top of page

Ongoing campaign against the LNT model


Since the time of adoption of the LNT model in the 1950s, evidence has accumulated against the model, and many scientists have been writing against the LNT model and supporting radiation hormesis.

Large Number of Articles Challenging LDR Concerns Have Been Published by Many Authors in the past, with no Effective Rebuttal

1.CALABRESE, E. J. & BALDWIN, L. A. 2000. Radiation hormesis: its historical foundations as a biological hypothesis. Hum Exp Toxicol, 19, 41-75.

2.CAMERON, J. R. 2002. Radiation increased the longevity of British radiologists. Br J Radiol, 75, 637-9.

3.CHOI, N. C., TIMOTHY, A. R., KAUFMAN, S. D., CAREY, R. W. & AISENBERG, A. C. 1979. Low dose fractionated whole body irradiation in the treatment of advanced non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Cancer, 43, 1636-42.

4.COHEN, B. 2007. The Cancer Risk from Low-Level Radiation. In: TACK, D. & GEVENOIS, P. (eds.) Radiation Dose from Adult and Pediatric Multidetector Computed Tomography.Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

5.CUTTLER, J. M. & POLLYCOVE, M. 2003. Can Cancer Be Treated with Low Doses of Radiation? Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.

6.DOSS,M.2013. Linear No-Threshold Model vs. Radiation Hormesis, Dose Response. 11, 480–497.Available at:

7.FAROOQUE, A., MATHUR, R., VERMA, A., KAUL, V., BHATT, A. N., ADHIKARI, J. S., AFRIN, F., SINGH, S. & DWARAKANATH, B. S. 2011. Low-dose radiation therapy of cancer: role of immune enhancement. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther, 11, 791-802.

8.FEINENDEGEN, L. E. 2005. Evidence for beneficial low level radiation effects and radiation hormesis. Br J Radiol, 78, 3-7.

9.FEINENDEGEN, L. E., POLLYCOVE, M. & NEUMANN, R. D. 2013. Hormesis by Low Dose Radiation Effects: Low-Dose Cancer Risk Modeling Must Recognize Up-Regulation of Protection. In: BAUM, R. P. (ed.) Therapeutic Nuclear Medicine. Springer.

10.JAWOROWSKI, Z. 1997. Beneficial effects of radiation and regulatory policy. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med, 20, 125-38.

11.LIU, S. Z. 2007. Cancer control related to stimulation of immunity by low-dose radiation.Dose Response, 5, 39-47.

12.LUCKEY, T. D. 1980. Hormesis with ionizing radiation, Boca Raton, Fla., CRC Press.

13.LUCKEY, T. D. 1991. Radiation hormesis, Boca Raton, Fla., CRC Press.

14.LUCKEY, T. D. 2006. Radiation hormesis: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Dose Response,4, 169-90.

15.LUCKEY, T. D. 2008. Atomic bomb health benefits. Dose Response, 6, 369-82.

16.POLLYCOVE, M. 2007. Radiobiological Basis of Low-Dose Irradiation in Prevention and Therapy of Cancer. Dose-Response, 5, 26-38.

17.SAKAMOTO, K. 2004. Radiobiological basis for cancer therapy by total or half-body irradiation. Nonlinearity Biol Toxicol Med, 2, 293-316.

18.SANDERS, C. L. 2010. Radiation hormesis and the linear-no-threshold assumption,Heidelberg, Springer.

19.SCOTT, B. R. 2008. It's time for a new low-dose-radiation risk assessment paradigm--one that acknowledges hormesis. Dose Response, 6, 333-51.

20.TAKATORI, M., HATTORI, S. & YAGI, M. 2010. Clinical significance of low-dose radiation therapy: radiation hormesis. International Journal of Low Radiation, 7, 511-519.

21.TUBIANA, M., DIALLO, I., CHAVAUDRA, J., LEFKOPOULOS, D., BOURHIS, J., GIRINSKY, T., BRIDER, A., HAWKINS, M., HADDY, N., EL-FAYECH, C., ADJADJ, E., CLERO, E. & DE VATHAIRE, F. 2011. A new method of assessing the dose-carcinogenic effect relationship in patients exposed to ionizing radiation. A concise presentation of preliminary data. Health Phys, 100, 296-9.

22.TUBIANA, M., FEINENDEGEN, L. E., YANG, C. & KAMINSKI, J. M. 2009. The linear no-threshold relationship is inconsistent with radiation biologic and experimental data.Radiology, 251, 13-22.

23.VAISERMAN, A. M. 2010. Radiation hormesis: historical perspective and implications for low-dose cancer risk assessment. Dose Response, 8, 172-91.

However, the advisory bodies have ignored or dismissed such evidence in continuing their support for the model.


Some of the key figures (who have passed away) that have campaigned against the LNT model:

  • T D Luckey

  • Bernie Cohen

  • Zbigniew Jaworowski

  • James Muckerheide

  • John Cameron


The individual campaigns have proven to be ineffective because of the strong power of the advisory bodies over public opinions and government policies.


There have been many debates in Journals on the LNT model / Health effects of low-dose radiation


One interesting point to note. Whereas prior to 2012, the atomic bomb survivor data used to play a primary role in justifying low-dose radiation cancer risk, in the 2014 debate these data were not used to claim such risk.  The major change in the atomic bomb survivor data, that they do not support the LNT model any longer, is being recognized implicitly by the proponents of the LNT model.


Coalitions to overcome the LNT model problem

The tremendous harm caused by the LNT model, in particular the large casualty in Fukushima caused by the application of the LNT model, has led many concerned professionals to unite and organize the efforts against the LNT model, with the expectation that the joint efforts would be more effective in overcoming the enormous power of the advisory bodies.


Thus, groups such as:

were formed in 2013.


SARI activities include:

  • Discussions on:

    • Evidence for and against the LNT model 

    • Validity of the LNT model-based concerns

    • Articles in journals, news media, etc. raising fear of low-dose radiation

    • Publications on health effects of low-dose radiation

    • How to overcome the fear of low-dose radiation among the public

    • How to encourage a change in the radiation safety paradigm

  • Letters to Government Leaders, Advisory Bodies, Journal Editors.

  • Letters to the Editor in response to Journal articles

  • Comments to government agencies


SARI has attempted to influence various professional bodies and advisory bodies by writing Open Letters to them pointing out the reasons why the LNT model should be discarded and beneficial effects of low-dose radiation should be studied. 


Some examples of Open Letters by SARI


Professional bodies generally take the cue from advisory bodies, and would not change their policies until there are recommendations from international advisory bodies.


The Open Letters to advisory bodies did not result in a dialogue with the advisory bodies as mostly there was no response, and the few responses were form letters referring to their recommendations.


SARI has also attempted to influence regulatory agencies with comments and petitions:



Though the campaign to overcome the LNT model has not had much success so far, there are indeed some encouraging signs.


Next section:  Some encouraging signs

bottom of page