Change search
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Radiation Protection: Sorting Out the Arguments
KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy and History of Technology, Philosophy.
2011 (English)In: Philosophy and Technology, ISSN 2210-5433, Vol. 24, no 3, 363-368 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

This is a response to an article by Wade Allison in which he argues that we should accept drastically higher doses of ionizing radiation than what we currently do (Philosophy and Technology 24:193–195, 2011). He employs four arguments in defence of his position: comparisons with background radiation, the positive experiences of radiotherapy, the presence of biological defence mechanisms against radiation, and a concession by Swedish authorities that their approach to reindeer meat after the Chernobyl fallout was unnecessarily strict. It is shown that each of the four arguments is fallacious. In conclusion, the traditional weighing of risks against benefits in radiation protection is defended.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2011. Vol. 24, no 3, 363-368 p.
National Category
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-86281DOI: 10.1007/s13347-011-0036-5ScopusID: 2-s2.0-80052626481OAI: diva2:500579
QC 20120216Available from: 2012-02-13 Created: 2012-02-13 Last updated: 2012-02-16Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Hansson, Sven Ove
By organisation

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

Altmetric score

Total: 15 hits
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link