Page 70 - GTM-4-1

Global Translational Medicine Low-dose radiation

the less the contribution of radioactive contamination after low-dose, low-rate exposures and recommending
compared with the natural radioactive background and more stringent standards of radiological protection are
other carcinogens. The relationship between dose and discussed in detail here. Such recommendations for dose
effect may become inversely related according to the rates compatible with the natural radiation background
concept of hormesis. A corresponding graph, plotted are non-sensical. Concerns were raised about ideological
based on experimental data, with a sagging of the dose– changes in the Russian professional literature in 2005–
effect curve below the background cancer risk within the 2007, sometimes accompanied by the manipulation of
dose range of 0.1 – 700 mGy, is depicted in the review. statistical data and overemphasis on the risk from low-dose
85
The dose–effect relationships after low-dose exposures exposures to ionizing radiation. Considering the history
22
should be clarified in lifelong animal experiments with of statistical manipulation in the former SU, further
known doses and dose rates. Animal studies can provide clarifications are necessary. Furthermore, the article points
reliable information; however, dose reconstructions in out that some conclusions about the health risks associated
human populations are often inaccurate and, as discussed with low-dose, low-dose-rate radiation are not sufficiently
above, partly comparable with doses from the natural substantiated. Although associations with cardiovascular
radiation background. In this direction, further studies on and CeVD are suggested, data may not be sufficient to
the relative biological effectiveness of radiation in different confirm causal relationships at low doses. Thus, further
animal species would better quantify the radiosensitivity epidemiological studies and large-scale animal experiments
86
of the species, thus enabling more precise extrapolations are required. The article mentions the possibility that
to humans. low-dose radiation could have beneficial health effects
(hormesis effect). This topic must be carefully discussed to
Nuclear power has returned to the agenda due to
concerns about increasing global energy demand, reach conclusions based on solid evidence. Thus far, the
causal relationships at the low-dose level remain unclear.
declining fossil fuel reserves, and climate changes. NPPs The quality of diagnosis may affect the results. Specifically,
emit virtually no greenhouse gases in comparison with the potential for overdiagnosis, that is, excessively
coal, oil, or gas. Hopefully, nuclear fission will be replaced diagnosed mild conditions in exposed individuals, may
5
in the future by fusion, which is intrinsically safer. Fusion distort the findings, necessitating a re-evaluation. Some
offers a potential source of clean power generation with studies have reported a link between radiation exposure
87
an abundant supply of raw materials. More international and cardiovascular diseases; however, their risk estimates
trust and cooperation would enable the construction appear higher than those in other studies, raising doubts
of NPPs in optimally suitable places, notwithstanding about reliability. Selection, self-selection, and ideological
national borders, considering all sociopolitical, geographic, bias should be considered when evaluating data reliability.
and geologic factors. Discussions of radiation risks, including those from the
The optimal approach for radiation protection is to Chernobyl disaster and contaminations in the Urals, may
determine the threshold dose for carcinogenic effects and be influenced by political and economic interests related to
establish regulations to ensure that doses are kept well the development of the nuclear power industry. This article
below the threshold, as low as reasonably achievable, stresses that the Russian literature overemphasizes the risks
52
considering economic and societal factors. To determine associated with low-dose radiation, which requires thorough
threshold doses, large-scale animal experiments using investigations based on solid scientific evidence. In this
different species are the most reliable tool. In the author’s regard, more long-term and rigorous studies are necessary.
opinion, the current safety norms are exceedingly In summary, studies of human populations exposed to
restrictive. Increasing limits must be accompanied by low-dose, low-rate ionizing radiation, though important,
measures guaranteeing their observance. Strictly observed will unlikely add much reliable information on the dose–
realistic safety regulations would bring more benefit for effect relationships, hormesis, and DDREF. Factors such as
public health than excessive restrictions that would be screening effect, selection, self-selection, and ideological
violated in countries that disregard international law. biases will contribute to the emergence of new reports on
Excessive restrictions are harmful to the economy. enhanced risks associated with a moderate increase in the
8. Conclusions radiation background, which would not establish causality.
Reliable results can be derived from lifelong animal
This perspective article focuses on radioactive experiments. The lifespan is a sensitive endpoint that can
contamination in the Urals, where the consequences were measure the net harm or potential benefit (within a certain
more severe in the long term than those after the Chernobyl range according to the concept of hormesis) from low-dose
accident. Recent publications claiming cardiovascular risks exposures.

Volume 4 Issue 1 (2025) 62 doi: 10.36922/gtm.7229