*Edited by Rajamanickam Rajkumar*

This book is about the highly infective human papilloma virus (HPV). There are more than 200 strains of HPV, though only a few, like HPV 16 and HPV 18, are oncogenic. HPV infections can lead to cancers of the cervix, vulva, vagina, anus, penis, and oral cavity.Written by authors from across the globe, this book is a comprehensive look at HPV. Chapters cover such topics as the epidemiology of HPV, treatment of the manifestations of HPV, which can include warts on the skin and genitals, diagnosis and management of oral mucosal cancers due to HPV, HPV and pregnancy, and HPV vaccines. It is a useful reference for researchers and scientists in the field, providing them with helpful knowledge to combat and prevent HPV infections and cancers.

ISBN 978-1-83881-219-5

Human Papillomavirus

Published in London, UK © 2020 IntechOpen © PHOTOGraphicss / iStock


**Author details**

An excerpt of TULIP vocabulary syntax (detail specification can be found at http://purl.org/tulip/spec) for tlp:element and tlp:member is shown in **Figure 13**.

We have designed and implemented two reference libraries. The first library is a Python library that has functions to extract/transform Webpages and create TULIP datasets. The second library is a JavaScript library to query TULIP endpoint, consume its result sets, and manipulate them. The code is provided in the GitHub repositories at https://github.com/julthep/tulip and https://github.com/julthep/

Furthermore, we experimented with TULIP vocabulary using Wikipedia as the data source by converting a number of articles into TULIP data format. The result datasets can be accessed via SPARQL endpoint at http://tlpedia.org/sparql/ or downloaded at http://tlpedia.org/datasets/. These datasets will be updated periodically, and the number of imported articles will be increased on a regular basis.

Our proposal is different from existing research, which mainly efforts on transforming data from tables and lists into facts in various formats. TULIP focuses on extracting data from tables and lists into the dataset in the form of five-star Linked Data. Also, the RDF triples result can be used to recreate tables and lists in the same format as the source data because the designed schema focuses on the ability to preserve the structure of the original table and list. Another essential feature is that the acquired RDF triples can also be embedded in a package file such as XML or HTML with RDFa to be used to create tables and lists on a Webpage as an

TULIP can also be applied to many applications since it is designed to be very flexible. Implementers can choose to use any of its schema models, depending on their usage. It also supports many types of data and is extensible. Actually, TULIP also supports the Document Object Model (DOM) which can transform paragraphs or text blocks into the same structure. It can be used to transforms Wikipedia articles into TULIP format as a five-star open dataset so that the Semantic Web application can consume Linked Data more conveniently. All of this is to create a

data structure that is not just machine-readable but will be machine-

**5. Experimental results and contributions**

*Excerpt of TULIP vocabulary syntaxes tlp:element and tlp:member.*

*Linked Open Data - Applications,Trends and Future Developments*

tulip.js respectively.

**Figure 13.**

**6. Conclusion**

integrated dataset.

understandable.

**34**

Julthep Nandakwang\* and Prabhas Chongstitvatana Department of Computer Engineering, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand

\*Address all correspondence to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
© 2020 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


**1. Introduction**

The use of Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) data is well established for a range of professional and scientific applications, including atmospheric research. Precipitable Water Vapor (PWV) can be derived from radiosonde measurements, but also estimated with GNSS phase measurements processing techniques [1]. Zenith Tropospheric Delays (ZTDs) are estimated along with other parameters, such as the station position and receiver clock offset. The estimated ZTD is related to the refractive index of air, it can be used directly in atmospheric models, or ZTD can be used to estimate PWV. These values are of essential interest for accurate short-term weather forecasts.

The use of cost-efficient GNSS equipment is of great scientific interest to meteorology and atmospheric research. Traditionally, atmospheric research and meteorology made use of already existing GNSS infrastructures which were set-up for surveying and geodetic applications. Therefore, low-cost GNSS equipment can be a good solution for regions where (commercial) high grade equipment is not readily available.

