当前位置: X-MOL 学术Environ. Res. › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
A critical evaluation of the NCRP COMMENTARY 27 endorsement of the linear no-threshold model of radiation effects
Environmental Research ( IF 8.3 ) Pub Date : 2018-08-07 , DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2018.08.010
Brant A. Ulsh

Regulatory policy to protect the public and the environment from radiation is universally based on the linear, no-threshold model (LNT) of radiation effects. This model has been controversial since its inception over nine decades ago, and remains so to this day, but it has proved remarkably resistant to challenge from the scientific community. The LNT model has been repeatedly endorsed by expert advisory bodies, and regulatory agencies in turn adopt policies that reflect this advice. Unfortunately, these endorsements rest on a foundation of institutional inertia and numerous logical fallacies. These include most significantly setting the LNT as the null hypothesis, and shifting the burden of proof onto LNT skeptics. Other examples include arbitrary exclusion of alternative hypotheses, ignoring criticisms of the LNT, cherry-picking evidence, and making policy judgements without foundation. This paper presents an evaluation of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements’ (NCRP) Commentary 27, which concluded that recent epidemiological studies are compatible with the continued use of the LNT model for radiation protection. While this report will likely provide political cover for regulators’ continued reliance on the LNT, it is a missed opportunity to advance the scientific discussion of the effects of low dose, low dose-rate radiation exposure. Due to its Congressionally chartered mission, no organization is better positioned than the NCRP to move this debate forward, and recommendations for doing so in future reviews are provided.



中文翻译:

对NCRP评论27的辐射效应线性无阈值模型的批判性评估

保护公众和环境免受辐射影响的监管政策普遍基于辐射效应的线性无阈值模型(LNT)。自从九十多年前创建以来,该模型就一直存在争议,至今一直保持至今,但是事实证明,它对科学界的挑战具有明显的抵抗力。LNT模式已得到专家咨询机构的反复认可,监管机构反过来又采用反映该建议的政策。不幸的是,这些认可是建立在制度惯性和众多逻辑谬论的基础上的。其中包括最重要的是将LNT设置为原假设,并将举证责任转移到LNT怀疑论者身上。其他示例包括任意排除其他假设,无视LNT的批评,采摘樱桃的证据,毫无根据地做出政策判断。本文介绍了国家辐射防护与测量委员会(NCRP)评论27的评估,该评估得出的结论是,最近的流行病学研究与继续使用LNT模型进行辐射防护兼容。尽管此报告可能会为监管机构继续依赖LNT提供政治掩护,但它是一次错过机会,可以就低剂量,低剂量率辐射暴露的影响开展科学的讨论。由于其在国会的授权任务,没有哪个组织比NCRP更有条件推动这一辩论的进行了,并提供了有关在将来的审查中提出建议的建议。本文介绍了国家辐射防护与测量委员会(NCRP)评论27的评估,该评估得出的结论是,最近的流行病学研究与继续使用LNT模型进行辐射防护兼容。尽管此报告可能会为监管机构继续依赖LNT提供政治掩护,但它是一次错过机会,可以就低剂量,低剂量率辐射暴露的影响开展科学的讨论。由于其在国会的授权任务,没有哪个组织比NCRP更有条件推动这一辩论的进行了,并提供了有关在将来的审查中提出建议的建议。本文介绍了国家辐射防护与测量委员会(NCRP)评论27的评估,该评估得出的结论是,最近的流行病学研究与继续使用LNT模型进行辐射防护兼容。尽管此报告可能会为监管机构继续依赖LNT提供政治掩护,但它是一次错过机会,可以就低剂量,低剂量率辐射暴露的影响开展科学的讨论。由于其在国会的授权任务,没有哪个组织比NCRP更有条件推动这一辩论的进行了,并提供了有关在将来的审查中提出建议的建议。尽管此报告可能会为监管机构继续依赖LNT提供政治掩护,但它是一次错过机会,可以就低剂量,低剂量率辐射暴露的影响开展科学的讨论。由于其在国会的授权任务,没有哪个组织比NCRP更有条件推动这一辩论的进行了,并提供了有关在将来的审查中提出建议的建议。尽管此报告可能会为监管机构继续依赖LNT提供政治掩护,但它是一次错过机会,可以就低剂量,低剂量率辐射暴露的影响开展科学的讨论。由于其在国会的授权任务,没有哪个组织比NCRP更有条件推动这一辩论的进行了,并提供了有关在将来的审查中提出建议的建议。

更新日期:2018-08-07
down
wechat
bug