Regulating Ionizing Radiation Based on Metrics for Evaluation of Regulatory Science Claims
This article attempts to reconcile differences within the relevant scientific community on the effect of exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation notably the applicability of linear nonthreshold (LNT) process at exposures below a certain limit. This article applies an updated version of Metrics...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
SAGE Publishing
2018-01-01
|
| Series: | Dose-Response |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1177/1559325817749413 |
| _version_ | 1818252202284679168 |
|---|---|
| author | A. Alan Moghissi Richard Calderone Furzan Azam Teresa Nowak Sarah Sheppard Dennis K. McBride Lisa Jaeger |
| author_facet | A. Alan Moghissi Richard Calderone Furzan Azam Teresa Nowak Sarah Sheppard Dennis K. McBride Lisa Jaeger |
| author_sort | A. Alan Moghissi |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | This article attempts to reconcile differences within the relevant scientific community on the effect of exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation notably the applicability of linear nonthreshold (LNT) process at exposures below a certain limit. This article applies an updated version of Metrics for Evaluation of Regulatory Science Claims (MERSC) derived form Best Available Regulatory Science (BARS) to the arguments provided by the proponents and opponents of LNT. Based on BARS/MERSC, 3 categories of effects of exposure to ionizing radiation are identified. One category (designated as S) consists of reproducible and undisputed adverse effects. A second category (designated as U) consists of areas where the scientific evidence for potential adverse effects includes uncertainties. The scientific evidence in the U category leads to a threshold. In contrast, the scientific foundation of the third category (designated as P) is questionable, as the scientific evidence indicates that adverse effects of the exposure at this level are not only questionable but may be helpful. This article claims that the third area is the domain of policy makers including regulators. This article describes Jeffersonian Principle that categorizes the affected community into specialists, knowledgeable nonspecialists, and the general public. Based on Jeffersonian Principle, the relevant scientific information, particularly the U and P areas, must be translated into a language that at a minimum is understandable to the knowledgeable group. Once this process is completed, the policy makers including regulators may select exposure limits based on their judgment. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-12T16:20:26Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-1ac294304cc54a2a89d6be7df84fd6cd |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1559-3258 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-12T16:20:26Z |
| publishDate | 2018-01-01 |
| publisher | SAGE Publishing |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Dose-Response |
| spelling | doaj.art-1ac294304cc54a2a89d6be7df84fd6cd2022-12-22T00:19:00ZengSAGE PublishingDose-Response1559-32582018-01-011610.1177/1559325817749413Regulating Ionizing Radiation Based on Metrics for Evaluation of Regulatory Science ClaimsA. Alan Moghissi0Richard Calderone1Furzan Azam2Teresa Nowak3Sarah Sheppard4Dennis K. McBride5Lisa Jaeger6 Institute for Regulatory Science, Alexandria, VA, USA Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA Institute for Regulatory Science, Alexandria, VA, USA Bracewell LLP, Washington, DC, USAThis article attempts to reconcile differences within the relevant scientific community on the effect of exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation notably the applicability of linear nonthreshold (LNT) process at exposures below a certain limit. This article applies an updated version of Metrics for Evaluation of Regulatory Science Claims (MERSC) derived form Best Available Regulatory Science (BARS) to the arguments provided by the proponents and opponents of LNT. Based on BARS/MERSC, 3 categories of effects of exposure to ionizing radiation are identified. One category (designated as S) consists of reproducible and undisputed adverse effects. A second category (designated as U) consists of areas where the scientific evidence for potential adverse effects includes uncertainties. The scientific evidence in the U category leads to a threshold. In contrast, the scientific foundation of the third category (designated as P) is questionable, as the scientific evidence indicates that adverse effects of the exposure at this level are not only questionable but may be helpful. This article claims that the third area is the domain of policy makers including regulators. This article describes Jeffersonian Principle that categorizes the affected community into specialists, knowledgeable nonspecialists, and the general public. Based on Jeffersonian Principle, the relevant scientific information, particularly the U and P areas, must be translated into a language that at a minimum is understandable to the knowledgeable group. Once this process is completed, the policy makers including regulators may select exposure limits based on their judgment.https://doi.org/10.1177/1559325817749413 |
| spellingShingle | A. Alan Moghissi Richard Calderone Furzan Azam Teresa Nowak Sarah Sheppard Dennis K. McBride Lisa Jaeger Regulating Ionizing Radiation Based on Metrics for Evaluation of Regulatory Science Claims Dose-Response |
| title | Regulating Ionizing Radiation Based on Metrics for Evaluation of Regulatory Science Claims |
| title_full | Regulating Ionizing Radiation Based on Metrics for Evaluation of Regulatory Science Claims |
| title_fullStr | Regulating Ionizing Radiation Based on Metrics for Evaluation of Regulatory Science Claims |
| title_full_unstemmed | Regulating Ionizing Radiation Based on Metrics for Evaluation of Regulatory Science Claims |
| title_short | Regulating Ionizing Radiation Based on Metrics for Evaluation of Regulatory Science Claims |
| title_sort | regulating ionizing radiation based on metrics for evaluation of regulatory science claims |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1177/1559325817749413 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT aalanmoghissi regulatingionizingradiationbasedonmetricsforevaluationofregulatoryscienceclaims AT richardcalderone regulatingionizingradiationbasedonmetricsforevaluationofregulatoryscienceclaims AT furzanazam regulatingionizingradiationbasedonmetricsforevaluationofregulatoryscienceclaims AT teresanowak regulatingionizingradiationbasedonmetricsforevaluationofregulatoryscienceclaims AT sarahsheppard regulatingionizingradiationbasedonmetricsforevaluationofregulatoryscienceclaims AT denniskmcbride regulatingionizingradiationbasedonmetricsforevaluationofregulatoryscienceclaims AT lisajaeger regulatingionizingradiationbasedonmetricsforevaluationofregulatoryscienceclaims |