Responses

Download PDFPDF

Is cancer risk of radiation workers larger than expected?
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Proper Interpretation of DDREF in IREP

    The comment by the authors about the computer code IREP used by NIOSH, namely: “IREP includes a DDREF, which lowers the probability of causation [PC] for low-dose-rate exposures,” has the potential to be misinterpreted. IREP contains two discrete DDREF distributions, one for most solid cancers and another, more restricted, distribution for thyroid and female breast cancers. The first mentioned, with values of DDREF rang...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.