Sanjay Mehta, M.D.

One-fourth of my radiation training in residency was actually radiation biology, in addition to clinical oncology and radiation physics. So the linear no-threshold model is what states that we know based on all the data from nuclear fallout from Chernobyl, from Three Mile Island, of course, from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, from the bombs, that

One-fourth of my radiation training in residency was actually radiation biology, in addition to clinical oncology and radiation physics. So the linear no-threshold model is what states that we know based on all the data from nuclear fallout from Chernobyl, from Three Mile Island, of course, from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, from the bombs, that

At a certain dose exposure, there's a certain risk of developing a cancer or any other endpoint, whether it be dermatitis or bone marrow suppression. These numbers are well sorted. But when you try to extrapolate lower, so you take maybe, say, a dose of one full sievert, the 1,000 millisievert, and you start extrapolating that lower and lower to where you're looking at 100 or 50 millisieverts,

At a certain dose exposure, there's a certain risk of developing a cancer or any other endpoint, whether it be dermatitis or bone marrow suppression. These numbers are well sorted. But when you try to extrapolate lower, so you take maybe, say, a dose of one full sievert, the 1,000 millisievert, and you start extrapolating that lower and lower to where you're looking at 100 or 50 millisieverts,

The linear model assumes that there's some level of damage even at those lower levels. But in reality, there's actually a threshold. The LNT, which is linear no threshold, has actually been proven to be actually erroneous. And so at very low doses, it's actually been shown that there's almost no incidence of any sort of biological damage.

The linear model assumes that there's some level of damage even at those lower levels. But in reality, there's actually a threshold. The LNT, which is linear no threshold, has actually been proven to be actually erroneous. And so at very low doses, it's actually been shown that there's almost no incidence of any sort of biological damage.

And there's also, it's controversial, but there's animal studies showing there may be a hormesis effect at low, low doses like that.

And there's also, it's controversial, but there's animal studies showing there may be a hormesis effect at low, low doses like that.

Yes. Regular listeners of your podcast know all about hormesis and you talk about in the exercise realm and cold plunges and saunas and whatnot. But the whole idea is doing some degree, a small amount of cellular damage when the body repairs that it actually comes back stronger than it was without the exposure in the first place.

Yes. Regular listeners of your podcast know all about hormesis and you talk about in the exercise realm and cold plunges and saunas and whatnot. But the whole idea is doing some degree, a small amount of cellular damage when the body repairs that it actually comes back stronger than it was without the exposure in the first place.

And in animal studies, they've actually shown at very low doses, we're talking about single digit millisieverts here, that they've seen in mouse bones, for example, decreased osteoclasts and increased osteoblastic activity. So the bones actually heal quicker. Some of the soft tissue as well has been shown to actually recuperate much in the way you see in the hormesis from other causes.

And in animal studies, they've actually shown at very low doses, we're talking about single digit millisieverts here, that they've seen in mouse bones, for example, decreased osteoclasts and increased osteoblastic activity. So the bones actually heal quicker. Some of the soft tissue as well has been shown to actually recuperate much in the way you see in the hormesis from other causes.

That's not something that we're claiming is widely accepted, but there is a lot of data showing that that is certainly a possibility, which goes against this classic LNT model. The LNT model itself, the guy that won the Nobel Prize for it in the 1940s did this all on fruit flies, and his work was disproven over the years after that.

That's not something that we're claiming is widely accepted, but there is a lot of data showing that that is certainly a possibility, which goes against this classic LNT model. The LNT model itself, the guy that won the Nobel Prize for it in the 1940s did this all on fruit flies, and his work was disproven over the years after that.

A lot of this low-dose radiation safety stuff we have, it's certainly a noble goal to keep the dose as low as possible. But when we get down to these millisievert ranges, I think that they're probably a little bit overblown in terms of the actual negative effects on the human body.

A lot of this low-dose radiation safety stuff we have, it's certainly a noble goal to keep the dose as low as possible. But when we get down to these millisievert ranges, I think that they're probably a little bit overblown in terms of the actual negative effects on the human body.

So again, going back to that Alara principle, there's not a whole lot of data at these levels. I certainly would strive to keep it as low as possible, which is what that mantra says. But I would go with the machine that has the best resolution. And if 25 is, if the radiologist tells me that that image is significantly better than a 2.5... millisievert exposure.

So again, going back to that Alara principle, there's not a whole lot of data at these levels. I certainly would strive to keep it as low as possible, which is what that mantra says. But I would go with the machine that has the best resolution. And if 25 is, if the radiologist tells me that that image is significantly better than a 2.5... millisievert exposure.

Some of the older machines are just less efficient. You may get a better image with the lower dose. I think the dose is pretty negligible. Got it.

Some of the older machines are just less efficient. You may get a better image with the lower dose. I think the dose is pretty negligible. Got it.