Conclusion

Unrealistic laws and regulations are often violated, which contributes to disrespect
for law in general. Today's radiation safety norms are based on the LNT (linear nonthreshold) hypothesis: extrapolation of the dose-response relationships down to the
minimal doses, where such relationships are unproven and can be inverse due to the
hormesis i.e. beneficial effect of low-level exposure (Calabrese et al. 2013; Jolly and
Meyer 2009; Jaworowski 2010a; Vaiserman 2010). Inapplicability of the LNT to the
radiation doses comparable to those received from the natural background was
discussed in the Chapter 4. According to the existing norms, an equivalent effective
dose to individual members of the public should not exceed 1 mSv/year (Gonzlez
2004). The limits of effective dose for exposed workers are 100 mSv in a consecutive
five-year period, with a maximum effective dose of 50 mSv in any single year
(Council of the European Union 1996). For comparison, worldwide annual exposures
to natural radiation sources are generally expected to be in the range 1-10 mSv, 2.4
mSv being a current estimate of the global average (UNSCEAR 2000). In some
densely populated regions, the background radiation is considerably elevated without
any detected increase of health risks (UNSCEAR 1988; 2010; Ghiassi-nejad et al.
2002; Nair et al. 2009; Tubiana et al. 2009). In the Chapters 2 and 4 were discussed
some publications on the Chernobyl accident because of inadequate use of the term
"long-term low-dose exposure to ionizing radiation", which was sometimes, in fact,
only a slight elevation of the radiation background.
Radiation-induced cancer is the most significant stochastic effect of ionizing
radiation. The non-stochastic (deterministic) complications develop generally after
higher doses (UNSCEAR 1982; 1986). In different countries, there was classified
research on biological effects of radiation. Publications that are open to the public
sometimes contain poorly substantiated information (Jargin 2010), further
complicating the matter. It is difficult to determine with certainty a level of exposure,
below which there is no appreciable risk for humans (Griffiths 2004); it appears to be



around 200 mSv, the same figure is given also in (Gonzlez 2004; Heidenreich et al.
1997). For solid cancers, a significant dose-response relationship was found for
survivors of atomic explosions who had received doses less than 500 mSv but not for
the doses below 200 mSv; analogous data were reported also for leukemia
(UNSCEAR 2000; Little and Muirhead 1996; 1998). According to the UNSCEAR
(2010) Report, statistically significant elevations of cancer risk are observed in
epidemiological studies at the doses 100-200 mGy and above. There were also
reports on dose-response relationships for lower doses (Cardis et al. 2005; Pierce et
al. 1996), but validity of the results was questioned (UNSCEAR 2000; Mitchel 2009).
The "practical thresholds" (UNSCEAR 1972; Tubiana et al. 2009) can be in fact
higher because of the biases in epidemiological research on stochastic effects of low
doses (UNSCEAR 2006; Watanabe et al. 2008).
Epidemiological data fail to demonstrate detrimental effects of ionizing radiation at
absorbed doses below 100-200 mSv (Johansson 2003); and at single doses less than
100 mGy detrimental action of radiation disappears and is replaced by protective
effects (Mitchel 2009; Vaiserman 2010). An illustrative graph from (Mitchell 2009)
is presented in the Chapter 4. Benefit from a moderate exposure was demonstrated
epidemiologically among survivors of atomic explosions (Luckey 2008), although
these data might be not free from confounding factors such as better medical
surveillance of the survivors. Occupational exposures were repeatedly shown to be
associated with better health statistics (Jolly and Meyer 2009; Jaworowski 2010a),
which, however, can at least in part be explained by the healthy worker effect (Jolly
and Meyer 2009). Furthermore, cancer mortality was found to be lower in the high
elevation areas, where the natural radiation background is increased due to the higher
intensity of the cosmic rays (Jolly and Meyer 2009; Hart 2010). In small animals,
minimal doses associated with tumorigenesis are comparable with and sometimes
higher than those determined in humans by epidemiological studies, being in the
range of thousands or hundreds of mSv or mGy (UNSCEAR 1986; 2000; Mitchel
2009; Moskalev 1983; Kalistratova et al. 2009). The following, for example,
witnesses in favor of hormesis: in mice irradiated with the dose rate of 70-140



mGy/year, a significant increase in life expectancy was observed (Caratero et al.

1998). Doses up to 100 mGy reduced the incidence of some malignancies in cancerprone mice, while the dose of 100 mGy increased osteosarcoma risk (Mitchel et al.
2003). It was concluded that higher doses correspond to a transition zone between
reduced and increased risk, while the level of transition varies with the tumor type
(Mitchel et al. 2003).
Hormesis is assumed to work on the molecular (stimulating DNA repair) and cellular
levels; corresponding studies were reviewed in (Jolly and Meyer 2009; Jaworowski
2010a). Eukaryotic cells display an adaptive response that enhances their radioresistance after a low-dose priming irradiation (Marples and Skov 1996). So, repair of
DNA damage is enhanced in cells irradiated with a priming dose of 0.25 Gy followed
by 2 Gy compared with those irradiated only with 2 Gy (Le et al. 1998). Doses 50-75
mGy significantly enhanced proliferation of cultured cells via activation of a
signaling pathway (Liang et al. 2011). Furthermore, the bystander effect (a biological
response of a cell resulting from an event in a nearby cell) may play a role in
radiobiological responses to low dose irradiation. A review by Mitchel (2004)
concluded that below 100 mGy, bystander effect reduces rather than increases the
risk of radiation-induced damage and hence of genetic instability.
Certainly, knowledge on hormesis is incomplete. There have been, for example, no
clinical reports demonstrating that exposure to low doses has a beneficial effect on
human health during a long period of time. The most promising way to obtaining
reliable data on the dose-effect relationships for low radiation doses would be largescale animal experiments. Outstanding data, e.g. that "above doses of 50-100 mSv
(protracted exposure) or 10-50 mSv (acute exposure), direct epidemiological
evidence from human populations demonstrates that exposure to ionizing radiation
increases the risk of some cancers" (Brenner et al. 2003), or fourfold increase of
thyroid cancer incidence in children linked to an estimated thyroid dose of 90 mGy
(Ron et al. 1989), should be verified by experiments. It might be useful to find or
establish an international research center for the purpose of independent evaluation of



low dose actions on large animal populations to ensure reliable, statistically

significant results, independent from vested interests of any kind. Such an
independent international center is needed today also for evaluation of drugs, old and
new contaminants and other substances coming in contact with people, as well as
physical and other factors.
A concluding point is that radiation safety norms are exceedingly restrictive and
should be revised (Cuttler and Pollycove 2009) to become more realistic and
workable. Elevation of the limits must be accompanied by measures guaranteeing
their strict observance, including openness of dosimetric data. We found in the
literature no contraindications to e.g. fivefold elevation of the total equivalent
effective doses to individual members of the public (up to 5 mSv/year), which would
correspond approximately to one CT scan in 2 years (Mettler et al. 2008). Note that a
radiation dose delivered at a low dose rate produces fewer late effects than the same
dose delivered at a high dose rate (Mitchel 2009). Considering probable global spread
of nuclear energy production, elevation of the limits for professional exposures (e.g.
doubling) should also be considered, bearing in mind the main goal of the radiation
safety regulations: maximizing the ratio of benefits to risks for the population and
protecting people from the health risks (Elliott 2008).
Today, there are no alternatives to nuclear power: fossil fuels will become
increasingly expensive, contributing to excessive population growth in fuelproducing countries and poverty elsewhere. Natural sources of power generation like
wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric power and electricity from combustible
renewables and waste, will make a contribution, but their share in the global energy
balance is too small (IEA 2009). Chernobyl accident has indeed been exploited to
strangle worldwide development of atomic energy (Jaworowski 2010b), but it was
necessary for the time being: nuclear industry should have been prevented from
spreading to the densely populated areas, where conflicts or terrorism are not
excluded (Jargin 2012). The accident in Goinia, Brazil (1987) demonstrated what
can happen as a result of mere negligence, let alone nuclear terrorism or international



conflicts (Steinhausler 2005). Therefore, worldwide use of nuclear energy will be

possible only after a concentration of authority within a powerful international
executive, leaving aside all policy disputes and competitions. It is time to act now.

