Editing Radiation hormesis (section)

==Statements by leading nuclear bodies==

Radiation hormesis has not been accepted by either the [[United States National Research Council]],<ref name=BEIR_VII/> or the [[National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP)]].<ref>[http://www.ncrppublications.org/index.cfm?fm=Product.AddToCart&pid=6714063164 NCRP Report No. 136 – Evaluation of the Linear-Nonthreshold Dose-Response Model for Ionizing Radiation]</ref> In May 2018, the NCRP published the report of an interdisciplinary group of radiation experts who critically reviewed 29 high-quality epidemiologic studies of populations exposed to radiation in the low dose and low dose-rate range, mostly published within the last 10 years.<ref>{{citation | publisher=National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements|year=2018| url=https://ncrponline.org/wp-content/themes/ncrp/Pub_announcements/Commentary_No27_overview.pdf | title=NCRP Commentary No. 27 [Overview]: Implications of Recent Epidemiologic Studies for the Linear-Nonthreshold Model and Radiation Protection}}</ref> The group of experts concluded:

<blockquote> The recent epidemiologic studies support the continued use of the LNT model for radiation protection. This is in accord with judgments by other national and international scientific committees, based on somewhat older data, that no alternative dose-response relationship appears more pragmatic or prudent for radiation protection purposes than the LNT model.</blockquote>

In addition, the [[United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation]] (UNSCEAR) wrote in its 2000 report:<ref>UNSCEAR 2000 Report Vol. II: Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation: [http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/annexg.pdf Annex G: Biological effects at low radiation doses]. p. 160, para. 541.</ref>
<blockquote> Until the [...] uncertainties on low-dose response are resolved, the Committee believes that an increase in the risk of tumour induction proportionate to the radiation dose is consistent with developing knowledge and that it remains, accordingly, the most scientifically defensible approximation of low-dose response. However, a strictly linear dose response should not be expected in all circumstances.</blockquote>

This is a reference to the fact that very low doses of radiation have only marginal impacts on individual health outcomes. It is therefore difficult to detect the 'signal' of decreased or increased morbidity and mortality due to low-level radiation exposure in the 'noise' of other effects. The notion of radiation hormesis has been rejected by the National Research Council's (part of the National Academy of Sciences) 16-year-long study on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation. "The scientific research base shows that there is no threshold of exposure below which low levels of ionizing radiation can be demonstrated to be harmless or beneficial.  The health risks – particularly the development of solid cancers in organs – rise proportionally with exposure" says Richard R. Monson, associate dean for professional education and professor of epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston.<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11340 | title=Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation May Cause Harm | publisher=National Academy of Sciences | last=Vines | first=Vanee |author2=Petty, Megan  | date=2005-06-29 | access-date=2010-01-27}}</ref><ref name=BEIR_VII/>

{{blockquote|The possibility that low doses of radiation may have beneficial effects (a phenomenon often referred to as "hormesis") has been the subject of considerable debate. Evidence for hormetic effects was reviewed, with emphasis on material published since the 1990 BEIR V study on the health effects of exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation. Although examples of apparent stimulatory or protective effects can be found in cellular and animal biology, the preponderance of available experimental information does not support the contention that low levels of ionizing radiation have a beneficial effect. The mechanism of any such possible effect remains obscure. At this time, the assumption that any stimulatory hormetic effects from low doses of ionizing radiation will have a significant health benefit to humans that exceeds potential detrimental effects from radiation exposure at the same dose is unwarranted.}}