|
Each time a release of radioactivity occurs, questions arise anddebates unfold on the health risks at low doses - and still, justover a year after the disaster at the Fukushima Nuclear PowerStation, unanswered questions and unsettled debates remain. Now aspecial issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists , published by SAGE, examines what is new about the debate overlow-dose radiation risk, specifically focusing on areas ofagreement and disagreement, including quantitative estimates of cancer risk as radiation dose increases, or what is known as the linearnon-threshold theory (LNT). The issue, which includes essayswritten by the top experts in their fields, does not claim to putthe argument to rest - however, it does provide an indispensibleupdate of the existing literature. As Jan Beyea, guest editor and nuclear physics and epidemiologyexpert, says: "The reader will be ready to join the debate armedwith a broad-based view of the epidemiologic evidence and itsdiffering interpretations, along with an awareness of thestakeholder and researcher landscape." Beyea personally contributesto the issue and deconstructs the low-level radiation debate,unpacking all its parts and illuminating what deserves moreattention and scrutiny. There has been, and continues to be, considerable debate amongmembers of the scientific community, political and industryleaders, and the public around the claim that atomic-bomb data isrelevant to estimating risks from protracted exposures. This debatehas contributed to the delay in updating some US regulatory doselimits that are based on a pre-1990 understanding of radiationrisks. "My article explores the new, large-scale epidemiologic studiesthat are directly relevant - not to one-time exposures received atHiroshima and Nagasaki, but to the protracted exposures that arereceived from continuous decay of radioactive isotopes associatedwith releases from Fukushima or from the Soviet and US weaponscomplexes," says Beyea. Social scientist Paul Slovic updates his classic work on the"perception gap" between expert and the general public on thehealth risks of radiation sources. Roger Kasperson, another socialscientist, writes on how individuals and social groups amplify riskas they process nuclear disasters - and the rippling effects oftheir understandings. In his article in the Bulletin, technical and policy analyst GordonThompson challenges experts and professional bodies to avoidcombining debates on science and policy and to acknowledge theimplication of the LNT hypothesis. On another policy note, TerryBrock and Sami Sherbini from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commissionexamine the role that risk estimates of health effects play inregulating nuclear power in the United States - and that it cantake many decades before scientific studies actually affectregulations. Epidemiologist David Richardson analyzes the history ofquantitative data used in LNT predictions of dose response, derivedmainly from the one-time exposures of the Japanese atomic-bombsurvivors. And radiobiologist Colin Hill reviews the latestbiological research on genomic instability, bystander effects, andadaptive response - effects that may lead to a better understandingof responses at very low doses and also help quantify anydeviations from the LNT. But has any of the epidemiologic evidence has been interpretedproperly? Biostatistician Sander Greenland thinks not. Misleadinginterpretations of low-dose epidemiologic data result in anunderestimate of the full health impacts, because of failure toaccount for diseases with accelerated onsets, he says. Additional References Citations. We are high quality suppliers, our products such as Fractional Co2 Laser Machine , RF Skin Tightening Machine for oversee buyer. To know more, please visits E-Light Laser Hair Removal.
Related Articles -
Fractional Co2 Laser Machine, RF Skin Tightening Machine,
|