Analysing ZTDs or PWV from GNSS receivers has proven to be a valuable tool for analysing and forecasting extreme rainfall events [2]. Nowadays Numerical Weather Prediction (NWP) models exist that use these parameters in their data assimilation schemes to improve their rainfall predictions [3]. To estimate ZTD at existing GNSS receivers on the ground, numerous Analysis Centers (ACs) apply techniques such as Double-Differenced (DD) processing of large GNSS networks, or, the stand-alone Precise Point Positioning (PPP) technique [4]. In contrast to network or relative positioning strategies in general, PPP uses undifferenced GNSS observations and relies on precise satellite clock and positions to be available from the International GNSS Service (IGS). Dual-frequency observations are used to form the ionosphere-free linear combination, which removes the majority of the error associated with the delay in the ionosphere layer, but increases the noise by a factor of 3 [5]. In the past, estimating ZTD for meteorological purposes using cost-efficient equipment was only possible with single-frequency receivers, which required interpolation of the ionospheric delay from a network of dual-frequency receivers (e.g., References [6,7]). Recently, also low-cost dual-frequency receivers became available, which in combination with low-priced antennas, inspired the experiment in this paper. This experiment aims to investigate the potential use of low-cost dual-frequency receivers for ZTD estimation, something that was formerly only possible using expensive receiver equipment, or relied on existing geodetic networks to perform corrections. For this experiment different quality antennas, ranging from geodetic to mass-market, are deployed consecutively on a short-baseline. The new low-cost design of the receiver supplemented by a low-cost antenna may enable the cost-efficient estimation of high-quality tropospheric delays.

For high-precision applications, both satellite and receiver antenna corrections need to be applied [8]. These corrections are not only frequency dependent, but they also depend on the azimuth and elevation of the transmitting satellite. The delay caused by the antenna and the near field environment is not the same in every direction. Neither is it possible to find, for a specific frequency, a single point in the antenna for which the delay is the same for every direction. Therefore, a geometric center is something that does not really exists, and concepts like Antenna Phase Center (APC) are only approximate. These variations in antenna delay cause errors in the horizontal and vertical position, but also in the ZTD estimation. In order to correct the carrier phase signals for this effect, antenna calibrations are performed. The result of an antenna calibration is represented by a Phase Center Offset (PCO) with respect to a chosen Antenna Reference Point (ARP), and azimuth- and elevation dependent Phase Center Variations (PCV) with respect to the PCO. PCV and PCO corrections are provided per frequency. They are not independent, and should always be used together in high-precision positioning applications. Applications that require less precision can use only PCO values. On the other hand, for ZTD estimation, the PCO values are not important, and only the PCV values matter.

To obtain PCO and PCV corrections, relative and absolute antenna calibrations can be used. Absolute calibrations are typically expensive and involve sending the antenna to a calibration facility, while a relative calibration can be performed more easily by yourself. The relative calibration is performed over a short baseline, with on one side the antenna to be calibrated, and on the other side a reference antenna that has already been calibrated before (see e.g., Reference [9]). Double-differenced carrier phase residuals are used to compute the relative pattern between the antenna's. It uses the fact that over short baselines for DD observations most errors (e.g., satellite clock and atmospheric delays) are eliminated. The drawback of this calibration method is that it is a relative calibration. Since 2006 [10] it has been common for geodetic applications to use absolute antenna calibrations. Therefore, to obtain an absolute calibration for our antenna, we must add the absolute calibration for the reference antenna to the relative calibration. Absolute calibrations are typically obtained from measurements in an anechoic chamber (see e.g., Reference [11] or Reference [12]) or robotic field calibrations (see Reference [13]). Robotic calibrations have the advantage that they are not affected by multipath effects as in a relative correction.

While high quality geodetic antennas are typically manufactured with highest precision to enable the repetition of phase patterns on the receiving phase center, this is only partially the case for low-cost antennas. Companies specialized in antenna calibrations, such as Geo++ [14] in Germany, generate individual absolute antenna calibrations for geodetic antennas. Absolute antenna calibrations are typically supplied in an Antenna Exchange Format (ANTEX) file [15] that contains PCO as well as azimuth- and elevation dependent PCV for different frequencies and satellite systems. Various individual calibrations of the same antenna type are averaged to type mean calibrations and distributed, such as by the IGS. Using these antenna patterns is a standard practice in geodesy and essential for high precision positioning and also for tropospheric delay estimations. Several studies were performed that compare the differences between type mean and individual antenna phase center calibrations for example, by Araszkiewicz and Völksen (2016) [16], Schmid et al. 2005 [17] and Sidorov and Teferle 2016 [18]. They found a typical difference of only 2 mm horizontal and up to 4 mm vertical between type mean and individual antenna calibrations. For one antenna an offset of up to 17 mm in the vertical and 10 mm in the horizontal direction was observed. The vertical positioning performance gives an indication about the accuracy of the troposphere estimations since both parameters are correlated [19]. Only few studies were performed that analyze the impact of the antenna PCV on tropospheric parameter estimations. Ejigu et al. 2018 [20] investigated the impact of individual and type mean calibrations on Zenith Wet Delays (ZWDs) and tropospheric gradients [21]. They report a mean ZWD bias of 1.8 mm. A study by Pacione et al. 2017 [22] demonstrate similar results with ZTD errors in the mm range between utilizing individual and type mean calibrations.

