The LNT-controversy and the concept of "controllable dose"

被引:8
作者
Kellerer, AM [1 ]
Nekolla, EA [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Munich, Inst Radiobiol, D-80336 Munich, Germany
来源
HEALTH PHYSICS | 2000年 / 79卷 / 04期
关键词
linear hypothesis; dose; collective; health effects; risk analysis;
D O I
10.1097/00004032-200010000-00010
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
There is no firm scientific information on the potential health effects, such as increased cancer rates, due to low doses of ionizing radiation. In view of this uncertainty ICRP has adopted as a prudent default option the linear no-threshold (LNT) assumption and has used it to derive nominal risk coefficients. Subsequent steps, such as the comparison of putative fatality rates in radiation workers with observed accident rates in other professions, have given the risk estimates a false appearance of scientific fact. This has encouraged meaningless computations of radiation-induced fatalities in large populations and has caused a trend to measure dose limits for the public not against the magnitude of the natural radiation exposure and its geographic variations, but against the numerical risk estimates. In reaction to this development, opposing claims are being made of a threshold in dose for deleterious health effects in humans. In view of the growing polarization, ICRP is now exploring a new concept "controllable dose" that aims to abandon the quantity collective dose, emphasizing, instead, individual dose and, in particular, the control of the maximum individual dose from single sources. Essential features of the new proposal are here examined, and it is concluded that the control of individual dose will still have to be accompanied by the avoidance of unnecessary exposures of large populations, even if their magnitude lies below that acceptable to the individual. If a reasonable cut-off at trivial doses is made, the collective dose can remain useful. Misapplications of collective dose are not the deeper cause of the current controversy; the actual root is the misrepresentation of the LNT-assumption as a scientific fact and the amplification of this confusion by loose terminology. If over-interpretation and distortion are avoided, the current system of radiation protection is workable and essentially sound, and there is no need for a fruitless LNT-controversy. The new concept of controllable dose promises simplifications and improvements, but any major change of principles needs to be carefully considered in a broad discussion that ICRP is presently seeking.
引用
收藏
页码:412 / 418
页数:7
相关论文
共 17 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1998, MED PHYS, V25, P273, DOI 10.1118/1.598207
[2]  
[Anonymous], 1991, Annals of the ICRP, V21
[3]  
[Anonymous], ANN ICRP
[4]  
Clarke Roger, 1999, Journal of Radiological Protection, V19, P107, DOI 10.1088/0952-4746/19/2/301
[5]   A GENERAL GUIDELINE FOR MANAGEMENT OF RISK FROM CARCINOGENS [J].
MILVY, P .
RISK ANALYSIS, 1986, 6 (01) :69-79
[6]  
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, 1987, 91 NCRP
[7]   POTENTIAL ROLE OF TAMOXIFEN IN PREVENTION OF BREAST-CANCER [J].
NAYFIELD, SG ;
KARP, JE ;
FORD, LG ;
DORR, FA ;
KRAMER, BS .
JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 1991, 83 (20) :1450-1459
[8]  
NCRP, 1993, 116 NCRP
[9]  
*NORD RAD PROT SOC, 1999, 12 ORD M
[10]   Ethical issues in radiation protection [J].
Persson, L .
RADIATION PROTECTION DOSIMETRY, 1999, 86 (02) :83-85