Carcinogenic risk from hot particle exposures - has ICRP got it right?

Abstract

The argument has become very familiar - that radionuclides introduced into the environment from nuclear installations, fall-out from weapons testing, or whatever source, are responsible for substantial increases in cancer rates, and, because current risk estimates do not support this conclusion, they must be very wrong. It is argued that there must be some way in which low levels of artificial radionuclides, levels that result in tissue doses lower than from naturally-occurring radionuclides, pose a risk that is yet to be appreciated. One obvious problem with current risk estimates, it is suggested, is the simplistic averaging of doses from hot particles - see, for example, the home page of the Low Level Radiation Campaign website (www.llrc.org).