This dishonest representation was successful in giving the impression that the dose response is linear and that no thresholds exist.
The line of LNT starts from zero according to the assumption that the exposure dose was zero and that ERR was zero in the control cohort Fig. This default model has been used to analyze LSS, but it is misleading because most A-bomb survivors and the control cohort people must have been exposed to residual radiation, as discussed later.
The dose-response line should not start from zero. Bayesian analysis does not assume this false assumption and allows more appropriate estimates. When the lower right insert of Fig.
Bayesian analysis, which does not need this assumption, allows negative responses, i. Figure 4 shows that six responses are indeed hormetic red dots under the x-axis in lower right insert. Therefore, low-dose radiation can suppress cancer deaths. At the same time, hormesis indicates that thresholds for positive excess risk can be established between hormetic and carcinogenic doses.
Siegel et al. One point is especially worthy of mention. However, that finding was a misrepresentation by failing to present that the aberrations in proliferating cells were repaired in several hours to the background level or less. Stewart and Kneale [ 39 ] showed that deaths in — from all non-malignant diseases in LSS population were significantly lower in survivors exposed to low doses than in unexposed persons.
This U-shaped dose response relationship was refuted in comments by an LSS report [ 40 ], in which the mortality of A-bomb survivors was found to fit to the linear-threshold model the estimated threshold is 1. Mine et al. Although this beneficial effect was not found in female subjects, earlier studies [ 39 , 41 , 42 ] hint that A-bomb survivors exposed to low to intermediate doses live longer. Their results are reproduced in Fig. Excess relative mortality by radiation dose or distance from the hypocenter.
Figure 1 and Table 1 of an earlier report [ 13 ] are combined. Numerals above A—N denote the number of people examined. Y is the combined data of X and Z. As depicted in Fig. Excess relative mortality of early entrants, however, is lower than that of late entrants Fig.
The key to resolve this contradiction can be explained by radiation hormesis-related mechanisms e. Exposure doses of the B group must be in a hormetic dose range. Radiation doses are expected to be higher in proximal areas than in distal ones. If LNT is correct, then excess relative mortality must be higher in proximal areas. Data show inverse proportionality Figs. Because the number of people is not small and mortality death or life data are accurate, the neat inverse proportionality must be close to the truth.
Here again, this contradiction must be explained by radiation hormesis. People nearer the epicenter received more radiation than people farther away. Hormesis-related natural defense mechanisms also likely played a positive role in elongating the lifespan of survivors. The radiation dose group of 0. The mortality is below the control level X. These fluctuations are not random.
At a glance from C to M in Fig. When a J-shaped curve appears, we can establish a threshold at the crossing of the J and the x-axis. The main reasons for the failure of the report are the use of LNT, use of the false assumption zero exposure-zero risk , and neglect of hormesis effects. The numbers of A-bomb survivors and solid cancer deaths are extracted from the latest three issues and are compared with Japanese averages Table 2. The ratios of cancer deaths in both A-bomb survivors and NIC are smaller than those of Japanese averages.
The numbers of people involved in Table 2 are not small. The differences are clear. Data must closely approximate reality. The finding that radiation of A-bombs reduces cancer mortality on average might be unexpected and incredible for LNT supporters.
Nevertheless, such conclusions might be readily acceptable when one admits that low-dose radiation is hormetic under appropriate conditions and both A-bomb survivors and NIC who were exposed to low-dose radiation occupy a large fraction of the cohort.
Consequently, low-dose radiation reduces cancer mortality on average and extends the lifespan Fig. The current total heat flux from the Earth to space consists of half residual primordial heat and half radiogenic decay of uranium, thorium, and potassium, the respective half lives of which are 4.
Therefore, radioactivity was much higher 4 billion years ago when life started to appear on the earth. Radioactive substances from the birth of the earth are still abundant on the earth now. Radon, a daughter of uranium, and radon-rich hot springs are frequently found around uranium ore.
