Ethics, genetics and dynamics: an emerging systematic approach to radiation protection of the environment

Pentreath, R.J.

doi:10.1016/j.jenvrad.2004.01.024

Cited by 14 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…All the proposed methods of environmental protection acknowledge the fact that it is impossible to collect information on radionuclide uptake to every tissue of every species of organism and to assess every effect on every species or combination of species: pragmatic approaches to this issue have been discussed by (for instance) Howard and Beresford (in press). The truism that it is impossible to have full information on all species lies behind proposals to regulate doses to biota using ''reference organisms'' (Pentreath, 2004;FASSET, 2004). The question, then, is not ''Are there data gaps?…”

Section: ''Data Gaps''mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The arguments concerning this issue are varied (e.g. IUR, 2003;Bre´chignac, 2003;Pentreath, 2004;Strand and Borretzen, 2004). Firstly, the statement of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP, 1977) that if man is adequately protected [from ionising radiation] then other living things are also likely to be sufficiently protected has been criticised as ''anthropocentric'' and inadequate for protection of the environment from ionising radiation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of ionising radiation on biota: do we need more regulation?

Smith¹

2005

Journal of Environmental Radioactivity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: ''Data Gaps''mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of ionising radiation on biota: do we need more regulation?

Smith¹

2005

Journal of Environmental Radioactivity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…It is obviously impossible to collect information on radionuclide uptake to every tissue of every species of organism and to assess every effect on every species or combination of species. This truism lies behind proposals to regulate doses to biota using "reference species" [7,10]. The question, then, is not "Are there data gaps?…”

Section: "Data Gaps"mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The intention therefore appears to be to develop a system of environmental protection, which is more palatable to pressure groups, politicians and the public than the somewhat stark ICRP hypothesis. This is a worthwhile goal, but I do not believe that the approach currently proposed [1,7,10] is either the most efficient or effective.…”

Section: Public Perception and "Political" Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The case against protecting the environment from ionising radiation

Smith

2005

Radioprotection

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The objective of this paper is to present the (rarely heard) argument in favour of retention of the present system of radiation protection of the environment. There has been a recent trend in the radioecological and radiation protection community towards greater regulation of the effects of ionising radiations on biota. In particular, the often quoted International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP) hypothesis that: If humans are protected from the effects of ionising radiation, then flora and fauna are also adequately protected has been criticised as being too anthropocentric and not adequate for protection of the environment. In this paper I will challenge this view, arguing firstly that this statement is almost always quoted out of its proper context, and secondly that the ICRP hypothesis does adequately protect the environment from the effects of ionising radiations. In view of the relatively insignificant effect of regulated releases of ionising radiation on the environment, the economic cost of further regulation will not result in a significant environmental benefit. Whilst empirical research to test the ICRP hypothesis should continue, until there is clear evidence against it, this simple and cost-effective approach should be retained. This would benefit the environment by directing scarce resources to more urgent environmental problems.

show abstract

“…Para ultrapassar esse problema foi formulado o conceito de animal e planta de referência, proposto por Pentreath (1999Pentreath ( , 2002aPentreath ( , 2002bPentreath ( , 2003Pentreath ( , 2004Pentreath ( , 2005Pentreath ( , 2009 e consolidado pela ICRP (2009). Essa abordagem permitiu montar um arcabouço de proteção da biota contra a radiação ionizante (ICRP 2003(ICRP , 2007(ICRP , 2009.…”

Section: Introductionunclassified