The scientific basis for the use of the linear no-threshold (LNT) model at low doses and dose rates in radiological protection.

The linear no-threshold (LNT) model was introduced into the radiological protection system about 60 years ago, but this model and its use in radiation protection are still debated today. This article presents an overview of results on effects of exposure to low linear-energy-transfer radiation in radiobiology and epidemiology accumulated over the last decade and discusses their impact on the use of the LNT model in the assessment of radiation-related cancer risks at low doses. The knowledge acquired over the past 10 years, both in radiobiology and epidemiology, has reinforced scientific knowledge about cancer risks at low doses. In radiobiology, although certain mechanisms do not support linearity, the early stages of carcinogenesis comprised of mutational events, which are assumed to play a key role in carcinogenesis, show linear responses to doses from as low as 10 mGy. The impact of non-mutational mechanisms on the risk of radiation-related cancer at low doses is currently difficult to assess. In epidemiology, the results show excess cancer risks at dose levels of 100 mGy or less. While some recent results indicate non-linear dose relationships for some cancers, overall, the LNT model does not substantially overestimate the risks at low doses. Recent results, in radiobiology or in epidemiology, suggest that a dose threshold, if any, could not be greater than a few tens of mGy. The scientific knowledge currently available does not contradict the use of the LNT model for the assessment of radiation-related cancer risks within the radiological protection system, and no other dose-risk relationship seems more appropriate for radiological protection purposes.

Strengths of ecosystem services concept for radiation protection.

The successful ecosystem services concept, defined as the benefits people obtain from ecosystems is still not really reflected in the current approaches for protecting public and environment against radiation promoted by the International Commission on Radiological Protection or other similar approaches. Yet some recent thoughts from international organizations lead us to believe that an eco-based approach could be more promoted in the coming years in environmental radiation protection field. The French Institute for Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety has identified different fields of application of this concept into radiation protection, in line with its integrated approach of radiological risks management. As the ecosystem services approach makes it possible to highlight biophysical and socio-economic approaches of the impacts of ionizing radiation on ecosystems, it represents a subject of primary importance for future works conducted by IRSN. However, the operationality of the ecosystem services concept is the subject of many debates. In many situations, scientists have not yet fully understood how radioactive contamination could affect ecosystem services, and how to articulate with certainty cause and effect relationships between state of an ecosystem and provision of services. In addition, the concept is also accompanied by contradictory perceptions of the status of humans in ecosystems. To solve these knowledge gaps and uncertainties, it is necessary to acquire robust data on the impacts of radiation on ecosystems both under experimental and realistic conditions, and to integrate all potential consequences (direct and indirect, ecotoxicological but also economic and cultural).

Cancer risk from chronic exposures to chemicals and radiation: a comparison of the toxicological reference value with the radiation detriment.

This article aims at comparing reference methods for the assessment of cancer risk from exposure to genotoxic carcinogen chemical substances and to ionizing radiation. For chemicals, cancer potency is expressed as a toxicological reference value (TRV) based on the most sensitive type of cancer generally observed in animal experiments of oral or inhalation exposure. A dose-response curve is established by modelling experimental data adjusted to apply to human exposure. This leads to a point of departure from which the TRV is derived as the slope of a linear extrapolation to zero dose. Human lifetime cancer risk can then be assessed as the product of dose by TRV and it is generally considered to be tolerable in a 10-6-10-4 range for the public in a normal situation. Radiation exposure is assessed as an effective dose corresponding to a weighted average of energy deposition in body organs. Cancer risk models were derived from the epidemiological follow-up of atomic bombing survivors. Considering a linear-no-threshold dose-risk relationship and average baseline risks, lifetime nominal risk coefficients were established for 13 types of cancers. Those are adjusted according to the severity of each cancer type and combined into an overall indicator denominated radiation detriment. Exposure to radiation is subject to dose limits proscribing unacceptable health detriment. The differences between chemical and radiological cancer risk assessments are discussed and concern data sources, extrapolation to low doses, definition of dose, considered health effects and level of conservatism. These differences should not be an insuperable impediment to the comparison of TRVs with radiation risk, thus opportunities exist to bring closer the two types of risk assessment.