Los puntos clave no están disponibles para este artículo en este momento.
correct this problem (Calabrese 2019a(Calabrese , 2022)).In fact, their actions appear to be just the opposite.A recent Freedom of Information Act based article in Junk Science (https://junkscience.com/2023/06/emails-revealradiation-safety-establishment-tries-to-censor-blockbus ter-debunking-of-the-lnt-and-cleanse-the-health-physicssociety-of-lnt-critics) has shown that the EPA continues to stonewall debate on the issue and to threaten those in their organization who ask the key challenging questions.What has brought this issue to a head has been a 22-episode documentary on the historical foundations of cancer risk assessment by the Health Physics Society (https://hps.org/hpspublications/historylnt/episodeguide.html), a documentary based on numerous detailed publications (see References and Supplement #1) in the peer-reviewed literature exposing this massive historical corruption.This Commentary is a Call to Action as it points out that the US scientific and regulatory system is broken based on past uncorrected errors and corruption with a continuing self-serving lack of leadership by the journal Science, the NAS, and EPA.After five decades of failure, it is quite clear that the EPA cannot self-correct on these critical matters, which were based on falsified data, misconduct, and a history of public deception.It is time that the scientific community, including professional associations such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Industrial Hygiene Association, Health Physics Society, Society of Toxicology, Society for Risk Analysis, Society of Environmental Journalists, as well as the NAS, and others inform their memberships and elected leaders of this history of public deception and work to correct the scientific record.Finally, what is needed is a Congressional oversight investigation into this troubling history of cancer risk assessment that started in the US and now has affected the chemical and radiological risk assessment policies and regulations of most countries around the world.
Edward J. Calabrese (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: