PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 9547495

The linear no-threshold response: why not linearity?

Abstract

ICRP and NCRP recommend risk coefficients for use in radiation protection that are based on a linear quadratic response in the low dose region. This is a derivative of the linear no threshold (LNT) hypothesis with allowance for low dose and dose rate effects. The risk coefficients are derived from the Lifespan Study of the A-bomb survivors but are supported by many other epidemiological studies some, such as occupational, at low doses. Nevertheless, the risk coefficients are uncertain and range (90% confidence intervals) over a factor of 2-3 above and below the nominal values. Various possible dose responses in the low dose region are considered including those that may result from adaptive responses. Laboratory studies show linearity in some systems to doses as low as 2.5 mGy. Epidemiological studies include several with significant excess risks at 100 mGy or less with at least one at 10 mGy. The linear quadratic response seems, therefore, the most likely response in the very low dose region. Adopting the linear quadratic response in the low dose region does not prevent common sense judgements about dismissing small radiation risks. NCRP defined first a negligible individual risk (1987) and then an individual dose (1993) to encourage common sense judgements in the low dose region. More consideration might be given to dismissing minor risks in common sense applications in radiation protection.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

W K Sinclair. 1998. The linear no-threshold response: why not linearity?. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.598209

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Multiple correlations and Bonferroni's correction.

Correlation coefficients between biological measurements and clinical scales are often calculated in psychiatric research. Calculating numerous correlations increases the risk of a type I error, i.e., to erroneously conclude the presence of a significant correlation. To avoid this, the level of statistical significance of correlation coefficients should be adjusted. Threshold levels of significance for correlation coefficients were adjusted for multiple comparisons in a set of k correlation coefficients (k = 1, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100) by Bonferroni's correction. Significant correlation coefficients were then calculated according to sample size. The change in the threshold values of significance is larger when the number of correlations goes from 1 to 5 than when it goes from 50 to 100. A correlation coefficient, statistically significant at 5% when calculated alone, can be under the threshold level of significance when calculated even among a few other coefficients. Focusing on the most relevant variables or the use of multivariate statistics is advocated.

Data Interpretation, Statistical