Are we being prudent, precautionary, or both?

IF 1.4 4区 环境科学与生态学 Q4 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Sannah H P van Balen, Elina Paivinen, Nathaniel Read, Eugene Shwageraus
{"title":"Are we being prudent, precautionary, or both?","authors":"Sannah H P van Balen, Elina Paivinen, Nathaniel Read, Eugene Shwageraus","doi":"10.1088/1361-6498/add540","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The ongoing review conducted by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) includes an examination of the ethical foundations of the System of Radiological Protection. ICRP (2018<i>Ann. ICRP</i><b>47</b>) identified Prudence as one of the four ethical values underpinning the work of the ICRP. In most recent publications, the term regularly appears as a synonym or in conjunction with the Precautionary Principle. However, despite their frequent pairing, the two concepts have distinct meanings and unique histories in ICRP publications. Given the importance of the Precautionary Principle outside of radiological protection, the instability of their relationship can become a serious point of confusion, particularly when more emphasis is placed on protection of the environment. How do we know that we are being prudent, precautionary, or both in our approach to radiological risk assessment and management? This paper examines the definitions and applications of these terms within the ICRP's publishing history. Through a content and semantic analysis of 103 ICRP publications, this study describes their evolution and interrelation, highlights ambiguity and identifies opportunities for further clarification. The ICRP's current review of the System provides a timely opportunity to stabilise the terms, improving a common understanding and, ultimately, the management of radiological risk.</p>","PeriodicalId":50068,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Radiological Protection","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Radiological Protection","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6498/add540","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The ongoing review conducted by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) includes an examination of the ethical foundations of the System of Radiological Protection. ICRP (2018Ann. ICRP47) identified Prudence as one of the four ethical values underpinning the work of the ICRP. In most recent publications, the term regularly appears as a synonym or in conjunction with the Precautionary Principle. However, despite their frequent pairing, the two concepts have distinct meanings and unique histories in ICRP publications. Given the importance of the Precautionary Principle outside of radiological protection, the instability of their relationship can become a serious point of confusion, particularly when more emphasis is placed on protection of the environment. How do we know that we are being prudent, precautionary, or both in our approach to radiological risk assessment and management? This paper examines the definitions and applications of these terms within the ICRP's publishing history. Through a content and semantic analysis of 103 ICRP publications, this study describes their evolution and interrelation, highlights ambiguity and identifies opportunities for further clarification. The ICRP's current review of the System provides a timely opportunity to stabilise the terms, improving a common understanding and, ultimately, the management of radiological risk.

我们是谨慎,还是预防,还是两者兼而有之?
国际放射防护委员会(ICRP)正在进行的审查包括审查放射防护制度的伦理基础。第138号出版物(2018年)将谨慎确定为支持ICRP工作的四个道德价值观之一。在最近的出版物中,该术语经常作为预防原则的同义词或与预防原则一起出现。然而,尽管它们经常配对,但这两个概念在ICRP出版物中具有不同的含义和独特的历史。鉴于预防原则在辐射防护之外的重要性,它们之间关系的不稳定可能成为一个严重的混乱点,特别是在更加强调保护环境的情况下。我们如何知道我们在放射性风险评估和管理的方法中是谨慎的,预防的,或者两者兼而有之?本文考察了ICRP出版历史中这些术语的定义和应用。通过对103篇ICRP出版物的内容和语义分析,本研究描述了它们的演变和相互关系,突出了歧义,并确定了进一步澄清的机会。ICRP目前对该系统的审查提供了一个及时的机会,以稳定这些术语,增进共同理解,并最终管理辐射风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Radiological Protection
Journal of Radiological Protection 环境科学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
26.70%
发文量
137
审稿时长
18-36 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Radiological Protection publishes articles on all aspects of radiological protection, including non-ionising as well as ionising radiations. Fields of interest range from research, development and theory to operational matters, education and training. The very wide spectrum of its topics includes: dosimetry, instrument development, specialized measuring techniques, epidemiology, biological effects (in vivo and in vitro) and risk and environmental impact assessments. The journal encourages publication of data and code as well as results.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信