141 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21786337)
1. Key studies used to support cancer risk assessment questioned.
Calabrese EJ
Environ Mol Mutagen; 2011 Oct; 52(8):595-606. PubMed ID: 21786337
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. How the US National Academy of Sciences misled the world community on cancer risk assessment: new findings challenge historical foundations of the linear dose response.
Calabrese EJ
Arch Toxicol; 2013 Dec; 87(12):2063-81. PubMed ID: 23912675
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The road to linearity: why linearity at low doses became the basis for carcinogen risk assessment.
Calabrese EJ
Arch Toxicol; 2009 Mar; 83(3):203-25. PubMed ID: 19247635
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Cancer risk assessment foundation unraveling: new historical evidence reveals that the US National Academy of Sciences (US NAS), Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation (BEAR) Committee Genetics Panel falsified the research record to promote acceptance of the LNT.
Calabrese EJ
Arch Toxicol; 2015 Apr; 89(4):649-50. PubMed ID: 25600588
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. On the origins of the linear no-threshold (LNT) dogma by means of untruths, artful dodges and blind faith.
Calabrese EJ
Environ Res; 2015 Oct; 142():432-42. PubMed ID: 26248082
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. An abuse of risk assessment: how regulatory agencies improperly adopted LNT for cancer risk assessment.
Calabrese EJ
Arch Toxicol; 2015 Apr; 89(4):647-8. PubMed ID: 25596944
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Origin of the linearity no threshold (LNT) dose-response concept.
Calabrese EJ
Arch Toxicol; 2013 Sep; 87(9):1621-33. PubMed ID: 23887208
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. The debate on the use of linear no threshold for assessing the effects of low doses.
Tubiana M; Aurengo A; Averbeck D; Masse R
J Radiol Prot; 2006 Sep; 26(3):317-24. PubMed ID: 16926474
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Muller's Nobel lecture on dose-response for ionizing radiation: ideology or science?
Calabrese EJ
Arch Toxicol; 2011 Dec; 85(12):1495-8. PubMed ID: 21717110
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. From Muller to mechanism: How LNT became the default model for cancer risk assessment.
Calabrese EJ
Environ Pollut; 2018 Oct; 241():289-302. PubMed ID: 29843011
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Carcinogenic effects of low-level ionizing radiation: problems and prospects.
Upton AC
In Vivo; 2002; 16(6):527-33. PubMed ID: 12494897
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Biological effects of low level exposures to ionizing radiation: theory and practice.
Liu SZ
Hum Exp Toxicol; 2010 Apr; 29(4):275-81. PubMed ID: 20332172
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Economic and policy considerations drive the LNT debate.
Mossman KL
Radiat Res; 2008 Feb; 169(2):245; author reply 246-7. PubMed ID: 18220464
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. The Genetics Panel of the NAS BEAR I Committee (1956): epistolary evidence suggests self-interest may have prompted an exaggeration of radiation risks that led to the adoption of the LNT cancer risk assessment model.
Calabrese EJ
Arch Toxicol; 2014 Sep; 88(9):1631-4. PubMed ID: 24993953
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Low-dose radiation risk extrapolation fallacy associated with the linear-no-threshold model.
Scott BR
Hum Exp Toxicol; 2008 Feb; 27(2):163-8. PubMed ID: 18480143
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. EPA adopts LNT: New historical perspectives.
Calabrese EJ
Chem Biol Interact; 2019 Aug; 308():110-112. PubMed ID: 31108044
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Common sense about the linear no-threshold controversy-give the general public a break.
Leonard BE
Radiat Res; 2008 Feb; 169(2):245-6; author reply 246-7. PubMed ID: 18220465
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Two principal considerations are needed after low doses of ionizing radiation.
Feinendegen LE; Paretzke H; Neumann RD
Radiat Res; 2008 Feb; 169(2):247-8. PubMed ID: 18220467
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Workshop report: identifying key issues underpinning the selection of linear or non-linear dose-response extrapolation for human health risk assessment of systemic toxicants.
Pottenger LH; Becker RA; Moran EJ; Swenberg JA
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2011 Apr; 59(3):503-10. PubMed ID: 21256913
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Cancer and non-cancer effects in Japanese atomic bomb survivors.
Little MP
J Radiol Prot; 2009 Jun; 29(2A):A43-59. PubMed ID: 19454804
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
