Molecular Biology, Epidemiology, and the Demise of the Linear No-Threshold Hypothesis

Abstract

The LNT hypothesis is the basic principle of all radiation protection policy. This theory assumes that all radiation doses, even those close to zero, are harmful in linear proportion to dose and that all doses produce a proportionate number of harmful mutations, i.e., mis or unrepaired DNA alterations. The LNT theory is used to generate collective dose calculations of the number of deaths produced by minute fractions of background radiation.

Current molecular biology reveals an enormous amount of relentless metabolic oxidative free radical damage with mis/unrepaired alterations of DNA. The corresponding mis/unrepaired DNA alterations produced by background radiation are negligible. These DNA alterations are effectively disposed of by the DNA damage-control biosystem of antioxidant prevention, enzymatic repair, and mutation removal.

High-dose radiation injures this biosystem with associated risk increments of mortality and cancer mortality. Low-dose radiation stimulates DNA damage-control with associated epidemiologic observations of risk decrements of mortality and cancer mortality, i.e., hormesis.

How can this 40-year-old LNT paradigm continue to be the operative principle of radiation protection policy despite the contradictory scientific observations of both molecular biology and epidemiology and the lack of any supportive human data? The increase of public fear through repeated statements of deaths caused by deadly radiation has engendered an enormous increase in expenditures now required to protect the public from all applications of nuclear technology: medical, research, energy, disposal, and cleanup remediation. Government funds are allocated to appointed committees, the research they support, and to multiple environmental and regulatory agencies. The LNT theory and multibillion dollar radiation activities have now become a symbiotic self sustaining powerful political and economic force.