Reforming the debate around radiation risk

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.

Reply to comment on ‘Reforming the debate around radiation risk? Advancing the status quo is not a reformation’

“…We have read the letter in response [1] to our article 'Reforming the debate around radiation risk' [2] by Charles W Pennington. We thank you for giving us the chance to respond to it.…”

Comment on ‘Reforming the debate around radiation risk? Advancing the status quo is not a reformation’

“…We have read with interest the article by Ross et al [1]. As a co-author of one of the references (Siegel et al [2]) criticized in this article, I find that it occupies itself with large, well-known generalities involving mostly perceptions, along with sweeping, unfounded accusations that suffer from unstated support.…”

“…It criticizes some of its own references as never referencing any other sources than themselves. It reads [1]:…”

SOLLID – a single centre study to develop methods to investigate the effects of low radiation doses within nuclear medicine, to enable multicentre epidemiological investigations

“…There remains considerable debate concerning the risks of malignancies from low levels of radiation exposure, whether from occupational exposures, nuclear incidents or from medical exposures. 1,2 The current paradigm for all medical, occupational or public exposures is to maintain radiation doses ‘as low as reasonably achievable, economic and societal factors being taken into account’ (ALARA), based on the ‘Linear-no-Threshold’ model for radiation protection. 3 This assumes that even very low levels of radiation exposure can cause secondary malignancies.…”