In addition, carbon and tritium-3 are constantly produced by the action of cosmic rays in the atmosphere. They are incorporated into our bodies.
Japanese foods contain polonium and potassium and commit an effective dose of 0. Consequently, the total of our annual background exposure dose is 2. Potassium, an indispensable nutrient, and its associated potassium 0. Therefore, we are exposed to by and large 20, radiation hits a second from not only the environment but also from materials inside our body.
We ourselves are radioactive entities. In actuality, sleeping next to someone exposes one to 0. The dose of a chest X-ray is 0. A jet-liner flight from New York to London is 0. Of course, these estimates are quite rough with significant uncertainties. The earth was anaerobic until 2. Oxygen is actually toxic, but it is useful to produce energy effectively through oxidative phosphorylation.
Our ancestors started to use oxygen, but reactive oxygen species ROS are inescapable byproducts of the oxidative process. ROS themselves are toxic. Nine billion ROS are produced in a cell a day [ 48 ]. We developed systems to quench ROS instantaneously using radical scavengers such as glutathione and L-cysteine and using enzymes such as superoxide dismutase and catalase. Hazards by both respiration and low-dose ionizing radiation are caused mainly by ROS, but ROS production by respiration overwhelms that by low-dose radiation by thousands to a million of times the magnitude.
ROS-quenching systems developed under intensive ionizing radiation conditions for more than billion years before the appearance of oxygen in the air must be readily applied to quench ROS by respiration. A benefit of oxygen beyond energy production is the shielding of ultraviolet UV light. We sometimes expose clothes and mats to the sunlight to dry them and simultaneously kill bacteria, fungi, and ticks.
We are suntanned in the sun, by which dead epithelial cells are shed from the skin when UV is strong. When oxygen was not in the air, UV was so strong that organisms were unable to live on the ground.
The ozone layer cuts most UV; organisms today can move across the ground. Although UV can kill some organisms, it is indispensable to produce vitamin D. We are using the toxic UV as a need.
So are ROS. ROS are sufficient to kill bacteria, but cells are also killed later. We used to see pus, a pile of dead leukocytes, in or around the wound before antibiotics became popular.
In fact, J. Miesher extracted DNA from pus for the first time in Figure 5 and Table 2 respectively show radiation-hormesis-related benefits: 1 elongating of lifespan and 2 reduced cancer deaths.
Other analyses of LSS show hormesis in solid cancers [ 32 ] and leukemia [ 33 ]. Hormesis has been reported for many organisms such as protozoa [ 49 ], Drosophila [ 30 , 31 ], and mice [ 50 ].
Lung cancer incidence of humans exposed to radon is also hormetic [ 51 ]. These are some examples, constituting only the tip of the iceberg. Radiation-hormesis-related health benefits are possibly universal among all living organisms. Low-dose radiation is apparently not only beneficial but also necessary. When human cells were cultured under unshielded 1. If LNT is correct, then growth should be enhanced by removal of hazardous ionizing radiation.
The results were the opposite, indicating the failure of LNT. Low-dose radiation is sensed by bacteria and gene expression is changed greatly at the transcriptional level [ 54 ]. More than species thrive there. Glutathione levels of rats are elevated, but no DNA lesions are found on the animals. Levels of this radical scavenger in birds of 16 species are also high [ 55 ]. The authors argue that hormesis is working there. If DNA injuries exceed the repair capacity, cells are killed by apoptosis and are removed.
If cancerous cells are produced, then most of them are removed by vigilant survey of immune systems. These adaptive defense systems are only some examples acquired by living organisms through evolution as innate essential attributes. Humans have the ability to sense crisis and to prepare for defense. Even if ionizing radiation is neither seen nor sensed, its products, ROS, constitute signaling molecules for defense systems.
Defense systems at various levels cells, tissues, organs, etc. A fundamental failure of LNT is that it ignores these time-requiring biological systems. A large body of experimentally obtained results collectively indicates radiation hormesis, but LNT proponents ignore these data. Results indicate that the dose-response matched well with LNT [ 57 ]. This result was praised in an internationally prestigious journal: Nature [ 58 ]. The story has been corrected to reflect this. The present author required no sophisticated epidemiology to find the opposite of what the authors assert in elongation of lifespan in Fig.
The individual external doses of , Fukushima residents for the first 4 months after the earthquake and tsunami were the following: The arithmetic mean and maximum for individual external doses were 0. When actual external exposure doses estimated by individual glass-badge measurements in Date City, Fukushima, were compared with official ambient doses presented by the Japanese government, the ratio was 0. If this figure is applied to the data above [ 62 ], then the effective doses can be calculated as follows: The respective mean and maximum doses were 0.
These are acute doses. Tremendous human, social, and economic losses caused by obstinate application of the failed LNT could have been avoided [ 3 ]. In truth, LNT is a deeply immoral. As practiced by the modern radiation protection community, the LNT hypothesis is one of the greatest scientific scandals of our time.
Now is the time to understand more, so that we might fear less. The linear no-threshold hypothesis LNT was recommended without solid data by the National Academy of Sciences in LSS has three major defects: 1 Residual radiation to which both A-bomb survivors and control subjects were exposed was neglected.
Specifically, the control subjects were not valid as representing the negative control. The failed model cannot be used. The average lifespan of A-bomb survivors is longer than the Japanese average. Solid cancer deaths of A-bomb survivors and control subjects were fewer than the Japanese average.
Consequently, one can reasonably infer that radiation of A-bombs elongated their lifespan and reduced cancer deaths on average, indicating a failure of LNT. Unfortunately, LNT has served as the basis of radiation regulation. If it were not for LNT, then evacuation of Fukushima people would not have been mandated and tremendous human, social, and economic losses would have been avoided. To avoid unnecessary losses and fear, humanity must learn as soon as possible that low-dose radiation is not only harmless but beneficial.
In the original publication of this article [1], the author pointed out the reference list mismatched citations in the main text. All citations and reference has been updated. Sutou SA. Tokyo: Gentosha; Google Scholar. Fukushima nuclear accident: global implications, long- term health effects and ecological consequences. Sutou S. Tremendous human, social, and economic losses caused by obstinate application of the hailed linear no-threshold model. Yakugaku Zasshi. Accessed 1 Oct A message to Fukushima: nothing to fear but fear itself.
Genes Environ. Article Google Scholar. Calabrese EJ. From Muller to mechanism: how LNT became the default model for cancer risk assessment. Environ Pollut. Glasstone S, Philip J. Effects of nuclear weapons, 3 rd Ed. Washington DC: U. Government Printing Office; Ducoff H. Radiation hormesis: incredible or inevitable? Korean J Bio Sci. Feinendegen LE. Evidence for beneficial low level radiation effects and radiation hormesis.
Brit J Radiol. Jaworowski Z. Radiation hormesis-a remedy for fear. Hum Exp Toxicol. Evidence for hormesis in mutagenicity dose- response relationships. Mutat Res. Wiles D. On radium and radiation. CNS Bull. Longevity of atomic-bomb survivors. Muller HJ. Artificial transmutation of the gene. Philos Ethics Humanit Med.
Radiation and genetics. One study found that a person standing at the hypocenter 24 hours after the bombing would have received only one thousandth the dose of residual radiation that would have been received by a person who was there right after the bomb exploded. One week later, the dose would be only one millionth the original dose. Note 2 In other words, residual radiation levels fell very rapidly. Today, the background radiation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki is the same as the average amount of natural radiation present anywhere on Earth.
Search Menu. Hiroshima City Information Hotline Hours: 8 am to 9 pm year round. Change Viewer Settings Text-to-Speech. Is there still radiation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
0コメント