Ethical communicators do not express personal opinions, even when a product may be unsafe or unsound

1. Cuttler JM, Calabrese EJ. What would become of nuclear risk if governments changed their regulations to recognize the evidence of radiation's beneficial health effects for exposures that are below the thresholds for detrimental effects? Dose Response. 2021;19(4):15593258211059317. doi: 10.1177/15593258211059317. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

2. Cuttler JM. The LNT issue is about politics and economics, not safety. Dose-Response. 2020;18(3):155932582094906. doi: 10.1177/1559325820949066. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

3. Hendee WR. Personal and public perceptions of radiation risks. | Radiographics 1991;11:1109-1119. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

4. Dauer LT, Thornton RH, Hay JL, Balter R, Williamson MJ, St Germain J. Fears, feelings, and facts: interactively communicating benefits and risks of medical radiation with patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196(4):756-761. doi: 10.2214/AJR.10.5956. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

5. Cuttler JM. Application of low doses of ionizing radiation in medical therapies. Dose Response. 2020;18(1):1559325819895739. doi: 10.1177/1559325809895639. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

6. Schauer DA, Linton OW. National council on radiation protection and measurements report shows substantial medical exposure increase. Radiology. 2009;253(2):293-296. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2532090494. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

7. David E, Wolfson M, Fraifeld VE. Background radiation impacts human longevity and cancer mortality: reconsidering the linear no-threshold paradigm. Biogerontology. 2021;22(2):189-195. doi: 10.1007/s10522-020-09909-4. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

8. Suzuki K, Yamashita S. Low-dose radiation exposure and carcinogenesis. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2012;42(7):563-568. doi: 10.1093/jjco/hys078. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

9. Peckover R, Priest ND. Should we discount low-dose radiation risk? 2004. doi: 10.1680/NUEN.43.3.145.36398 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

10. National Academy of Sciences (U.S.) . The Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation: Summary Reports from a Study. Washington: National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council; 1960. http://archive.org/details/biologicaleffect00nati. Accessed December 13, 2021. [Google Scholar]

11. Calabrese EJ. LNT and cancer risk assessment: its flawed foundations part 2 How unsound LNT science became accepted. Environ Res. 2021;197:111025. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2021.111025. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

12. World Nuclear Association . Recalibrating risk. Putting nuclear risk in context and perspective. 2021. Published online. https://world-nuclear.org/getmedia/bdfff1aa-1a50-4793-9362-a95119b2307d/recalibrating-risk-report.pdf.aspx Accessed December 15, 2021.

13. Doss M. Evidence supporting radiation hormesis in atomic bomb survivor cancer mortality data. Dose-Response. 2012;10(4):584-592. doi: 10.2203/dose-response.12-023. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

14. Doss M. Linear no-threshold model VS. Radiation hormesis. Dose-Response. 2013;11(4):480-497. doi: 10.2203/dose-response.13-005. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

15. Siegel JA, Brooks AL, Fisher DR, et al. A critical assessment of the linear no-threshold hypothesis: its validity and applicability for use in risk assessment and radiation protection. Clin Nucl Med. 2019;44(7):521-525. doi: 10.1097/RLU.0000000000002613. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

16. Pennington CW, Siegel JA. The linear no-threshold model of low-dose radiogenic cancer: a failed fiction. Dose-Response. 2019;17(1):155932581882420. doi: 10.1177/1559325818824200. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

17. Sacks B, Siegel JA. Preserving the anti-scientific linear no-threshold myth: authority, agnosticism, transparency, and the standard of care. Dose-Response. 2017;15(3):155932581771783. doi: 10.1177/1559325817717839. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

18. Calabrese EJ. The linear no-threshold (LNT) dose response model: a comprehensive assessment of its historical and scientific foundations. Chem Biol Interact. 2019;301:6-25. doi: 10.1016/j.cbi.2018.11.020. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

19. Calabrese EJ. LNTgate: how scientific misconduct by the U.S. NAS led to governments adopting LNT for cancer risk assessment. Environ Res. 2016;148:535-546. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2016.03.040. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

20. Calabrese EJ. On the origins of the linear no-threshold (LNT) dogma by means of untruths, artful dodges and blind faith. Environ Res. 2015;142:432-442. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2015.07.011. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

21. Wynne B. Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science--hitting the notes, but missing the music?. Community Genet. 2006;9(3):211-220. doi: 10.1159/000092659. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

22. Science. Policy, and the value-free ideal: Douglas, Heather: 9780822960263: Books - Amazon.ca. https://www.amazon.ca/Science-Policy-Value-Free-Heather-Douglas/dp/0822960265. Accessed December 13, 2021.

