RSH_small.gif (2703 bytes)

RSH > Author Index > Mitchel


Radiation, Science, and Health

Author Index to Papers and Documents

Dr. R. E. J. Mitchel
[bio]

Science Papers
Technical Articles
Conference Papers
Presentations

Correspondence

Science Papers
Radiation Protection in the World of Modern Radiobiology: Time for A New Approach, 2000, by R. E. J. Mitchel, Ph.D. and D. R Boreham, Ph.D., Radiation Biology and Health Physics Branch, AECL, Chalk River Laboratories, Chalk River, ON Canada,   at IRPA-10, May 2000, Hiroshima, JAPAN.
      "None of the predictions of the LNT hypothesis, as it applies to cancer risk from low or chronic doses of low LET radiation, are supported by the data in human or rodent cells. The limited data in animals also indicates that the observed responses are not consistent with the hypothesis. The protective responses observed in mammalian cells and in animals are consistent with those seen in lower eukaryotes, including yeast, indicating that they are evolutionarily conserved and lending credence to the idea that such responses are the normal and expected consequences of low dose exposures.
     " Scientific advancement depends upon the testing of hypotheses. When the data do not support the hypothesis being tested, that hypothesis must be rejected and replaced with a new testable hypothesis. Since, at low doses and dose rates, there are no data in the literature that support the LNT hypothesis for cancer risk, and considerable evidence contradicting it, including the evidence given above, then this hypothesis must therefore be rejected.
       "It is time for a new risk based approach to radiation protection, firmly linked to the actual biological responses."

Radiation Biology of Low Doses, 2001, by R. E. J. Mitchel, Ph.D., Radiation Biology and Health Physics Laboratories, Chalk River ON, Presented in Munich, November 29, 2001. mitchelr@aecl.ca
"At low doses and dose rates of low LET radiation, there are no data in the literature that support the LNT as a general hypothesis for cancer risk, and considerable evidence contradicting it, including the evidence given here, then this hypothesis must be rejected. Some of the basic principals used in radiation protection, such as ALARA, as low as reasonably achievable, and the precautionary principle are not consistent with the biology of low doses. It is time for a new risk based approach to radiation protection, firmly linked to the actual biological responses.

Technical Articles
 

Conference Papers

Presentations
 

Correspondence


RSH > Author Index > Mitchel

For more information please contact the RSH President Jim Muckerheide

For website problems please contact the Webmaster
 

Google Scholar

06/14/06