Latest Linear no-threshold model Stories
Each time a release of radioactivity occurs, questions arise and debates unfold on the health risks at low doses—and still, just over a year after the disaster at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Station, unanswered questions and unsettled debates remain.
The number of cancer survivors in the United States has tripled since 1971 and yet gains in survival have come at the price of second malignancies and cardiovascular disease.
Researchers with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), through a combination of time-lapse live imaging and mathematical modeling of a special line of human breast cells, have found evidence to suggest that for low dose levels of ionizing radiation, cancer risks may not be directly proportional to dose.
Contrary to common assumptions, the risk of cancer associated with radiation exposure in middle age may not be lower than the risk associated with exposure at younger ages.
It is well known that exposure to radiation has multiple harmful effects â€“ including causing cancer â€“ but until now, it has been unclear to what extent such exposure increases a person's risk of developing more than one cancer.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Exposure to everyday sources of radiation, mostly medical X-rays, raises the risk of cancer but not by much and there is no clear line between a harmless dose and a disease-causing dose, an expert panel reported on Wednesday.
The preponderance of scientific evidence shows that even very low doses of radiation pose a risk of cancer or other health problems and there is no threshold below which exposure can be viewed as harmless. The finding is critical because it addresses radiation amounts commonly used in medical treatment.
- To befool; deceive; balk; jilt.
- An illusion; a trick; a cheat.