Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Ethical issues in radiation protection, continued

D Schwarz1

  • 1VEW ENERGIE AG, Dortmund, Germany.

Health Physics
|July 31, 1998
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Search for Light Pseudoscalar Bosons, Pair-Produced in Higgs Boson Decays in the Four-Electron Final State in Proton-Proton Collisions at sqrt[s]=13  TeV.

Physical review letters·2026
Same author

First Evidence for Mixing-Induced CP Violation in B_{s}^{0}→J/ψϕ(1020) Decays in pp Collisions at sqrt[s]=13  TeV.

Physical review letters·2026
Same author

Promoting healthy behaviours in young people with intellectual disabilities: a pilot RCT of an mHealth-based intervention targeting physical activity and sedentary behaviour.

Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology·2026
Same author

Observation of Suppressed Charged-Particle Production in Ultrarelativistic Oxygen-Oxygen Collisions.

Physical review letters·2026
Same author

Measurement of D^{0} Meson Photoproduction in Ultraperipheral Heavy Ion Collisions.

Physical review letters·2026
Same author

Observation of tWZ Production at the CMS Experiment.

Physical review letters·2026
Same journal

Assessment of Health Risks of Adults and Children Due to Consumption of Uranium in Groundwater from Chengalpattu District, Tamil Nadu, India.

Health physics·2026
Same journal

Radiation Protection Abstracts, Volume 46, Number 1.

Health physics·2026
Same journal

Specialized Radiological Assets for Navigable Two-dimensional and Three-dimensional Virtual and Augmented Reality.

Health physics·2026
Same journal

DoseBusters: A Fully Immersive Virtual Reality Game for Radiation Protection and Detection.

Health physics·2026
Same journal

Radioactivity in Bottled Drinking Water from Greater Dhaka City and Concomitant Ingestion Doses to Consumers.

Health physics·2026
Same journal

Assessment of Radiation Dose and Protection Practices in Neonatal Radiography in NICUs.

Health physics·2026
See all related articles

This study provides ethical conclusions on balancing equity, health, individual rights, due process, and stakeholder consent. It also addresses psychological and economic harms from radiation fear and the nature of scientific truth.

Area of Science:

  • Environmental Ethics
  • Risk Analysis
  • Philosophy of Science

Background:

  • Ethical frameworks for risk assessment are crucial for public policy.
  • Previous work by Shrader-Frechette and Persson (1997) identified key ethical dilemmas.
  • Understanding these dilemmas is vital for informed decision-making in science and management.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To offer reasoned conclusions on five core ethical conflicts in risk assessment.
  • To explore additional ethical considerations related to radiation fear.
  • To examine the epistemological challenges within scientific inquiry.

Main Methods:

  • Review and synthesis of ethical arguments from Shrader-Frechette and Persson (1997).
  • Philosophical analysis of ethical trade-offs.
Keywords:
Health Care and Public Health

Related Experiment Videos

  • Discussion of psychological and socio-economic impacts of perceived risks.
  • Epistemological examination of scientific truth claims.

    • Main Results:

    • Provides resolutions for dilemmas concerning equity vs. efficiency, health vs. economics, individual rights vs. societal benefits, due process vs. necessary sacrifice, and stakeholder consent vs. management decisions.
    • Highlights the ethical significance of psychological harm stemming from fear of radiation.
    • Addresses potential economical-ecological harm linked to radiation fear.
    • Discusses the complexities and limitations of establishing scientific truth.

    Conclusions:

    • Ethical decision-making requires careful balancing of competing values.
    • Fear of radiation poses significant ethical challenges beyond direct physical harm.
    • The pursuit of scientific truth is subject to ethical scrutiny and societal context.