23. Slovic P. The Perception of Risk. London: Routledge; 2016. [Google Scholar]

24. Takebayashi Y, Lyamzina Y, Suzuki Y, Murakami M. Risk perception and anxiety regarding radiation after the 2011 Fukushima nuclear power plant accident: a systematic qualitative review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017;14(11):1306. doi: 10.3390/ijerph14111306. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

25. Renn O, Levine D. Credibility and trust in risk communication. In: Kasperson RE, Stallen PJM, eds Communicating Risks to the Public. Netherlands: Springer; 1991:175-217. doi: 10.1007/978-94-009-1952-5_10. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

26. credibility merriam webster dictionary - Freshy Yahoo Canada search results. https://ca.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=AwrXkp1_2bdhnsYA7xcXFwx.;_ylu=Y29sbwNncTEEcG9zAzEEdnRpZAMEc2VjA3Fydw--?type=Y219_F163_204671_102220&hsimp=yhs-freshy&hspart=tro&fr=yhs-tro-freshy&ei=UTF-8&p=credibility+merriam+webster+dictionary&fr2=12642. Accessed December 13, 2021

27. Kasperson RE, Renn O, Slovic P, et al. The social amplification of risk: a conceptual framework. Risk Anal. 1988;8(2):177-187. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1988.tb01168.x. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

28. Mazur A. True Warnings and False Alarms. Evaluating Fears about the Health Risks of Technology, 1948-1971 by Allan Mazur. New York: Routledge:1636. [Google Scholar]

29. Greenberg MR. Public Stakeholders: what we know and expect. In: Greenberg M, eds. Nuclear Waste Management, Nuclear Power, and Energy Choices: Public Preferences, Perceptions, and Trust. Lecture Notes in Energy. London: Springer; 2013:45-64. [Google Scholar]

30. Greenberg MR. Nuclear waste management: building a foundation to enhance trust. In: Greenberg M, eds. Nuclear Waste Management, Nuclear Power, and Energy Choices: Public Preferences, Perceptions, and Trust. Lecture Notes in Energy. London: Springer; 2013:123-136. [Google Scholar]

31. Marx SM, Weber EU, Orlove BS, et al. Communication and mental processes: experiential and analytic processing of uncertain climate information. Glob Environ Change. 2007;17(1):47-58. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.10.004. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

32. OECD Nuclear Energy Agency . Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants: Policies, Strategies and Costs. Paris: Nuclear Energy Agency, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; 2003. [Google Scholar]

33. N Y CS. Metacognition in human decision-making: confidence and error monitoring. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2012;367:1310-1321. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

34. Folch-Lyon E, Trost JF. Conducting focus group sessions. Stud Fam Plann . 1981;12:443. Published online. doi: 10.2307/1965656. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

35. Digital R. CSPC 2019 - Canadian science policy conference. CSPC. https://sciencepolicy.ca/conference/cspc-2019/ Accessed December 13, 2021.

36. A State-Level Examination of Bureaucratic Policymaking . The internal organization of attention - Jessica Terman. 2015. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0275074014529840 Accessed December 13, 2021.

37. Howlett M, Wellstead AM. Policy analysts in the bureaucracy revisited: The nature of professional policy work in contemporary government: Howlett/Wellstead/POLICY ANALYSTS IN THE BUREAUCRACY REVISITED. Polit Policy. 2011;39(4):613-633. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-1346.2011.00306.x. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

38. Baekgaard M, Mortensen PB, Bech Seeberg H. The bureaucracy and the policy agenda; 2018. Published online. doi: 10.1093/JOPART/MUX045. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

39. Kim Y, Kim W, Kim M. An international comparative analysis of public acceptance of nuclear energy. Energy Pol. 2014;66:475-483. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.11.039. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

40. Ho SS, Looi J, Chuah ASF, Leong AD, Pang N. Rising Powers Initiative. https://www.risingpowersinitiative.org/resource_database-post/ho-shirley-s-jiemin-looi-agnes-s-f-chuah-alisius-d-leong-and-natalie-pang/ Accessed December 13, 2021.

41. Ermeç A, Catli O, Korkmaz S. Examining the effect of endorser credibility on the consumers’ buying intentions: an empirical study in Turkey. Int Rev Manag Mark. 2014;4:66-77. [Google Scholar]

42. Berdahl L, Bourassa M, Bell S, Fried J. Exploring perceptions of credible science among policy stakeholder groups; 2016. Published online. doi: 10.1177/1075547016647175. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

43. Prabhu V, Rosenkrantz AB. Imbalance of opinions expressed on twitter relating to CT radiation risk: an opportunity for increased radiologist representation. Am J Roentgenol. 2015;204(1):W48-W51. doi: 10.2214/AJR.14.12705. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

44. Han EO, Kim JR, Choi YS. Different perceptions, knowledge, and attitudes of elementary, middle, and high school students regarding irradiated food, nuclear power generation, and medical radiation. Journal of Radiation Protection and Research. 2014;39:118-126. doi: 10.14407/JRP.2014.39.2.118. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]