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
- 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