The low-cost GNSS chips, being affordable and produced for the mass-market, are also of interest for scientific applications, but this only makes sense if also a low-cost antenna can be used. Geodetic antennas are generally characterized by special manufactured designs (e.g., choke ring) to suppress multipath induced effects. With low-cost antennas this is typically not the case. An analysis of low-cost antennas is especially important since they are expected to be particularly prone to multipath effects that are reflected in the antenna phase patterns.

In this paper we investigate the PPP ZTD performance of a recently introduced low-cost dual-frequency receiver connected to antennas of ranging quality (geodetic to mass-market) with and without applying relative antenna calibrations. Additionally, using L1-only data we investigate how well the (un-)corrected single-frequency data from the dual-frequency receiver can be used for meteorological applications. This is achieved by trimming the original data to L1-only datasets and generating a second frequency observation with the Satellite-specific Epoch-differenced Ionospheric Delay (SEID) model which is adjusted to the ionospheric delay based on a surrounding dual-frequency network. The paper is structured as follows—Section 2 describes the methodology, experimental setup and data analysis, Section 3 illustrates the PPP-derived ZTD results, Section 4 the discussion and Section 5 the conclusion.


**2. Challenges faced in breeding of Australian cultivars**

Breeding challenges have largely been dictated by unique biotic and abiotic limitations on production and the need for Australia to remain competitive with other producing countries that have lower labour costs. There has therefore always been a high focus on improving yield potential as a first priority and incremental increases in fibre quality to meet changing spinning requirements that might restrict the marketability of Australian cotton. Overlaid on these efforts has been targeted breeding for yield protection from losses caused from individual biotic and abiotic factors. Some of the early emphasis on breeding for host-plant resistance to insects has changed with the advent of genetically modified traits, but this has just moved the priorities to other challenges. A key asset to the breeding has been access to a diverse collection of germplasm from around the world, building on a quite diverse suite of base cultivars developed in the early 1970s and 1980s that have allowed CSIRO to tackle challenging insect, disease and weed issues.

resistance in *H. armigera*, although a pre-emptive *Bt* resistance management strategy was

Australian Cotton Germplasm Resources http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/58414 5

Over the past 10 years, silverleaf whitefly has occasionally reached pest status in some regions of the Australian cotton industry. It was first reported in cotton regions in 1994 [14], and the first major outbreak occurred in the Emerald production region in 2001/02. There are limited effective chemical control options for whitefly and they are also very expensive, so there is large emphasis on sampling protocols, thresholds and cultural control of this pest [15].

A range of other minor pests have occurred since 2000, many of which are related to the introduction and use of Bollgard II®. Reduced spraying for *Helicoverpa* has allowed survival of pale cotton stainers (*Dysdercus sidae*), jassids (*Austroasca viridigrisea*) and thrips (*Frankliniella schultzei* and *F. occidentalis*) late in the season and in some years these species have all caused

In Australia, weeds are generally less of a problem in cotton than insects such as *Helicoverpa*, but many areas do have a reasonably high incidence of problematic weeds particularly on former grazing and/or flood-prone land [16]. Some of the problem weeds are *Ipomea spp., Cyperus rotundas, Polymeria spp., Conyze bonariensis,* and *Datura spp.* Weed control systems have changed in the last decade: production has changed from a cultivation-based system with residual herbicides and hand hoeing, to a system of minimal cultivation, with the use of herbicide tolerant cultivars (glyphosate and glufosinate) and few if any residual herbicides [17]. This has caused weed composition to shift to glyphosate tolerant species (particularly *Conyze sp.*) and has the real risk of developing glyphosate resistant weed populations.

Many diseases of cotton are present in Australia and have necessitated the establishment of

Bacterial blight of cotton caused by *Xanthomonas axonopodis* pv. *malvacearum* was historically the most important and widespread disease in Australian cotton. This disease was present in all crops and averaged around 20% of bolls affected though the mid-to late-1980s. The use of standard differential cultivars showed that Race 18 of the pathogen was predominant [18] and that infected seed was the major factor in the epidemiology of the disease. The disease was partially controlled through the production of blight-free planting seed. The CSIRO breeding program has released cultivars with immunity to blight and this disease is no longer found in

Verticillium wilt caused by *Verticillium dahliae* has been an important disease in Australia for many years, especially in the older growing regions of the Namoi, Gwydir and McIntyre. It is assumed that this pathogen is endemic to Australia. To date, all the Australian Verticillium isolates that have been tested are categorised as 'non-defoliating' strains [19]. Despite not having the more severe 'defoliating' strains that occur in other countries, yield reductions of

Australian production systems due to 100% uptake of blight-resistant cultivars.

initiated [12].

