Abstract
Current justification by linear no-threshold (LNT) cancer risk model advocates for its use in low-dose radiation risk assessment is now mainly based on results from flawed and unreliable epidemiologic studies that manufacture small risk increases (ie, phantom risks). Four such studies of nuclear workers, essentially carried out by the same group of epidemiologists, are critiqued in this article. Three of the studies that forcibly applied the LNT model (inappropriate null hypothesis) to cancer mortality data and implicated increased mortality risk from any radiation exposure, no matter how small the dose, are demonstrated to manufacture risk increases for doses up to 100 mSv (or 100 mGy). In a study where risk reduction (hormetic effect/adaptive response) was implicated for nuclear workers, it was assumed by the researchers to relate to a "strong healthy worker effect" with no consideration of the possibility that low radiation doses may help prevent cancer mortality (which is consistent with findings from basic radiobiological research). It was found with basic research that while large radiation doses suppress our multiple natural defenses (barriers) against cancer, these barriers are enhanced by low radiation doses, thereby decreasing cancer risk, essentially rendering the LNT model to be inconsistent with the data.