Stakeholder perspectives on radiation protection.

Abstract

Standards for permissible exposure to radiation and the way they are established must incorporate a set of principles that uphold both health and democracy. When the science is uncertain, the burden of proof that risk is not being imposed should be on the source of the risk, not on the possibly affected public or workforce. Scientific processes must be transparent to the public, must address all relevant risk issues and endpoints (and not only cancer), and must be inclusive of the actual experience and opinion of the people who are exposed to radiation risks. Scientists are too often dismissive of public experience and interests, as for instance with worker illnesses or fallout, even though input from the public and workers has frequently proven to be valuable in the development of radiation protection principles. Incorporating the concerns, views, and experiences of workers and the public in a respectful way while maintaining a high standard of scientific work must be an essential part of the standard-setting process. Further, the clearly enunciated International Commission on Radiological Protection principle that the imposition of risk must be accompanied by a clear benefit needs to be a far more explicit part of standard-setting processes, which must also ensure that all known risks are disclosed and that suspected risks, such as possible synergisms between some radionuclides and hormone-disrupting chemicals, are carefully considered. Finally, given the long-lived nature of risks from many radionuclides and the large uncertainties about future physical, social, economic, and other conditions, the issue of how the interests of future generations can be included in standard setting is a difficult but vital matter.