**2.2. Weeds**

**2.3. Diseases**

damage and sporadically required control [12].

breeding projects to confer host resistance.

#### **2.1. Insects**

A number of important pests of cotton are found in Australia that have necessitated the establishment of intensive pest management programs [8]. Cotton breeders have initiated programs to address host plant resistance and eventually released local cultivars containing *Bt* traits to confer resistance to the most important *Lepidopteron* pests.

The key pests of cotton in Australia are the larvae of two lepidopteron species, *Helicoverpa armigera* and *H. punctigera*, together with cotton aphid (*Aphis gossypii*), green mirid (*Creontiades dilutus*), spider mites (*Tetranychus urticae*) and silverleaf whitefly (*Bemisia tabaci* B-Biotype). From the 1960's to early 2000's, pest management was highly reliant on use of insecticides, mostly broad spectrum organophosphates, carbamates and pyrethroids as well as endosulfan. Crops were sprayed around 12-16 times per season [9]. This has brought with it predictable problems of pesticide resistance, destruction of natural enemy populations resulting in pest resurgence and outbreaks of secondary pests such as aphids [10] and spider mites [11], health concerns and off-farm movement into sensitive riverine environments [9].

Deployment of Ingard® (Monsanto's Bollgard) cotton in 1996 reduced insecticide use on those crops by about 50%, but efficacy was limited due to declining expression of *Cry1Ac* through the growing season. Ingard® cotton was always seen as an interim technology and during this period its area was capped at 30% to reduce the risk that *Helicoverpa spp*. would develop resistance to this critical insecticidal protein. This regulation limited the influence of the technology on the industry. The strong reliance on insecticides continued on the remaining 70% of conventional cotton and led to ongoing selection for resistance to insecticides in *H. armigera*, secondary pest problems and selection of pesticide resistance in these secondary pests. For instance, by the early 2000's spider mites were resistant to organophosphates, the pyrethroid bifenthrin and chlorfenapyr, and cotton aphids were resistant to organophos‐ phates, the carbamate pirimicarb and pyrethroids [12].

The deployment of Bollgard II® in 2003/04, for improved resistance management and removal of the 30% area cap, resulted in a dramatic uptake of this technology. It also led to a massive decline in pesticide use (by about 85% [13]), especially relative to earlier years but also in comparison with contemporary conventional cotton that had also significantly reduced its reliance on pesticides. This technology essentially saved the cotton industry from insecticide resistance in *H. armigera*, although a pre-emptive *Bt* resistance management strategy was initiated [12].

Over the past 10 years, silverleaf whitefly has occasionally reached pest status in some regions of the Australian cotton industry. It was first reported in cotton regions in 1994 [14], and the first major outbreak occurred in the Emerald production region in 2001/02. There are limited effective chemical control options for whitefly and they are also very expensive, so there is large emphasis on sampling protocols, thresholds and cultural control of this pest [15].

A range of other minor pests have occurred since 2000, many of which are related to the introduction and use of Bollgard II®. Reduced spraying for *Helicoverpa* has allowed survival of pale cotton stainers (*Dysdercus sidae*), jassids (*Austroasca viridigrisea*) and thrips (*Frankliniella schultzei* and *F. occidentalis*) late in the season and in some years these species have all caused damage and sporadically required control [12].

#### **2.2. Weeds**

that have lower labour costs. There has therefore always been a high focus on improving yield potential as a first priority and incremental increases in fibre quality to meet changing spinning requirements that might restrict the marketability of Australian cotton. Overlaid on these efforts has been targeted breeding for yield protection from losses caused from individual biotic and abiotic factors. Some of the early emphasis on breeding for host-plant resistance to insects has changed with the advent of genetically modified traits, but this has just moved the priorities to other challenges. A key asset to the breeding has been access to a diverse collection of germplasm from around the world, building on a quite diverse suite of base cultivars developed in the early 1970s and 1980s that have allowed CSIRO to tackle challenging insect,

A number of important pests of cotton are found in Australia that have necessitated the establishment of intensive pest management programs [8]. Cotton breeders have initiated programs to address host plant resistance and eventually released local cultivars containing

