Biological mechanisms for ionizing radiation effects are different at low doses than at high doses. Radiation hormesis involves low-dose-induced protection and high-dose-induced harm. The protective component is associated with a reduction in the incidence of cancer below the spontaneous frequency, brought about by activation of defensive and repair processes. The Linear No-Threshold (LNT) hypothesis advocated by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) and the Biological Effects of ionizing Radiation (BEIR) Report VII for cancer risk estimations Ignores hormesis and the presence of a threshold. Cancer incidences significantly less than expected have been found in a large number of epidemiological studies including, airline flight personnel, inhabitants of high radiation backgrounds, shipyard workers, nuclear site workers in scores of locations throughout the world, nuclear power utility workers, plutonium workers, military nuclear test site Participants, Japanese A-bomb survivors, residents contaminated by major nuclear accidents, residents of Taiwan living in $^{60}Co$ contaminated buildings, fluoroscopy and mammography patients, radium dial painters, and those exposed to indoor radon. Significantly increased cancer was not found at doses <200 $mSv^*$. Evidence for radiation hormesis was seen in both sexes for acute or chronic exposures, low or high LET radiations, external whole- or partial body exposures, and for internal radionuclides. The ubiquitous nature of the Healthy Worker Effect (HWE)-like responses in cellular, animal and epidemiological studies negates the HWE as an explanation for radiation hormesis. The LNT hypothesis is wrong and does not represent the true nature of the dose-response relationship, since low doses or dose-rates commonly result in thresholds and reduce cancer incidences below the spontaneous rate. Radiation protection organizations should seriously consider the cost and health implications of radiation hormesis.