↓ Skip to main content

It Is Time to Move Beyond the Linear No-Threshold Theory for Low-Dose Radiation Protection

Overview of attention for article published in Dose-Response, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#11 of 479)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
106 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages
reddit
2 Redditors

Citations

dimensions_citation
63 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
It Is Time to Move Beyond the Linear No-Threshold Theory for Low-Dose Radiation Protection
Published in
Dose-Response, July 2018
DOI 10.1177/1559325818779651
Pubmed ID
Authors

John J. Cardarelli, Brant A. Ulsh

Abstract

The US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is the primary federal agency responsible for promulgating regulations and policies to protect people and the environment from ionizing radiation. Currently, the USEPA uses the linear no-threshold (LNT) model to estimate cancer risks and determine cleanup levels in radiologically contaminated environments. The LNT model implies that there is no safe dose of ionizing radiation; however, adverse effects from low dose, low-dose rate (LDDR) exposures are not detectable. This article (1) provides the scientific basis for discontinuing use of the LNT model in LDDR radiation environments, (2) shows that there is no scientific consensus for using the LNT model, (3) identifies USEPA reliance on outdated scientific information, and (4) identifies regulatory reliance on incomplete evaluations of recent data contradicting the LNT. It is the time to reconsider the use of the LNT model in LDDR radiation environments. Incorporating the latest science into the regulatory process for risk assessment will (1) ensure science remains the foundation for decision making, (2) reduce unnecessary burdens of costly cleanups, (3) educate the public on the real effects of LDDR radiation exposures, and (4) harmonize government policies with the rest of the radiation scientific community.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 106 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 88 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 16%
Researcher 10 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 11%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Other 8 9%
Other 15 17%
Unknown 22 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 10%
Physics and Astronomy 6 7%
Chemistry 5 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 5%
Other 19 22%
Unknown 31 35%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 111. 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 01 April 2023.
All research outputs
#345,073
of 23,957,596 outputs
Outputs from Dose-Response
#11
of 479 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,116
of 331,100 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Dose-Response
#2
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,957,596 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 479 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 331,100 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.