The key pests of cotton in Australia are the larvae of two lepidopteron species, *Helicoverpa armigera* and *H. punctigera*, together with cotton aphid (*Aphis gossypii*), green mirid (*Creontiades dilutus*), spider mites (*Tetranychus urticae*) and silverleaf whitefly (*Bemisia tabaci* B-Biotype). From the 1960's to early 2000's, pest management was highly reliant on use of insecticides, mostly broad spectrum organophosphates, carbamates and pyrethroids as well as endosulfan. Crops were sprayed around 12-16 times per season [9]. This has brought with it predictable problems of pesticide resistance, destruction of natural enemy populations resulting in pest resurgence and outbreaks of secondary pests such as aphids [10] and spider mites [11], health

Deployment of Ingard® (Monsanto's Bollgard) cotton in 1996 reduced insecticide use on those crops by about 50%, but efficacy was limited due to declining expression of *Cry1Ac* through the growing season. Ingard® cotton was always seen as an interim technology and during this period its area was capped at 30% to reduce the risk that *Helicoverpa spp*. would develop resistance to this critical insecticidal protein. This regulation limited the influence of the technology on the industry. The strong reliance on insecticides continued on the remaining 70% of conventional cotton and led to ongoing selection for resistance to insecticides in *H. armigera*, secondary pest problems and selection of pesticide resistance in these secondary pests. For instance, by the early 2000's spider mites were resistant to organophosphates, the pyrethroid bifenthrin and chlorfenapyr, and cotton aphids were resistant to organophos‐

The deployment of Bollgard II® in 2003/04, for improved resistance management and removal of the 30% area cap, resulted in a dramatic uptake of this technology. It also led to a massive decline in pesticide use (by about 85% [13]), especially relative to earlier years but also in comparison with contemporary conventional cotton that had also significantly reduced its reliance on pesticides. This technology essentially saved the cotton industry from insecticide

*Bt* traits to confer resistance to the most important *Lepidopteron* pests.

concerns and off-farm movement into sensitive riverine environments [9].

phates, the carbamate pirimicarb and pyrethroids [12].

disease and weed issues.

4 World Cotton Germplasm Resources

**2.1. Insects**

In Australia, weeds are generally less of a problem in cotton than insects such as *Helicoverpa*, but many areas do have a reasonably high incidence of problematic weeds particularly on former grazing and/or flood-prone land [16]. Some of the problem weeds are *Ipomea spp., Cyperus rotundas, Polymeria spp., Conyze bonariensis,* and *Datura spp.* Weed control systems have changed in the last decade: production has changed from a cultivation-based system with residual herbicides and hand hoeing, to a system of minimal cultivation, with the use of herbicide tolerant cultivars (glyphosate and glufosinate) and few if any residual herbicides [17]. This has caused weed composition to shift to glyphosate tolerant species (particularly *Conyze sp.*) and has the real risk of developing glyphosate resistant weed populations.

#### **2.3. Diseases**

Many diseases of cotton are present in Australia and have necessitated the establishment of breeding projects to confer host resistance.

Bacterial blight of cotton caused by *Xanthomonas axonopodis* pv. *malvacearum* was historically the most important and widespread disease in Australian cotton. This disease was present in all crops and averaged around 20% of bolls affected though the mid-to late-1980s. The use of standard differential cultivars showed that Race 18 of the pathogen was predominant [18] and that infected seed was the major factor in the epidemiology of the disease. The disease was partially controlled through the production of blight-free planting seed. The CSIRO breeding program has released cultivars with immunity to blight and this disease is no longer found in Australian production systems due to 100% uptake of blight-resistant cultivars.

Verticillium wilt caused by *Verticillium dahliae* has been an important disease in Australia for many years, especially in the older growing regions of the Namoi, Gwydir and McIntyre. It is assumed that this pathogen is endemic to Australia. To date, all the Australian Verticillium isolates that have been tested are categorised as 'non-defoliating' strains [19]. Despite not having the more severe 'defoliating' strains that occur in other countries, yield reductions of up to 20% have been recorded [20]. The majority of cultivars now grown commercially have relatively strong resistance to Verticillium wilt, but in seasonal conditions that favour the disease (temperature between 22-27°C [21]) and high number of rain days during the boll filling period [Allen S.J, pers comm.], significant productions losses still occur in some regions so improving resistance remains a breeding focus at a somewhat lower priority than other diseases.

