Effects of Radiation on the Environment: A Need to Question Old Paradigms and Enhance Collaboration among Radiation Biologists and Radiation Ecologists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A historical perspective is given of the current paradigm that does not explicitly protect nonhuman biota from radiation but instead relies on the concept that if dose limits are set to protect humans, then the environment is automatically protected as well. We summarize recent international questioning of this paradigm and briefly present three frameworks for protecting biota that are being considered by the U.S. Department of Energy, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, and the International Commission on Radiological Protection. We point out a controversial component in each of the three frameworks and suggest topics that need additional research. We emphasize that to properly address radiation protection of the environment, we need to understand how effects are integrated across different levels of biological organization. We caution that the proposed use of molecular end points to estimate ecological risks from radioactive contamination is applicable only if we understand the extent of the impact that molecular damage has on individual organisms and populations of exposed biota. To accomplish the latter, enhanced collaborations are required among the traditionally separate disciplines of radiation biology and radiation ecology.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".