Linear Hypothesis and Radiation Carcinogenesis. Arguments for and Against Its Use in Estimating Risks at Low Doses

摘要

An assumption central to most estimations of the carcinogenic potential of low levels of ionising radiation is that the risk always increases in direct proportion to the dose received. This assumption (the linear hypothesis) has been both strongly defended and attacked on several counts. It appears unlikely that conclusive, direct evidence on the validity of the hypothesis will be forthcoming. We review the major indirect arguments used in the debate. All of them are subject to objections that can seriously weaken their case. In the present situation, retention of the linear hypothesis as the basis of extrapolations from high to low dose levels can lead to excessive fears, over-regulation and unnecessarily expensive protection measures. To offset these possibilities, support is given to suggestions urging a cut-off dose, probably some fraction of natural background, below which risks can be deemed acceptable. (Atomindex citation 14:787460)