Alternaria leaf spot caused by *Alternaria macrospora* has caused severe defoliation of cotton grown on less fertile soils when the crop is exposed to extended periods of wet weather. These conditions occasionally occur in some Queensland growing regions. All upland cultivars currently grown have some degree of resistance, so the disease is considered of minor

Australian Cotton Germplasm Resources http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/58414 7

Reniform nematodes, *Rotylenchulus reniformis*, associated with stunting of cotton plants have only recently been identified in Australia [32] and are yet to be considered of economic importance. There was an isolated detection in 2003 in central Qld, but a more widespread identification was made in 2012, so it may become more important with time and pre-emptive

A range of other industry challenges are also being, or need to be, addressed through breeding. There is a constant awareness of the dangers of having a narrow genetic base from which cultivars are developed. However, it is also acknowledged that broadening the genetic base through the introduction of exotic germplasm can often have a detrimental effect on yield [33]. In Australia, there is clear evidence of continuing yield improvement through selection within a 'narrowing' germplasm pool. In a high input, high yield industry such as Australia, there is a requirement for continued yield improvement to counter the ever increasing cost of pro‐ duction. While some of these improvements can come from improved management, historical data indicates that new cultivars are expected to provide at least 50% of the increase [2].

Many of the new challenges are related to the introduction of new technology or new envi‐ ronmental standards. The introduction of GM insect resistance traits into Australia in the mid 1990s simplified many aspects of pest management. However, it was soon discovered that the combination of high fruit retention of insect-protected crops together with early-maturity genotypes resulted in crops that had a fruiting cycle shorter than the available growing season and thus were not capitalising on the inherent yield potential of the cultivars. This had a detrimental effect on yield, so longer season, more indeterminate germplasm was subsequent‐ ly used to deploy the GM traits. This remains a challenge as the industry expands into the southern (shorter season) regions of Australia where yield expectations of growers are similar to the fuller season traditional regions and may require a different approach to breeding.

Most Australian cotton is exported to Asia and spun on ring-spinning frames. Although this spinning technology has been used for around 100 years, modern machines continue to run faster and spinning companies demand greater throughput. This places greater stresses on the fibre, so there is a continual demand for higher quality fibre. There are well documented negative associations between yield and quality [34] which makes the simultaneous improve‐ ment of both yield and fibre quality difficult. In addition, breeders are also expected to address changing future fibre quality requirements due to changes in spinning technology or the yarn

At a time of increased awareness of the potential for climate change, greater scrutiny is also being placed on climate-related aspects of agricultural production [35]. Australia already has

importance [20].

breeding for resistance may be desirable.

that is required by the textile industry.

**2.4. Other industry challenges**

Fusarium wilt caused by *Fusarium oxysporum* f sp. *vasinfectum*, was first recognised in Australia in 1993 [22] and is characterised by causing plant mortality at any time throughout the season, from seedling emergence through to harvest. By the end of 1999, the disease was present in six of the ten cotton production areas in Eastern Australia, but only widespread in two of those areas [23]. Subsequently, it has been shown that this is a unique strain of Fusarium and is substantially different to strains that are pathogenic to cotton in other countries [24]. This new Australian strain is identified as race 6 and is associated with alkaline clays, absence of nematodes [25], seedling death and an optimum temperature of 18 to 23°C [26]. Fusarium in the USA are races 1 and 2 and are associated with acid sands and nematodes [25], symptoms occur in mid-season with no plant mortality and an optimum temperature of 30 to 32°C [27]. It is assumed that the Australian pathogen evolved locally on weeds within our production system [28]. The extreme virulence and persistence of this pathogen and its ability to be readily transported in soil, water or trash raised concern within the industry when it was first discovered [29], particularly because most commercially grown cultivars in 1994 were highly susceptible. Production losses of virtually 100% have been reported for some fields. Substantial progress has been made in developing more resistant cultivars. However, for fields that have a high level of inoculum, the most resistant cultivar may still only have 10% survival in seasons that favour the disease so it remains a significant breeding challenge.

Cotton bunchy top disease (CBT) was first recorded in the late 1990s when a severe outbreak occurred in several Australian growing regions. Economic losses in that season alone were estimated at AUD\$70 million [30], with nearly all Australian cotton cultivars being susceptible to the disease. The cotton aphid (*Aphis gossypii*) was identified as the vector and since then, there have only been sporadic outbreaks as the vector has generally been well controlled but its incidence is now very widespread across the industry. The causal agent has subsequently been identified as a Polerovirus and has some similarities to cotton blue disease found in Africa, Asia and the Americas [30]. Currently no commercial cultivars in Australia have resistance to this disease, although a readily accessible source of resistance has been identified in Australian material and cultivars are due for release around 2017.

Black root rot caused by *Thielaviopsis basicola* was first reported on cotton in Australia in 1990 [31]. It is now present in almost all cotton fields in NSW, as well as many in Qld. Diseased plants show stunted growth early in the season when the cooler temperatures favour the pathogen. While the pathogen does not kill plants, it can cause significant yield loss in cooler and shorter season regions due to the delay in crop maturation. The wide host range of the pathogen and persistence of the chlamydospores makes effective control through crop rotation very difficult. No *G. hirsutum* or *G. barbadense* cotton cultivars have been shown to have any significant resistance to this pathogen, so breeders must look to primary, secondary or tertiary germplasm or to GM approaches for control of this disease.

