| Title |
Epidemiology Without Biology: False Paradigms, Unfounded Assumptions, and Specious Statistics in Radiation Science (with Commentaries by Inge Schmitz-Feuerhake and Christopher Busby and a Reply by the Authors)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Biological Theory, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13752-016-0244-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Bill Sacks, Gregory Meyerson, Jeffry A. Siegel |
| Abstract |
Radiation science is dominated by a paradigm based on an assumption without empirical foundation. Known as the linear no-threshold (LNT) hypothesis, it holds that all ionizing radiation is harmful no matter how low the dose or dose rate. Epidemiological studies that claim to confirm LNT either neglect experimental and/or observational discoveries at the cellular, tissue, and organismal levels, or mention them only to distort or dismiss them. The appearance of validity in these studies rests on circular reasoning, cherry picking, faulty experimental design, and/or misleading inferences from weak statistical evidence. In contrast, studies based on biological discoveries demonstrate the reality of hormesis: the stimulation of biological responses that defend the organism against damage from environmental agents. Normal metabolic processes are far more damaging than all but the most extreme exposures to radiation. However, evolution has provided all extant plants and animals with defenses that repair such damage or remove the damaged cells, conferring on the organism even greater ability to defend against subsequent damage. Editors of medical journals now admit that perhaps half of the scientific literature may be untrue. Radiation science falls into that category. Belief in LNT informs the practice of radiology, radiation regulatory policies, and popular culture through the media. The result is mass radiophobia and harmful outcomes, including forced relocations of populations near nuclear power plant accidents, reluctance to avail oneself of needed medical imaging studies, and aversion to nuclear energy-all unwarranted and all harmful to millions of people. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 113 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 15 | 13% |
| United States | 14 | 12% |
| Canada | 7 | 6% |
| Italy | 4 | 4% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 4% |
| Netherlands | 2 | 2% |
| France | 2 | 2% |
| Switzerland | 2 | 2% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 5 | 4% |
| Unknown | 57 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 92 | 81% |
| Scientists | 15 | 13% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 3% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 2 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 2% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 99 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 14 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 11% |
| Other | 10 | 10% |
| Other | 18 | 18% |
| Unknown | 25 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 17% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 11 | 11% |
| Engineering | 9 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 22 | 22% |
| Unknown | 30 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 124. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 March 2024.
All research outputs
#340,633
of 25,698,912 outputs
Outputs from Biological Theory
#5
of 330 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,799
of 369,723 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biological Theory
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,698,912 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 330 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 369,723 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them