The truth will out: a reflection on the life and times of Alice Stewart.

PURPOSE AND CONCLUSIONS: Dr. Alice Stewart, 1906-2002, came from a medical background which included a strong commitment to social justice and equality. Her father became Professor of Medicine at Sheffield University and her mother was one of the first women to qualify as a doctor, and together they practiced in Hillsborough, near Sheffield. Having qualified as a doctor herself in 1932, Alice worked in London hospitals before moving to Oxford, where she became a pioneer in epidemiology. Early in her career, she showed that X-raying pregnant women was a cause of childhood leukemia. Her later work focused on the harmful effects of low-level radiation on nuclear industry workers, the role of background radiation and she went on to question the dose limits set for radiation protection. All her results were initially challenged, but subsequent studies have borne out her findings. CONCLUSIONS: Dr Alice Stewart's research was pioneering, fundamental and challenging, and is now widely accepted.

The tubercular badger and the uncertain curve:- The need for a multiple stressor approach in environmental radiation protection.

This article presents the results of a workshop held in Stirling, Scotland in June 2018, called to examine critically the effects of low-dose ionising radiation on the ecosphere. The meeting brought together participants from the fields of low- and high-dose radiobiology and those working in radioecology to discuss the effects that low doses of radiation have on non-human biota. In particular, the shape of the low-dose response relationship and the extent to which the effects of low-dose and chronic exposure may be predicted from high dose rate exposures were discussed. It was concluded that high dose effects were not predictive of low dose effects. It followed that the tools presently available were deemed insufficient to reliably predict risk of low dose exposures in ecosystems. The workshop participants agreed on three major recommendations for a path forward. First, as treating radiation as a single or unique stressor was considered insufficient, the development of a multidisciplinary approach is suggested to address key concerns about multiple stressors in the ecosphere. Second, agreed definitions are needed to deal with the multiplicity of factors determining outcome to low dose exposures as a term can have different meanings in different disciplines. Third, appropriate tools need to be developed to deal with the different time, space and organisation level scales. These recommendations permit a more accurate picture of prospective risks.

When a duck is not a duck; a new interdisciplinary synthesis for environmental radiation protection.

This consensus paper presents the results of a workshop held in Essen, Germany in September 2017, called to examine critically the current approach to radiological environmental protection. The meeting brought together participants from the field of low dose radiobiology and those working in radioecology. Both groups have a common aim of identifying radiation exposures and protecting populations and individuals from harmful effects of ionising radiation exposure, but rarely work closely together. A key question in radiobiology is to understand mechanisms triggered by low doses or dose rates, leading to adverse outcomes of individuals while in radioecology a key objective is to recognise when harm is occurring at the level of the ecosystem. The discussion provided a total of six strategic recommendations which would help to address these questions.

Radiation a new paradigm...Societal impacts.

Latency is associated with the time lag it takes for the health effects resulting from exposure to ionising radiation to show up. However, the term latency can also be applied to the time it takes for a policy to be implemented. This length of time has been suggested as broadly 40-year process. Given that radioactivity was identified and named in 1896, three paradigms are identified and examined from 1896 to 2016 and the criteria for a 4th paradigm suggested for the period 2017-2056. The review examines the changes that have taken place in scientific understanding and in public trust, a few key developments and the associated establishment of the related organisational infrastructure designed to collate and assess the evidence.