Alternaria leaf spot caused by *Alternaria macrospora* has caused severe defoliation of cotton grown on less fertile soils when the crop is exposed to extended periods of wet weather. These conditions occasionally occur in some Queensland growing regions. All upland cultivars currently grown have some degree of resistance, so the disease is considered of minor importance [20].

Reniform nematodes, *Rotylenchulus reniformis*, associated with stunting of cotton plants have only recently been identified in Australia [32] and are yet to be considered of economic importance. There was an isolated detection in 2003 in central Qld, but a more widespread identification was made in 2012, so it may become more important with time and pre-emptive breeding for resistance may be desirable.

#### **2.4. Other industry challenges**

up to 20% have been recorded [20]. The majority of cultivars now grown commercially have relatively strong resistance to Verticillium wilt, but in seasonal conditions that favour the disease (temperature between 22-27°C [21]) and high number of rain days during the boll filling period [Allen S.J, pers comm.], significant productions losses still occur in some regions so improving resistance remains a breeding focus at a somewhat lower priority than other

Fusarium wilt caused by *Fusarium oxysporum* f sp. *vasinfectum*, was first recognised in Australia in 1993 [22] and is characterised by causing plant mortality at any time throughout the season, from seedling emergence through to harvest. By the end of 1999, the disease was present in six of the ten cotton production areas in Eastern Australia, but only widespread in two of those areas [23]. Subsequently, it has been shown that this is a unique strain of Fusarium and is substantially different to strains that are pathogenic to cotton in other countries [24]. This new Australian strain is identified as race 6 and is associated with alkaline clays, absence of nematodes [25], seedling death and an optimum temperature of 18 to 23°C [26]. Fusarium in the USA are races 1 and 2 and are associated with acid sands and nematodes [25], symptoms occur in mid-season with no plant mortality and an optimum temperature of 30 to 32°C [27]. It is assumed that the Australian pathogen evolved locally on weeds within our production system [28]. The extreme virulence and persistence of this pathogen and its ability to be readily transported in soil, water or trash raised concern within the industry when it was first discovered [29], particularly because most commercially grown cultivars in 1994 were highly susceptible. Production losses of virtually 100% have been reported for some fields. Substantial progress has been made in developing more resistant cultivars. However, for fields that have a high level of inoculum, the most resistant cultivar may still only have 10% survival in seasons

Cotton bunchy top disease (CBT) was first recorded in the late 1990s when a severe outbreak occurred in several Australian growing regions. Economic losses in that season alone were estimated at AUD\$70 million [30], with nearly all Australian cotton cultivars being susceptible to the disease. The cotton aphid (*Aphis gossypii*) was identified as the vector and since then, there have only been sporadic outbreaks as the vector has generally been well controlled but its incidence is now very widespread across the industry. The causal agent has subsequently been identified as a Polerovirus and has some similarities to cotton blue disease found in Africa, Asia and the Americas [30]. Currently no commercial cultivars in Australia have resistance to this disease, although a readily accessible source of resistance has been identified in Australian

Black root rot caused by *Thielaviopsis basicola* was first reported on cotton in Australia in 1990 [31]. It is now present in almost all cotton fields in NSW, as well as many in Qld. Diseased plants show stunted growth early in the season when the cooler temperatures favour the pathogen. While the pathogen does not kill plants, it can cause significant yield loss in cooler and shorter season regions due to the delay in crop maturation. The wide host range of the pathogen and persistence of the chlamydospores makes effective control through crop rotation very difficult. No *G. hirsutum* or *G. barbadense* cotton cultivars have been shown to have any significant resistance to this pathogen, so breeders must look to primary, secondary or tertiary

that favour the disease so it remains a significant breeding challenge.

material and cultivars are due for release around 2017.

germplasm or to GM approaches for control of this disease.

diseases.

6 World Cotton Germplasm Resources

A range of other industry challenges are also being, or need to be, addressed through breeding. There is a constant awareness of the dangers of having a narrow genetic base from which cultivars are developed. However, it is also acknowledged that broadening the genetic base through the introduction of exotic germplasm can often have a detrimental effect on yield [33]. In Australia, there is clear evidence of continuing yield improvement through selection within a 'narrowing' germplasm pool. In a high input, high yield industry such as Australia, there is a requirement for continued yield improvement to counter the ever increasing cost of pro‐ duction. While some of these improvements can come from improved management, historical data indicates that new cultivars are expected to provide at least 50% of the increase [2].

