Don't throw out too many babies with the bathwater, and remember old ideas!

The retraction in ICRP Publication 103 of assessments of genetic effects after the 2nd generation needs to be corrected, for reasons of public trust at least. The medical management of persons exposed to high doses of radiation needs to be addressed. Experts' desire to achieve ever increasing precision in dose coefficients (unfortunately much appreciated by some regulators) may be at variance with the intention to achieve a comprehensible, defensible practical system. Repeated examinations of patients may lead to excessively high doses and should be investigated. Ethical considerations require that basic philosophical principles of ethics are taken into account, calls for reasonableness are an important theme but some of the most absurd examples of ‘excessive protection’, such as the gold-plated waste handling of ‘spent’ nuclear fuel, will be hard to address. Many good older suggestions are worth re-visiting – e.g. giving greater weight to relatively high doses and to doses incurred now rather than in the far future. ICRP should also re-assess its remit and consider non-ionising radiation [in conjunction with the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)], safety and security [with the International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group (INSAG), and general regulatory philosophy.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Annals of the ICRP
Published
2024-12-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/01466453241283931y
Primary Topic
Child and Adolescent Health
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Don't throw out too many babies with the bathwater, and remember old ideas!

Jérémie Valentin
Annals of the ICRP
Child and Adolescent Health
article

Don't throw out too many babies with the bathwater, and remember old ideas!

Jérémie Valentin
article en

Abstract

The retraction in ICRP Publication 103 of assessments of genetic effects after the 2nd generation needs to be corrected, for reasons of public trust at least. The medical management of persons exposed to high doses of radiation needs to be addressed. Experts' desire to achieve ever increasing precision in dose coefficients (unfortunately much appreciated by some regulators) may be at variance with the intention to achieve a comprehensible, defensible practical system. Repeated examinations of patients may lead to excessively high doses and should be investigated. Ethical considerations require that basic philosophical principles of ethics are taken into account, calls for reasonableness are an important theme but some of the most absurd examples of ‘excessive protection’, such as the gold-plated waste handling of ‘spent’ nuclear fuel, will be hard to address. Many good older suggestions are worth re-visiting – e.g. giving greater weight to relatively high doses and to doses incurred now rather than in the far future. ICRP should also re-assess its remit and consider non-ionising radiation [in conjunction with the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)], safety and security [with the International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group (INSAG), and general regulatory philosophy.

Annals of the ICRPVol. 53(1_suppl)
Openalex Percentile: Top 58%
Child and Adolescent Health
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.