Reforming the debate around radiation risk
Reforming the debate around radiation risk
The back-and-forth debate on radiation risk, in the recent years, has unscientifically drifted away from proportionality and become increasingly antagonistic. A handful of authors have used exaggerated claims which are corroborated by their own previous work and presented using heated and superlative language. With unwarranted certainty, many have also referenced studies which report inconclusive findings and given undue weight to the results of laboratory animal and cellular studies, regardless of their exact positions on radiation risk. The passion and subjective interpretation with which the debate is now presented detracts from rational, scientific evaluation. A reform of the debate is needed to reach grounded consensus in the community and, if appropriate, begin the process of amending the legislation to reflect it. In this article we have analysed key research on the topic and discussed the fundamental limitations of science in providing satisfactory answers to our questions.
linear no-threshold model (LNT) model, philosophy of science, radiation risk, radiobiology, radiophobia
Ross, James C.
01f0b1a4-7f20-4283-b0b4-6b9c8534170e
Vilić, Dijana
7f340dd3-1229-4e84-b59c-78d9e535c43b
Fongenie, Benjamin
428c61cd-0cb6-4e46-953a-3bd1c451545b
24 May 2019
Ross, James C.
01f0b1a4-7f20-4283-b0b4-6b9c8534170e
Vilić, Dijana
7f340dd3-1229-4e84-b59c-78d9e535c43b
Fongenie, Benjamin
428c61cd-0cb6-4e46-953a-3bd1c451545b
Ross, James C., Vilić, Dijana and Fongenie, Benjamin
(2019)
Reforming the debate around radiation risk.
Journal of Radiological Protection, 39 (2).
(doi:10.1088/1361-6498/ab1698).
Abstract
The back-and-forth debate on radiation risk, in the recent years, has unscientifically drifted away from proportionality and become increasingly antagonistic. A handful of authors have used exaggerated claims which are corroborated by their own previous work and presented using heated and superlative language. With unwarranted certainty, many have also referenced studies which report inconclusive findings and given undue weight to the results of laboratory animal and cellular studies, regardless of their exact positions on radiation risk. The passion and subjective interpretation with which the debate is now presented detracts from rational, scientific evaluation. A reform of the debate is needed to reach grounded consensus in the community and, if appropriate, begin the process of amending the legislation to reflect it. In this article we have analysed key research on the topic and discussed the fundamental limitations of science in providing satisfactory answers to our questions.
This record has no associated files available for download.
More information
Published date: 24 May 2019
Keywords:
linear no-threshold model (LNT) model, philosophy of science, radiation risk, radiobiology, radiophobia
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 453000
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/453000
ISSN: 1361-6498
PURE UUID: 770fef00-92af-4b00-9f79-b1f811690f46
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 07 Jan 2022 12:13
Last modified: 17 Mar 2024 04:03
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
Dijana Vilić
Author:
Benjamin Fongenie
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics