Reply to comment on 'the role of radiation protection professionals in the landscape of low dose radiation'

被引:0
|
作者
Ansari, Armin
机构
[1] Emergency Management, Radiation and Chemical Branch, Division of Environmental Health Science and Practice, NCEH
[2] MS:F59, 4770 Buford Highway NE, Atlanta, 30341-3717, GA
关键词
linear-no-threshold assumption; low dose radiation; public communication;
D O I
10.1088/1361-6498/ab2a9c
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Radiation protection professionals benefit from using and applying a robust system of radiological protection that has evolved and matured through decades of research and experience. Nevertheless, uncertainties in potential health effects from low doses and low dose rates of radiation continue to remain. This uncertainty, coupled with complex jargon and nuances, has created an environment where the system of radiological protection can be misrepresented, even by radiation safety professionals, and by extension, misunderstood by the public. While it is universally agreed that the linear-no-threshold model cannot adequately explain or predict health effects of low dose radiation for all cancers, all individuals, or all exposure situations, the recommendation of authoritative scientific bodies to use this model for managing risks of radiation exposure is unequivocal. The role of individual radiation protection professionals in communicating radiation health and risk information is critical and consistent with the primary objective of professional organisations that represent them, mainly to promote best science and practice of radiation protection. If radiation protection professionals provide advice contrary to the recommendations and advice of regulatory and authoritative scientific bodies, it can erode public confidence in the system of radiological protection and harm the credibility of our profession. © 2019 Not subject to copyright in the USA. Contribution of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention..
引用
收藏
页码:1128 / 1129
页数:2
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Comment on "Hawking Radiation, Unruh Radiation, and the Equivalence Principle" Reply
    Singleton, Douglas
    Wilburn, Steve
    PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS, 2012, 108 (04)
  • [22] Radiation protection and moral theory - Comment
    Miller, C
    ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES, 1997, 6 (01) : 97 - 103
  • [23] The Future of Radiation Protection Professionals: Spotlight on Students
    Caffrey, Emily
    HEALTH PHYSICS, 2025, 128 (01): : 1 - 1
  • [24] Radiation Pneumonitis and Low Dose Radiation Hypersensitivity
    Gordon, J. J.
    Snyder, K.
    Zhong, H.
    Barton, K.
    Sun, Z.
    Chetty, I. J.
    Matuszak, M.
    Ten Haken, R. K.
    WORLD CONGRESS ON MEDICAL PHYSICS AND BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING, 2015, VOLS 1 AND 2, 2015, 51 : 1712 - 1716
  • [25] MAMMOTH EXTINCTION AND RADIATION DOSE: A COMMENT
    van der Plicht, J.
    Jull, A. J. T.
    RADIOCARBON, 2011, 53 (04) : 713 - 715
  • [26] Radiation dose and radiation protection for the head and neck of interventional physicians
    Fetterly, Kenneth
    Schueler, Beth
    Grams, Michael
    Sturchio, Glenn
    Bell, Malcolm
    Gulati, Rajiv
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY, 2016, 68 (18) : B342 - B342
  • [27] RADIATION-FIELD QUANTITIES OR DOSE QUANTITIES IN RADIATION PROTECTION
    WAGNER, S
    ATOMKERNENERGIE, 1975, 25 (04): : 303 - 306
  • [28] REPLY TO COMMENTS ON RADIATION PROTECTION QUANTITIES
    ATTIX, FH
    HEALTH PHYSICS, 1988, 54 (06): : 674 - 674
  • [29] CMA STATEMENT ON RADIATION PROTECTION - REPLY
    GHENT, WR
    CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION JOURNAL, 1983, 128 (09) : 1052 - 1052
  • [30] Radiation Protection in Diagnostic Radiology Reply
    Zeeb, Hajo
    DEUTSCHES ARZTEBLATT INTERNATIONAL, 2008, 105 (27): : 499 - 499