Response to, “On the origins of the linear no-threshold (LNT) dogma by means of untruths, artful dodges and blind faith.”

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Jan Beyea ^{jbeyea@cipi.com" class="auth_mail" title="E-mail the corresponding author}
• 刊名：Environmental Research
• 出版年：2016
• 出版时间：July 2016
• 年：2016
• 卷：148
• 期：Complete
• 页码：527-534
• 全文大小：333 K

文摘

It is not true that successive groups of researchers from academia and research institutions—scientists who served on panels of the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS)—were duped into supporting a linear no-threshold model (LNT) by the opinions expressed in the genetic panel section of the 1956 “BEAR I” report. Successor reports had their own views of the LNT model, relying on mouse and human data, not fruit fly data. Nor was the 1956 report biased and corrupted, as has been charged in an article by Edward J. Calabrese in this journal. With or without BEAR I, the LNT model would likely have been accepted in the US for radiation protection purposes in the 1950's.