Linear No-threshold (LNT) vs. Hormesis: Paradigms, Assumptions, and Mathematical Conventions that Bias the Conclusions in Favor of LNT and Against hormesis

Abstract

The linear no-threshold assumption misunderstands the complex multiphasic biological response to ionizing radiation, focusing solely on the initial physical radiogenic damage. This misunderstanding is enabled (masked and amplified) by a number of mathematical approaches that bias results in favor of linear no-threshold and away from alternatives, like hormesis, that take biological response into account. Here we explore a number of these mathematical approaches in some detail, including the use of frequentist rather than Bayesian statistical rules and methods. We argue that a Bayesian approach cuts through an epidemiological stalemate, in part because it enables a better understanding of the concept of plausibility, which in turn properly rests on empirical evidence of actual physical and biological mechanisms. Misuse of the concept of plausibility has sometimes been used to justify the mathematically simple and convenient linearity-without-a-threshold assumption, in particular with the everywhere-positive slope that is central to linear no-threshold and its variants. Linear no-threshold’s dominance in the area of dose regulation further rests on a misapplication of the precautionary principle, which only holds when a putative caution has positive effects that outweigh the negative unintended consequences. In this case the negative consequences far outweigh the presumed hazards.

Kurmäßige Anwendung von Radon bei muskuloskelettalen Erkrankungen

“…Es gibt gute Gründe zur Annahme, dass das LNT-Modell mit einem systematischen Fehler behaftet ist und das von den Radonbalneologen schon lange propagierte sogenannte Hormesis-Modell die tatsächlichen Verhältnisse wesentlich besser abbildet [24].…”

Modeling of Molecular Mechanisms of Radiation Adaptive Response Formation

“…Наукова коректність LNT моделі протягом останніх десятиліть була приводом для численних дискусій [55][56][57][58][59] і останнім часом набула нового інтересу. Частина дослідників пояснює існування LNT моделі концепцією про те, що низькі рівні радіації збільшують мутації, і, наче б то, збільшення кількості мутацій веде до пропорційного збільшення числа ракових захворювань.…”

Low Dose and Non-Targeted Radiation Effects in Environmental Protection and Medicine—A New Model Focusing on Electromagnetic Signaling

“…The issue of uncertainty is discussed in Mothersill and Seymour 2022 [ 20 ]. These ideas are fiercely unpopular among those who wish to promote a threshold model of radiation protection because any possibility that radiation might cause any adverse low dose effects, means that a precautionary approach is likely to be retained when setting dose limits [ 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 ]. The reality is that low dose hypersensitivity exists [ 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 ] and non-targeted effects (discussed in the next section), can result in both “good” and “bad” effects [ 2 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 ].…”