292 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30598710)
1. Low-dose radiation from A-bombs elongated lifespan and reduced cancer mortality relative to un-irradiated individuals.
Sutou S
Genes Environ; 2018; 40():26. PubMed ID: 30598710
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Black rain in Hiroshima: a critique to the Life Span Study of A-bomb survivors, basis of the linear no-threshold model.
Sutou S
Genes Environ; 2020; 42():1. PubMed ID: 31908690
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. [Tremendous Human, Social, and Economic Losses Caused by Obstinate Application of the Failed Linear No-threshold Model].
Sutou S
Yakugaku Zasshi; 2015; 135(11):1197-211. PubMed ID: 26521869
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. A message to Fukushima: nothing to fear but fear itself.
Sutou S
Genes Environ; 2016; 38():12. PubMed ID: 27350831
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. The Linear No-Threshold Model of Low-Dose Radiogenic Cancer: A Failed Fiction.
Pennington CW; Siegel JA
Dose Response; 2019; 17(1):1559325818824200. PubMed ID: 30792613
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Are We Approaching the End of the Linear No-Threshold Era?
Doss M
J Nucl Med; 2018 Dec; 59(12):1786-1793. PubMed ID: 30262515
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Atomic bomb health benefits.
Luckey TD
Dose Response; 2008; 6(4):369-82. PubMed ID: 19088902
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Rediscovery of an old article reporting that the area around the epicenter in Hiroshima was heavily contaminated with residual radiation, indicating that exposure doses of A-bomb survivors were largely underestimated.
Sutou S
J Radiat Res; 2017 Sep; 58(5):745-754. PubMed ID: 29088449
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. The threshold vs LNT showdown: Dose rate findings exposed flaws in the LNT model part 2. How a mistake led BEIR I to adopt LNT.
Calabrese EJ
Environ Res; 2017 Apr; 154():452-458. PubMed ID: 27974149
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. The Hiroshima A-Bomb Black Rain and the Lifespan Study; A Resolution of the Enigma.
Busby C
Cancer Invest; 2021 Nov; 39(10):902-907. PubMed ID: 34486897
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Evidence supporting radiation hormesis in atomic bomb survivor cancer mortality data.
Doss M
Dose Response; 2012 Dec; 10(4):584-92. PubMed ID: 23304106
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Impact on the Japanese atomic bomb survivors of radiation received from the bombs.
Cullings HM
Health Phys; 2014 Feb; 106(2):281-93. PubMed ID: 24378504
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Linear No-Threshold Model VS. Radiation Hormesis.
Doss M
Dose Response; 2013; 11(4):480-97. PubMed ID: 24298226
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. LNT and cancer risk assessment: Its flawed foundations part 1: Radiation and leukemia: Where LNT began.
Calabrese EJ
Environ Res; 2021 Jun; 197():111025. PubMed ID: 33744270
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Molecular biology, epidemiology, and the demise of the linear no-threshold (LNT) hypothesis.
Pollycove M; Feinendegen LE
C R Acad Sci III; 1999; 322(2-3):197-204. PubMed ID: 10196673
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Radiation dose response estimation with emphasis on low dose range using restricted cubic splines: application to all solid cancer mortality data, 1950-2003, in atomic bomb survivors.
Nakashima E
Health Phys; 2015 Jul; 109(1):15-24. PubMed ID: 26011495
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The Muller-Neel dispute and the fate of cancer risk assessment.
Calabrese EJ
Environ Res; 2020 Nov; 190():109961. PubMed ID: 32810676
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The influence of follow-up on DS02 low-dose ranges with a significant excess relative risk of all solid cancer in the Japanese A-bomb survivors.
Walsh L; Schneider U
Radiat Environ Biophys; 2016 Nov; 55(4):509-515. PubMed ID: 27586509
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