References
Brenner, D. J., Doll, R., Goodhead, D. T., et al. (2003). Cancer risks attributable to
low doses of ionizing radiation: assessing what we really know. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 100, 13761-13766.
Calabrese, E., Iavicoli, I., Calabrese, V. (2013). Hormesis: Its impact on medicine
and health. Human and Experimental Toxicology, 32, 120-152.
Caratero, A., Courtade, M., Bonnet, L., Planel, H., Caratero, C. (1998). Effect of a
continuous gamma irradiation at a very low dose on the life span of mice.
Gerontology, 44, 272-276.
Cardis, E., Vrijheid, M., Blettner, M., et al. (2005). Risk of cancer after low doses of
ionising radiation: retrospective cohort study in 15 countries. BMJ, 331, 77.
Council of the European Union (1996). Council Directive 96/29/EUROATOM of 13
May 1996.
Cuttler, J. M., Pollycove, M. (2009). Nuclear energy and health: and the benefits of
low-dose radiation hormesis. Dose Response, 7, 52-89.
Elliott, K. (2008). Hormesis, ethics, and public policy: an overview. Human and
Experimental Toxicology, 27, 659-662.
Ghiassi-nejad, M., Mortazavi, S. M., Cameron, J. R., et al. (2002). Very high
background radiation areas of Ramsar, Iran: preliminary biological studies. Health
Physics, 82, 87-93.
Gonzlez, A. J. (2004). Radiation safety standards and their application: international
policies and current issues. Health Physics, 87, 258-272.




Griffiths, C. (2004). Economic implications of hormesis in policy making. Human

and Experimental Toxicology, 23, 281-283.
Hart, J. (2010). Cancer mortality in six lowest versus six highest elevation
jurisdictions in the U.S. Dose Response, 9, 50-58.
Heidenreich, W. F., Paretzke, H. G., Jacob, P. (1997). No evidence for increased
tumor rates below 200 mSv in the atomic bomb survivors data. Radiation and
Environmental Biophysics, 36, 205-207.
IEA (2009).Energy balance for
world.http://www.iea.org/stats/balancetable.asp?COUNTRY_CODE=29
Jargin S. V. (2010). Overestimation of Chernobyl consequences: poorly substantiated
information published. Radiation and Environmental Biophysics, 49, 743-745.
Jargin S. V. (2012). Debate on the Chernobyl disaster: on the causes of Chernobyl
overestimation. International Journal of Health Services, 42, 29-34.
Jaworowski Z. (2010a). Radiation hormesis - a remedy for fear. Human and
Experimental Toxicology, 29, 263-270.
Jaworowski Z. (2010b). Observations on the Chernobyl Disaster and LNT. Dose
Response, 8, 148-171.
Johansson, L. (2003). Hormesis, an update of the present position. European Journal
of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, 30, 921-933.
Jolly, D., Meyer, J. (2009). A brief review of radiation hormesis. Australasian
Physical and Engineering Sciences in Medicine, 32, 180-187.
Kalistratova, V. S., Buldakov, L. A., Nisimov, P. G. (2009). Ionizing radiation dose
levels for incorporated radionuvlides and external exposure that do not cause the
development of blastomogenous effects. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety,
54(6), 24-30. (Russian)




