Environmental Radiation Effects: A Need to Question Old Paradigms And To Enhance Collaboration Between Radiation Biologists And Radiation Ecologists
T. G. Hnton,1,t and F. Ward Whicker2
1University
of Georgia, Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, Aiken, SC, USA
2Department of Health Sciences, Colorado State University,
Fort Collins, CO, USA
Author for correspondence (e-mail: thinton@Srel.edu)
INTRODUCTION
The radiological sciences are a real enigma- the maturity and depth of
understanding concerning human dosimetry contrasts sharply with our shallow
understanding about radiological effects to biota. The richness of the
radiological sciences is apparent by looking at the refinements made to
the fundamental unit used in human dosimetry. Dose, energy absorbed kg-1
tissue, has been developed to where it now accounts for the relative biological
effectiveness of different types of radiation, the distribution of the
radionuclide within the body, and the future lifetime body burden of the
contaminant, having taken in to account the biological halftime of the
radionuclide. The radiological sciences have developed to where probabilistic
risk factors can now be applied that predict specific deleterious effects
to humans per unit dose. This maturity far exceeds that of the non-radiological
sciences and their methods for determining dose to humans from other types
of pollutants!
And yet. these same radiological sciences that have made such advances
in human dosimetry, are primitive when effects to biota are co.ncerned.
There are no specialized units, no agreed upon weighting factors, no factors
that account for distributions within an organism's body, and certainly
no risk factors. There are no internationally agreed upon criteria or
policies that explicitly address protection of the environment from ionizing
radiation, although many international agreements and statues call for
protection against pollution [I]. There is not even agreement as to what
endpoint should be measured to quantify an environmental effect (Fig.
1)!
Historically, the low priority in funding environmental effects research
is partially due to the long-standing paradigm for protecting the environment
from radiation: If man is adequately protected then so is the environment.
Explicit radiological limits are not needed.for the biota. .if dose limits
are set to protect humans then the environment is automatically protected
as well [2, 3, 4]. Such an anthropocentric view has been deemed totally
unacceptable for other contaminants! Why has it persisted within the radiological
sciences? The apparent dichotomy in rigor by which we protect humans versus
the environment is understandable if the history behind the paradigm is
explored. That, in part, is the topic of this paper. Additionally, we
provide a brief overview of radiation effects to the environment, and
summarize recent international questioning of the paradigm by highlighting
three different approaches to the problem. We also suggest topics that
need to be researched, and in conclusion emphasize that if the environmental
radiation problems are going to be properly addressed, an enhanced collaboration
is required between what has traditionally been separated disciplines
of radiation biology and radiation ecology.
SREL Reprint #2682
Hinton, T. G. and F. W. Whicker. 2002. Environmental radiation effects: a need to question old paradigms and to enhance collaboration between radiation biologists and radiation ecologists. p. 1-7. In Biological Effects of Low Dose Radiation: Molecular Mechanisms for Radiation-induced Cellular Response and Cancer Development, edited by K. Tanaka, et al.,October 9-11. Bunka-Kouryu Plaza, Rokkasho, Aomori, Institute for Environmental Sciences, Japan..
