Journal of Cell Communication and Signaling

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 145–147 | Cite as

EPA transparency proposal: testimony of Edward J. Calabrese, Ph.D, October 3, 2018

  • Edward J. CalabreseEmail author


The historical foundations of cancer risk assessment and its adoption by the US EPA in the mid 1970s were based on the discovery of X-ray-induced gene mutations by Hermann J. Muller, its transformation into the linear nonthreshold (LNT) single-hit theory and the recommendations of the model by the US National Academy of Sciences, Biological Effects of Atomic/Ionizing Radiation, Genetics Panels in 1956 and 1972. This testimony summarizes substantial recent revelations which profoundly challenge the use of LNT as a default in cancer risk assessment, showing multiple significant scientific errors and incorrect interpretations, mixed with deliberate misrepresentation of the scientific record by leading ideologically motivated radiation geneticists. These novel historical and scientific findings demonstrate that the scientific foundations of the LNT single-hit model were seriously flawed and should not have been adopted for cancer risk assessment. The testimony supports the recommendation by the EPA to move away from the use of the LNT as a default in cancer risk assessment and to the formal consideration of alternative dose response models such as the threshold, hormetic and other non-linear modeling approaches.


Cancer Dose response EPA Hormesis LNT Risk assessment 



Federal Aviation Administration


linear non-threshold


National Academy of Sciences


United States Environmental Protection Agency



While the original testimony was provided to the US Senate without scientific references, appropriate reference were added to the manuscript at the suggestion of the Editor.


  1. Calabrese EJ (2015) On the origin of the linear no-threshold (LNT) dogma by means of untruths, artful dodges and blind faith. Environ Res 142:432–442CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Calabrese EJ (2017) Flaws in the LNT single-hit model for cancer risk: an historical assessment. Environ Res 158:773–788CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Calabrese EJ (2018) From Muller to mechanism: how LNT became the default model for cancer risk assessment. Environ Pollut 241:289–302CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Calabrese EJ (2019) The dose-response revolution: how hormesis became significant: an historical and personal reflection. In: Rattan SIS, Kyriazis M (eds) The science of hormesis in health and longevity. Elsevier Inc.: London, p 326Google Scholar
  5. Calabrese EJ, Blain RB (1999) The single exposure carcinogen database: assessing the circumstances under which a single exposure to a carcinogen can cause cancer. Toxicol Sci 50(2):169–185CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Calabrese EJ, Barnes R, Stanek EJ, Pastides H, Gilbert CE, Veneman P, Wang X, Lasztity A, Kostecki PT (1989) How much soil do young children ingest – an epidemiologic study. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 10(2):123–137CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Calabrese EJ, Stanek EJ, Pekow P, Barnes RM (1997) Soil ingestion estimates for children residing on a superfund site. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 36(3):258–268CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Stanek EJ, Calabrese EJ (1995) Daily estimates of soil ingestion in children. Environ Health Perspect 103(3):276–285CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Stanek EJ, Calabrese EJ, Xu B (2012) Meta-analysis of mass-balance studies of soil ingestion in children. Risk Anal 32(3):433–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International CCN Society 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmental Health Sciences; Morrill I, N344University of MassachusettsAmherstUSA

Personalised recommendations