English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

There is no doubt that prudence and risk aversion must guide public decisions when the associated adverse outcomes are either serious or irreversible. With any carcinogen, the levels of risk and needed protection before and after an event occurs, are determined by dose-response models. Regulatory law should not crowd out the actual beneficial effects from low dose exposures-when demonstrable-that are inevitably lost when it adopts the linear non-threshold (LNT) as its causal model. Because regulating exposures requires planning and developing protective measures for future acute and chronic exposures, public management decisions should be based on minimizing costs and harmful exposures. We address the direct and indirect effects of causation when the danger consists of exposure to very low levels of carcinogens and toxicants. The societal consequences of a policy can be deleterious when that policy is based on a risk assumed by the LNT, in cases where low exposures are actually beneficial. Our work develops the science and the law of causal risk modeling: both are interwoven. We suggest how their relevant characteristics differ, but do not attempt to keep them separated; as we demonstrate, this union, however unsatisfactory, cannot be severed.

Regulatory-Science: Biphasic Cancer Models or The Lnt—Not Just A Matter of Biology!