Radiobiology and gray science: Flaws in landmark new radiation protections
- 36 Downloads
The International Commission on Radiological Protection — whose regularly updated recommendations are routinely adopted as law throughout the globe — recently issued the first-ever ICRP protections for the environment. These draft 2005 proposals are significant both because they offer the commission’s first radiation protections for any non-human parts of the planet and because they will influence both the quality of radiation risk assessment and environmental protection, as well as the global costs of nuclear-weapons cleanup, reactor decommissioning and radioactive waste management. This piece argues that the 2005 recommendations are scientifically and ethically flawed, or gray, in at least three respects: first, in largely ignoring scientific journals while employing mainly “gray literature;” second, in relying on non-transparent dose estimates and models, rather than on actual radiation measurements; and third, in ignoring classical ethical constraints on acceptable radiation risk.
Keywordsabiotic dose ecological risk assessment International Commission on Radiological Protection measurement model public health radiation transparency
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.International Commission on Radiological Protection (2005) Draft for Consultation: 2005 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, Stockholm, ICRP; available at 〈http://www.icrp.org/docs/2005_recs_CONSULTATION_Draft1a.pdf>http://www.icrp.org/docs/2005_recs_CONSULTATION_Draft1a.pdf〉.Google Scholar
- 3.ICRP (1991) Recommendations of the ICRP, Pergamon, New York; ICRP (1998) ICRP: History, Policies, Procedures, Elsevier, Oxford.Google Scholar
- 4.Moore, George Edward (1951) Principia Ethica, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar