Literature DB >> 18648567

The Australasian Radiation Protection Society's position statement on risks from low levels of ionizing radiation.

Donald Higson1.   

Abstract

Controversy continues on whether or not ionizing radiation is harmful at low doses, with unresolved scientific uncertainty about effects below a few tens of millisieverts. To settle what regulatory controls should apply in this dose region, an assumption has to be made relating dose to the possibility of harm or benefit. The position of the Australasian Radiation Protection Society on this matter is set out in a statement adopted by the Society in 2005. Its salient features are: --There is insufficient evidence to establish a dose-effect relationship for doses that are less than a few tens of millisieverts in a year. A linear extrapolation from higher dose levels should be assumed only for the purpose of applying regulatory controls.--Estimates of collective dose arising from individual doses that are less than some tens of millisieverts in a year should not be used to predict numbers of fatal cancers. --The risk to an individual of doses significantly less than 100 microsieverts in a year is so small, if it exists at all, that regulatory requirements to control exposure at this level are not warranted.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Radiation; hormesis; protection; regulation; risk

Year:  2007        PMID: 18648567      PMCID: PMC2477718          DOI: 10.2203/dose-response.07-016.Higson

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dose Response        ISSN: 1559-3258            Impact factor:   2.658


  12 in total

1.  Population study in the high natural background radiation area in Kerala, India.

Authors:  M K Nair; K S Nambi; N S Amma; P Gangadharan; P Jayalekshmi; S Jayadevan; V Cherian; K N Reghuram
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 2.841

2.  Toxicology rethinks its central belief.

Authors:  Edward J Calabrese; Linda A Baldwin
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2003-02-13       Impact factor: 49.962

3.  Radon in homes and risk of lung cancer: collaborative analysis of individual data from 13 European case-control studies.

Authors:  S Darby; D Hill; A Auvinen; J M Barros-Dios; H Baysson; F Bochicchio; H Deo; R Falk; F Forastiere; M Hakama; I Heid; L Kreienbrock; M Kreuzer; F Lagarde; I Mäkeläinen; C Muirhead; W Oberaigner; G Pershagen; A Ruano-Ravina; E Ruosteenoja; A Schaffrath Rosario; M Tirmarche; L Tomásek; E Whitley; H-E Wichmann; R Doll
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-12-21

4.  The bell should toll for the linear no-threshold model.

Authors:  D J Higson
Journal:  J Radiol Prot       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 1.394

5.  Mortality rates among nuclear industry workers at Lucas Heights Science and Technology Centre.

Authors:  Rima R Habib; Samer M Abdallah; Matthew Law; John Kaldor
Journal:  Aust N Z J Public Health       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 2.939

6.  100 years of observation on British radiologists: mortality from cancer and other causes 1897-1997.

Authors:  A Berrington; S C Darby; H A Weiss; R Doll
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 3.039

7.  Risk of cancer after low doses of ionising radiation: retrospective cohort study in 15 countries.

Authors:  E Cardis; M Vrijheid; M Blettner; E Gilbert; M Hakama; C Hill; G Howe; J Kaldor; C R Muirhead; M Schubauer-Berigan; T Yoshimura; F Bermann; G Cowper; J Fix; C Hacker; B Heinmiller; M Marshall; I Thierry-Chef; D Utterback; Y-O Ahn; E Amoros; P Ashmore; A Auvinen; J-M Bae; J Bernar Solano; A Biau; E Combalot; P Deboodt; A Diez Sacristan; M Eklof; H Engels; G Engholm; G Gulis; R Habib; K Holan; H Hyvonen; A Kerekes; J Kurtinaitis; H Malker; M Martuzzi; A Mastauskas; A Monnet; M Moser; M S Pearce; D B Richardson; F Rodriguez-Artalejo; A Rogel; H Tardy; M Telle-Lamberton; I Turai; M Usel; K Veress
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2005-06-29

8.  Very high background radiation areas of Ramsar, Iran: preliminary biological studies.

Authors:  M Ghiassi-nejad; S M J Mortazavi; J R Cameron; A Niroomand-rad; P A Karam
Journal:  Health Phys       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 1.316

Review 9.  Radiation-induced versus endogenous DNA damage: possible effect of inducible protective responses in mitigating endogenous damage.

Authors:  Myron Pollycove; Ludwig E Feinendegen
Journal:  Hum Exp Toxicol       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 2.903

10.  Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: assessing what we really know.

Authors:  David J Brenner; Richard Doll; Dudley T Goodhead; Eric J Hall; Charles E Land; John B Little; Jay H Lubin; Dale L Preston; R Julian Preston; Jerome S Puskin; Elaine Ron; Rainer K Sachs; Jonathan M Samet; Richard B Setlow; Marco Zaider
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2003-11-10       Impact factor: 11.205

View more
  1 in total

1.  Reconsidering Health Consequences of the Chernobyl Accident.

Authors:  Yehoshua Socol
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2015-05-04       Impact factor: 2.658

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.