Beyea Jan
Consulting in the Public Interest, 53 Clinton Street, Lambertville, NJ 08530, USA.
Environ Res. 2016 Jul;148:527-534. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2016.01.039. Epub 2016 Mar 3.
It is not true that successive groups of researchers from academia and research institutions-scientists who served on panels of the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS)-were duped into supporting a linear no-threshold model (LNT) by the opinions expressed in the genetic panel section of the 1956 "BEAR I" report. Successor reports had their own views of the LNT model, relying on mouse and human data, not fruit fly data. Nor was the 1956 report biased and corrupted, as has been charged in an article by Edward J. Calabrese in this journal. With or without BEAR I, the LNT model would likely have been accepted in the US for radiation protection purposes in the 1950's.
来自学术界和研究机构的 successive groups of researchers（此处表述有误，可改为“多批研究人员”）——那些在美国国家科学院（NAS）小组任职的科学家——并没有被1956年“BEAR I”报告基因小组部分所表达的观点欺骗，从而支持线性无阈模型（LNT）。后续报告对LNT模型有自己的看法，依据的是小鼠和人类数据，而非果蝇数据。1956年的报告也并非如爱德华·J·卡拉布雷斯在本期刊发表的一篇文章中所指控的那样存在偏见和腐败。无论有无“BEAR I”报告，LNT模型在20世纪50年代的美国出于辐射防护目的很可能都会被接受。
