David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Science and Engineering Ethics 11 (2):167-169 (2005)
The International Commission on Radiological Protection — whose regularly updated recommendations are routinely adopted as law throughout the globe — recently issued the first-ever ICRP protections for the environment. These draft 2005 proposals are significant both because they offer the commission’s first radiation protections for any non-human parts of the planet and because they will influence both the quality of radiation risk assessment and environmental protection, as well as the global costs of nuclear-weapons cleanup, reactor decommissioning and radioactive waste management. This piece argues that the 2005 recommendations are scientifically and ethically flawed, or gray, in at least three respects: first, in largely ignoring scientific journals while employing mainly “gray literature;” second, in relying on non-transparent dose estimates and models, rather than on actual radiation measurements; and third, in ignoring classical ethical constraints on acceptable radiation risk.
|Keywords||abiotic dose ecological risk assessment International Commission on Radiological Protection measurement model public health radiation transparency|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
G. E. Moore (1903). Principia Ethica. Dover Publications.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
M. Frisch (2000). (Dis-)Solving the Puzzle of the Arrow of Radiation. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 51 (3):381-410.
Matthias Kaiser & Ellen-Marie Forsberg (2002). Consensus Conference on Environmental Values in Radiation Protection: A Report on Building Consensus Among Experts. Science and Engineering Ethics 8 (4):593-602.
Kristan Shrader-Frechete (2001). Using a Thought Experiment to Clarify a Radiobiological Controversy. Synthese 128 (3):319 - 342.
Helen E. Longino (1989). Biological Effects of Low Level Radiation: Values, Dose-Response Models, Risk Estimates. Synthese 81 (3):391 - 404.
Thierry Schneider, Caroline Schieber, Louis Eeckhoudt & Christian Gollier (1997). Economics of Radiation Protection: Equity Considerations. Theory and Decision 43 (3):241-251.
Kristin Shrader-Frechette, Better Policy Through Better Science: Using Metascience to Improve Dose-Response Curves in Biology and in ICRP Ecological Risk Assessment.
Nancy E. Kass & Jeremy Sugarman (1996). Are Research Subjects Adequately Protected? A Review and Discussion of Studies Conducted by the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 6 (3):271-282.
Kristin Shrader-Frechette (1998). Ethical Theory Versus Unethical Practice: Radiation Protection and Future Generations. Ethics and the Environment 3 (2):177 - 195.
Kristin Shrader-Frechette (2005). Mortgaging the Future: Dumping Ethics with Nuclear Waste. Science and Engineering Ethics 11 (4):518-520.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads26 ( #157,460 of 1,934,429 )
Recent downloads (6 months)9 ( #58,753 of 1,934,429 )
How can I increase my downloads?