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)

scientific article

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) is …
instance of (P31):
scholarly articleQ13442814

External links are
P6179Dimensions Publication ID1016592636
P356DOI10.1007/S13752-016-0244-4
P3181OpenCitations bibliographic resource ID708743
P932PMC publication ID4917595
P698PubMed publication ID27398078

P2093author name stringJeffry A Siegel
Bill Sacks
Gregory Meyerson
P2860cites workCancer risk in 680,000 people exposed to computed tomography scans in childhood or adolescence: data linkage study of 11 million AustraliansQ22065627
Risk of cancer from occupational exposure to ionising radiation: retrospective cohort study of workers in France, the United Kingdom, and the United States (INWORKS)Q23911657
The 15-country collaborative study of cancer risk among radiation workers in the nuclear industry: estimates of radiation-related cancer risksQ23912278
Biologically based analysis of lung cancer incidence in a large Canadian occupational cohort with low-does ionizing radiation exposure and comparison with Japanese atomic bomb survivorsQ23923681
Ionising radiation and risk of death from leukaemia and lymphoma in radiation-monitored workers (INWORKS): an international cohort studyQ24170373
INWORKS study: risk of leukaemia from protracted radiation exposure - authors' replyQ24170374
Leukemia and ionizing radiationQ74472246
Further thoughts on low-level radiation: an evolutionary biologist's perspectiveQ80134305
CT radiation dose reduction: can we do harm by doing good?Q83389048
Radiation is not the only riskQ83683045
Verdicts on radiofrequency electromagnetic fields from IARC and ICNIRP. Verifying Canadian nuclear energy worker radiation risk: a reanalysis of cancer mortality in Canadian nuclear energy workers (1957-1994). Childhood cancer in the vicinity of nucQ84819230
Medical imaging: the challenges of radiation risk assessmentQ86120613
INWORKS study: risk of leukaemia from protracted radiation exposureQ86942214
INWORKS study: risk of leukaemia from protracted radiation exposureQ95521965
Comment on "Background Ionizing Radiation and the Risk of Childhood Cancer: A Census-Based Nationwide Cohort Study".Q43276253
Response to "Comment on 'Background Ionizing Radiation and the Risk of Childhood Cancer: A Census-Based Nationwide Cohort Study'".Q43277763
Changes in registered congenital anomalies in the Republic of Belarus after the Chernobyl accidentQ44838366
Study of health effects of low-level radiation in USA nuclear shipyard workersQ45167706
Studies of the mortality of atomic bomb survivors, Report 14, 1950-2003: an overview of cancer and noncancer diseasesQ45210812
The Puskin observation on smoking as a confounder in ecologic correlations of cancer mortality rates with average county radon levelsQ48026886
Ionising radiation in the workplaceQ48348277
Radar commentary: Use of linear no-threshold hypothesis in radiation protection regulation in the United StatesQ50156933
Response to Comments by Drs Hamaoka and Beyea on "The Birth of the Illegitimate Linear No-Threshold Model: An Invalid Paradigm for Estimating Risk Following Low-dose Radiation Exposure".Q50210242
Pooled Bayesian analysis of twenty-eight studies on radon induced lung cancers.Q51167847
Parental knowledge of potential cancer risks from exposure to computed tomography.Q51226251
Risks from CT scans--what do recent studies tell us?Q53076645
Antioxidants, radiation and mutation as revealed by sperm abnormality in barn swallows from Chernobyl.Q54977273
Researchers pin down risks of low-dose radiationQ59085341
Mortality from breast cancer after irradiation during fluoroscopic examinations in patients being treated for tuberculosisQ69759118
In vivo formation and repair of DNA double-strand breaks after computed tomography examinationsQ24529558
Radon in homes and risk of lung cancer: collaborative analysis of individual data from 13 European case-control studiesQ24557441
Reply to Cohen's Response to EPA Position on Cancer Risk from Low Level RadiationQ24608691
Evidence for formation of DNA repair centers and dose-response nonlinearity in human cellsQ24609012
Radiation exposure from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: a retrospective cohort studyQ24617800
Evidence for a lack of DNA double-strand break repair in human cells exposed to very low x-ray dosesQ24677973
Genetic radiation risks: a neglected topic in the low dose debateQ26770640
Smoking as a confounder in ecologic correlations of cancer mortality rates with average county radon levelsQ28155967
Very high mutation rate in offspring of Chernobyl accident liquidatorsQ28190603
Evidence for an increase in trisomy 21 (Down syndrome) in Europe after the Chernobyl reactor accidentQ28255268
Chernobyl cleanup workers from Estonia: follow-up for cancer incidence and mortalityQ28386093
Perspective on the use of LNT for radiation protection and risk assessment by the U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyQ28749597
Public health activities for mitigation of radiation exposures and risk communication challenges after the Fukushima nuclear accidentQ30204193
Threshold for Radon-Induced Lung Cancer From Inhaled Plutonium DataQ31035725
Cancer risk at low doses of ionizing radiation: artificial neural networks inference from atomic bomb survivorsQ33582621
Estimated risks of radiation-induced fatal cancer from pediatric CT.Q33931492
Letter to the editor: response to EPA position on cancer risk from low level radiationQ34128985
A test of the linear-no threshold theory of radiation carcinogenesisQ34271016
Test of the linear-no threshold theory of radiation carcinogenesis for inhaled radon decay productsQ34315420
Residential radon exposure and lung cancer risk: commentary on Cohen's county-based studyQ34368110
Cancer Mortality Among People Living in Areas With Various Levels of Natural Background RadiationQ34505362
Long-term genetic effects of radiation exposureQ35596091
Are the studies on cancer risk from CT scans biased by indication? Elements of answer from a large-scale cohort study in FranceQ35677673
Background ionizing radiation and the risk of childhood cancer: a census-based nationwide cohort studyQ35683239
Linear No-Threshold Model VS. Radiation HormesisQ37327329
A record-based case-control study of natural background radiation and the incidence of childhood leukaemia and other cancers in Great Britain during 1980-2006.Q37721682
Spontaneous DNA damage and its significance for the "negligible dose" controversy in radiation protectionQ37999982
Does Imaging Technology Cause Cancer? Debunking the Linear No-Threshold Model of Radiation CarcinogenesisQ38396419
On the origins of the linear no-threshold (LNT) dogma by means of untruths, artful dodges and blind faithQ38561784
CT in the Emergency Department: A Real-Time Study of Changes in Physician Decision Making.Q38592186
Answers to Common Questions About the Use and Safety of CT ScansQ38598812
Computed Tomography and Shifts to Alternate Imaging Modalities in Hospitalized ChildrenQ40610013
Concerning ionizing radiation-induced cancer from internally deposited radionuclidesQ40847990
Risk of cancer incidence before the age of 15 years after exposure to ionising radiation from computed tomography: results from a German cohort studyQ41611558
Solid Cancer Incidence in the Techa River Incidence Cohort: 1956-2007.Q41632234
Radiological protection issues arising during and after the Fukushima nuclear reactor accidentQ41968723
P275copyright licenseCreative Commons Attribution 4.0 InternationalQ20007257
P6216copyright statuscopyrightedQ50423863
P433issue2
P407language of work or nameEnglishQ1860
P921main subjectstatisticsQ12483
theoretical assumptionQ130278346
P304page(s)69-101
P577publication date2016-01-01
P1433published inBiological TheoryQ4914970
P1476titleEpidemiology 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)
P478volume11