Current regulation of ionizing radiation is based on the linear no-threshold (LNT) model where any radiation dose increases cancer risk and is independent of dose rate, resulting in large amounts of time and money being spent protecting from extremely small radiation exposures and hence extremely small risk. There are animal studies which demonstrate that LNT is incorrect at low doses, supporting a threshold or hormesis model and thus indicating that there is no need to protect from very low doses. This has led to a sometimes bitter debate between pro-LNT and anti-LNT camps, and the debate has been at a stalemate for some time. This commentary is not aimed at taking either side of the debate. It is likely that the public, workers, and the environment are adequately protected under current regulation, which is the most important outcome. Until those on one side of the debate can convince the other, it would be sensible to move forward toward a graded (risk-based) approach to regulation, where the stringency of control is commensurate with the risk, resulting hopefully in more sensible practical thresholds. This approach is gradually being put forward by international radiation protection advisory bodies.

中文翻译：

---

在解决Pro-LNT / Anti-LNT辩论之前，我们应该朝着更明智的分级方法进行保护，以防止低剂量电离辐射。

当前对电离辐射的调节基于线性无阈值（LNT）模型，其中任何辐射剂量都会增加癌症风险，并且与剂量率无关，从而导致花费大量的时间和金钱来防止极小的辐射暴露，因此小风险。有动物研究表明，LNT在低剂量下是不正确的，从而支持阈值或兴奋剂模型，因此表明无需针对极低剂量进行保护。这在亲LNT阵营和反LNT阵营之间引发了有时是激烈的辩论，而且辩论已经陷入僵局已有一段时间了。本评论的目的不是辩论的任何一方。最重要的结果是，公众，工人和环境可能受到当前法规的充分保护。在辩论的一方不能说服另一方之前，明智的做法是朝着分级（基于风险）的监管方法前进，在这种方法中，严格的控制与风险相对应，从而有望产生更合理的实际门槛。国际辐射防护咨询机构正在逐步提出这种方法。