PMID 27974149Read ↗

The threshold vs LNT showdown: Dose rate findings exposed flaws in the LNT model part 1. The Russell-Muller debate.Semantic proximity Read ↗

From Muller to mechanism: How LNT became the default model for cancer risk assessment.Semantic proximity Read ↗

Key historical study findings questioned in debate over threshold versus linear non-threshold for cancer risk assessment.Semantic proximity Read ↗

Dose response and risk assessment: Evolutionary foundations.Semantic proximity Read ↗

Flaws in the LNT single-hit model for cancer risk: An historical assessment.Semantic proximity Read ↗

Thresholds for radiation induced mutation? The Muller-Evans debate: A turning point for cancer risk assessment.Semantic proximity Read ↗

The road to linearity: why linearity at low doses became the basis for carcinogen risk assessment.Semantic proximity Read ↗

Are We Approaching the End of the Linear No-Threshold Era?Semantic proximity Read ↗

The LNT model for cancer induction is not supported by radiobiological dataSemantic proximity Read ↗

Lessons to be learned from a contentious challenge to mainstream radiobiological science (the linear no-threshold theory of genetic mutations).Semantic proximity Read ↗

LNT and cancer risk assessment: Its flawed foundations part 2: How unsound LNT science became accepted.Semantic proximity Read ↗

Hermann J. Muller's research swan song: His long-term radiation dose-rate mutation investigations yielded no research publications, leaving questions of scientific misconduct.Semantic proximity Read ↗

⌁Select a neighboring publication to make it the new centre.