Le, X. C., Xing, J. Z., Lee, J., Leadon, S. A., Weinfeld, M. (1998). Inducible repair of
thymine glycol detected by an ultrasensitive assay for DNA damage. Science, 280,
1066-1069.
Liang, X., So, Y. H., Cui, J., et al. (2011). The low-dose ionizing radiation stimulates
cell proliferation via activation of the MAPK/ERK pathway in rat cultured
mesenchymal stem cells. Journal of Radiation Research, 52, 380-386.
Little, M. P., Muirhead, C. R. (1996). Evidence for curvilinearity in the cancer
incidence dose-response in the Japanese atomic bomb survivors. International Journal
of Radiation Biology, 70, 83-94.
Little, M. P., Muirhead, C. R. (1998). Curvature in the cancer mortality dose response
in Japanese atomic bomb survivors: absence of evidence of threshold. International
Journal of Radiation Biology, 74, 471-480.
Luckey, T. D. (2008). Atomic bomb health benefits. Dose Response, 6, 369-382.
Marples, B., Skov, K. A. (1996). Small doses of high-linear energy transfer radiation
increase the radioresistance of Chinese hamster V79 cells to subsequent X irradiation.
Radiation Research, 146, 382-387.
Mettler, F. A. Jr., Huda, W., Yoshizumi, T. T., Mahesh, M. (2008). Effective doses in
radiology and diagnostic nuclear medicine: a catalog. Radiology, 248, 254-263.
Mitchel, R. E. (2004). The bystander effect: recent developments and implications for
understanding the dose response. Nonlinearity in Biology, Toxicology, Medicine, 2,
173-183.
Mitchel, R. E. (2009). The dose window for radiation-induced protective adaptive
responses. Dose Response, 8, 192-208.
Mitchel, R. E., Jackson, J. S., Morrison, D. P., Carlisle, S. M. (2003). Low doses of
radiation increase the latency of spontaneous lymphomas and spinal osteosarcomas in
cancer-prone, radiation-sensitive Trp53 heterozygous mice. Radiation Research, 159,
320-327.



Moskalev, Iu. I. (1983). Biological effects of low radiation doses. Moscow: Institute
of Biophysics. (Russian)
Nair, R. R., Rajan, B., Akiba, S., et al. (2009). Background radiation and cancer
incidence in Kerala, India-Karanagappally cohort study. Health Physics, 96, 55-66.
Pierce, D. A., Shimizu, Y., Preston, D. L., Vaeth M., Mabuchi, K. (1996). Studies of
the mortality of atomic bomb survivors. Report 12, Part I. Cancer: 1950-1990.
Radiation Research, 146, 1-27.
Ron, E., Modan, B., Preston, D., et al. (1989). Thyroid neoplasia following low-dose
radiation in childhood. Radiation Research, 120, 516-531.
Steinhausler, F. (2005). Chernobyl and Goinia lessons for responding to radiological
terrorism. Health Physics, 89, 566-574.
Tubiana, M., Feinendegen, L. E., Yang, C., Kaminski, J. M. (2009). The linear nothreshold relationship is inconsistent with radiation biologic and experimental data.
Radiology, 251, 13-22.
UNSCEAR (1972). Ionizing radiation: levels and effects. Annex G. Experimental
induction of neoplasms by radiation; Annex H: Radiation carcinogenesis in man.
New York: United Nations.
UNSCEAR (1982). Ionizing radiation: sources and biological effects. Annex J. Nonstochastic effects of irradiation. New York: United Nations.
UNSCEAR (1986). Genetic and somatic effects of ionizing radiation. Annex B.
Dose-response relationships for radiation-induced cancer. New York: United Nations.
UNSCEAR (1988). Sources, effects and risks of Ionizing radiation. Annex F.
Radiation carcinogenesis in man. New York: United Nations.
UNSCEAR (2000). Sources and effects of Ionizing radiation. Annex B. Exposures
from natural radiation sources. Annex G. Biological effects at low radiation doses.
New York: United Nations.