RESUMEN
The back-and-forth debate on radiation risk, in the recent years, has unscientifically drifted away from proportionality and become increasingly antagonistic. A handful of authors have used exaggerated claims which are corroborated by their own previous work and presented using heated and superlative language. With unwarranted certainty, many have also referenced studies which report inconclusive findings and given undue weight to the results of laboratory animal and cellular studies, regardless of their exact positions on radiation risk. The passion and subjective interpretation with which the debate is now presented detracts from rational, scientific evaluation. A reform of the debate is needed to reach grounded consensus in the community and, if appropriate, begin the process of amending the legislation to reflect it. In this article we have analysed key research on the topic and discussed the fundamental limitations of science in providing satisfactory answers to our questions.