首页> 外文期刊>Dose-response >The LNT Debate in Radiation Protection: Science vs. Policy
【24h】

The LNT Debate in Radiation Protection: Science vs. Policy

机译:关于辐射防护的LNT辩论:科学与政策

获取原文
       

摘要

There is considerable interest in revisiting LNT theory as the basis for the system of radiation protection in the US and worldwide. Arguing the scientific merits of policy options is not likely to be fruitful because the science is not robust enough to support one theory to the exclusion of others. Current science cannot determine the existence of a dose threshold, a key piece to resolving the matter scientifically. The nature of the scientific evidence is such that risk assessment at small effective doses (defined as <100 mSv) is highly uncertain, and several policy alternatives, including threshold and non-linear dose-response functions, are scientifically defensible. This paper argues for an alternative approach by looking at the LNT debate as a policy question and analyzes the problem from a social and economic perspective. In other words, risk assessment and a strictly scientific perspective are insufficiently broad enough to resolve the issue completely. A wider perspective encompassing social and economic impacts in a risk management context is necessary, but moving the debate to the policy and risk management arena necessarily marginalizes the role of scientists.
机译:重新审视LNT理论作为美国和全球辐射防护系统的基础引起了极大的兴趣。争论政策选择的科学优点不太可能富有成果,因为科学不够强大,不足以支持一种理论排斥其他理论。当前的科学无法确定剂量阈值的存在,剂量阈值是科学解决此问题的关键。科学证据的性质在于,在小有效剂量(定义为<100 mSv)下进行风险评估是高度不确定的,并且在科学上可以辩护包括阈值和非线性剂量反应功能在内的多种政策选择。本文通过将LNT辩论视为一个政策问题来论证一种替代方法,并从社会和经济角度分析该问题。换句话说,风险评估和严格的科学观点不够广泛,不足以完全解决问题。有必要在风险管理环境中涵盖更广泛的视角来涵盖社会和经济影响,但是将辩论转移到政策和风险管理领域必然会削弱科学家的作用。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号