Abstract
On June 23, 2015, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a formal notice in the Federal Register that it would consider whether "it should amend its 'Standards for Protection Against Radiation' regulations from the linear non-threshold (LNT) model of radiation protection to the hormesis model." The present commentary supports this recommendation based on the (1) flawed and deceptive history of the adoption of LNT by the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in 1956; (2) the documented capacity of hormesis to make more accurate predictions of biological responses for diverse biological end points in the low-dose zone; (3) the occurrence of extensive hormetic data from the peer-reviewed biomedical literature that revealed hormetic responses are highly generalizable, being independent of biological model, end point measured, inducing agent, level of biological organization, and mechanism; and (4) the integration of hormesis and LNT models via a model uncertainty methodology that optimizes public health responses at 10(-4). Thus, both LNT and hormesis can be integratively used for risk assessment purposes, and this integration defines the so-called "regulatory sweet spot."