In this paper, toxicologist Edward Calabrese reflects on his decades-long challenge to the linear no-threshold (LNT) model, the assumption that any amount of radiation exposure carries proportional cancer risk with no safe threshold. Calabrese argues that the historical foundations of the LNT model were shaped by selective interpretation of early radiation genetics research and that the model became embedded in regulatory policy despite unresolved scientific uncertainties. He presents historical evidence suggesting that key figures involved in establishing LNT may have overstated the certainty of the data supporting a strictly linear dose–response relationship.

The paper also addresses criticisms raised against this interpretation, arguing that objections to Calabrese’s work misrepresent both the historical record and the scientific debate surrounding low-dose radiation effects. A related rebuttal by John Cardarelli II further examines these criticisms and defends the accuracy of Calabrese’s historical analysis. Together, the papers argue that the scientific basis for the LNT model deserves renewed scrutiny and that alternative frameworks—including the possibility of adaptive or hormetic responses to low-dose exposures—should be considered in evaluating radiation risk.

https://brokenscience.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Calabrese-Health-Phys-2026.pdf