Radiation Risks in Perspective

Front Cover
CRC Press, 2006 M10 20 - 207 pages
Public misperception of radiological risk consistently directs limited resources toward managing minimal or even phantom risks at great cost to government and industry with no measurable benefit to overall public health. The public's inability to comprehend small theoretical risks arrived at through inherently uncertain formulae, coupled with an ir

From inside the book

Selected pages

Contents

Risky Business
1
Scientific Guesswork
25
No Safe Dose
47
Uncertain Risk
65
Zero or Bust
79
Misplaced Priorities
109
Avoiding Risk
129
Radiation from the Gods
149
Hold the Phone
167
PR Campaign Proportion Prioritization and Precaution
183
Glossary
193
Index
197
Copyright

Other editions - View all

Common terms and phrases

Popular passages

Page 96 - In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.
Page 44 - All substances are poisons; there is none which is not a poison. The right dose differentiates a poison and a remedy.
Page 174 - When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.
Page 8 - We use risk assessment to mean the characterization of the potential adverse health effects of human exposures to environmental hazards. Risk assessments include several elements: description of the potential adverse health effects based on an evaluation of results of epidemiologic, clinical, toxicologic, and environmental research; extrapolation from those results to predict the type and estimate the extent of health effects in humans under given conditions of exposure; judgments as to the number...
Page 28 - In addition, there is continuing surveillance of the information by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) and the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), groups mainly concerned with setting standards for maximum permissible exposure.
Page 17 - Committee uses the term risk management to describe the process of evaluating alternative regulatory actions and selecting among them. Risk management, which is carried out by regulatory agencies under various legislative mandates, is an agency decision-making process that entails consideration of political, social, economic, and engineering information with riskrelated information to develop, analyse, and compare regulatory options and to select the appropriate regulatory response to a potential...
Page 12 - ... suggestive evidence of carcinogenicity but not sufficient to assess human carcinogenic potential; data are inadequate for an assessment of human carcinogenic potential; and not likely to be carcinogenic to humans).
Page 8 - ... clinical, toxicologic, and environmental research; extrapolation from those results to predict the type and estimate the extent of health effects in humans under given conditions of exposure; judgments as to the number and characteristics of persons exposed at various intensities and durations; and summary judgments on the existence and overall magnitude of the public health problem.
Page 17 - Risk management, which is carried out by regulatory agencies under various legislative mandates, is an agency decision-making process that entails consideration of political, social, economic, and engineering information with risk-related information to develop, analyze, and compare regulatory options and to select the appropriate regulatory response to a potential chronic health hazard. The selection process necessarily requires the use of value judgments on such issues as the acceptability of risk...
Page 63 - The effects of age and lifestyle factors on the accumulation of cytogenetic damage as measured by chromosome painting. Mutat. Res..

About the author (2006)

Kenneth L. Mossman is a professor of health physics in the School of Life Sciences and affiliated faculty member of the Center for the Study of Law, Science and Technology at Arizona State University in Tempe, where he has also served as assistant vice president for research and director of the university’s Office of Radiation Safety. Prior to his arrival at Arizona State University, Dr. Mossman was a faculty member of the medical and dental schools at Georgetown University in Washington, DC, and was professor and founding chairman of the Department of Radiation Science at Georgetown’s Graduate School. His research interests include radiological health and safety and public policy. Dr. Mossman has authored more than 150 publications related to radiation health issues. He served as president of the Health Physics Society and received its prestigious Elda Anderson Award, the Marie Curie Gold Medal, and the Founder’s Award. He has been a Sigma Xi distinguished lecturer and is a fellow of the Health Physics Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He has served on committees of the National Research Council, the National Institutes of Health, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Nuclear Energy Agency of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (Paris), and the International Atomic Energy Agency (Vienna). Dr. Mossman earned a BS in biology from Wayne State University, MS and PhD degrees in radiation biology from the University of Tennessee, and an MEd degree in higher education administration from the University of Maryland. Dr. Mossman is also author of The Radiobiological Basis of Radiation Protection Practice (1992) Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, with William Mills and Arbitrary and Capricious (2004) AEI Press, Washington, DC with Gary Marchant.

Bibliographic information