Many of the new challenges are related to the introduction of new technology or new envi‐ ronmental standards. The introduction of GM insect resistance traits into Australia in the mid 1990s simplified many aspects of pest management. However, it was soon discovered that the combination of high fruit retention of insect-protected crops together with early-maturity genotypes resulted in crops that had a fruiting cycle shorter than the available growing season and thus were not capitalising on the inherent yield potential of the cultivars. This had a detrimental effect on yield, so longer season, more indeterminate germplasm was subsequent‐ ly used to deploy the GM traits. This remains a challenge as the industry expands into the southern (shorter season) regions of Australia where yield expectations of growers are similar to the fuller season traditional regions and may require a different approach to breeding.

Most Australian cotton is exported to Asia and spun on ring-spinning frames. Although this spinning technology has been used for around 100 years, modern machines continue to run faster and spinning companies demand greater throughput. This places greater stresses on the fibre, so there is a continual demand for higher quality fibre. There are well documented negative associations between yield and quality [34] which makes the simultaneous improve‐ ment of both yield and fibre quality difficult. In addition, breeders are also expected to address changing future fibre quality requirements due to changes in spinning technology or the yarn that is required by the textile industry.

At a time of increased awareness of the potential for climate change, greater scrutiny is also being placed on climate-related aspects of agricultural production [35]. Australia already has a limited water supply, so increases in water-use efficiency (WUE) are being sought through management and breeding. In addition, the energy consumed and the emissions produced by a cotton crop are also being closely examined. Due to the heavy influence that yield has in the WUE calculation, this must continue to be the major focus of breeding programs. The efficient use of other resources, such as nitrogen fertiliser, will significantly influence the emissions from a crop [36, 37], so breeding programs also have responsibilities to continue research in this area.

 Number of wild primary, secondary and tertiary tetraploid and diploid accessions in Australian collections.

Primary gene pool

Secondary gene pool

Tertiary gene pool

unclassified 8

\* As per [39]


Ethical Values in Radiation Protection

*Hiromichi Fumoto*

## **Abstract**

The subject of bioethics probably first began appearing in radiation protection terminology when the reference was being made to the survivors of the atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This chapter, therefore, referring to the history of radiation protection since X-ray and radium radiation sources, addresses the nightmare of atomic bombs based on a review of original data and endeavors to determine what the role of ethics is in the radiation protection system as applied to our daily lives constituent to these horrific events. Somatic effects, as differentiated from genetic effects, or late somatic effects are discussed, and an introduction to stochastic effects is also made. It should be noted that a linear no-threshold (LNT) model has been widely applied to radiation protection systems in its pragmatism to be applied to regulatory authorities. However, the radiation detriment below 50 mSv/y is not clearly explained so far. Even though it is only a model, some countries couple LNT with stochastic effects, believing that "lesser is better" as far as radiation exposure is concerned, with criteria reaching as low as tens of micro Sieverts/year, which is equivalent to one two-hundredth of the average exposure received from nature in our living environment.

**Keywords:** atomic bomb survivors, somatic effects, late somatic effects, stochastic effects, linear no-threshold, environment

### **1. Introduction**

In this chapter, the ethical values in radiation protection are reviewed.

Soon after the discovery of X-rays and radium, radiation protection was applied to those who engaged with radiation sources [1, 2]. In the Manhattan Project, which developed the atomic bomb, the idea of free release was introduced as a precursor of exemption or clearance concepts [3]. The next tragedy witnessed by all the people in the world generated the idea to protect the general public from unexpected radiation exposures.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors' data became the basis of peaceful use of nuclear energy in later days. Utilitarian ethics led the radiation protection society first, up to the Chernobyl Accident. The accident had changed the utilitarian ethics into individual right-oriented ethics in radiation protection [4].

Nevertheless, Japan is one of the states which insisted on utilitarian ethics up to now. However, world nuclear society is shifting its base on radiation protection to lean on ethical values, as high as ever have been discussed before [5].

## **2. Dawn of radiation protection**

Radiation protection has a long history since the first recommendation of the International Committee on Radiation Protection (hereinafter referred to as ICRP) for X-ray and radium protection in 1934 [1, 2].

The permissible dose is chosen to be 0.2 r/day (600 mSv/y), referring to 1/100 of the exposure to induce erythema [2]. Although the ICRP recommendation for radium is limited only to the radiation shield from the radium sources, 1 year ahead of the recommendation adopted in 1933, Robley D. Evans, US scientist, evaluated the maximum load of radium in the body at 10 Ci (3700 Bq). He made an excellent effort to extract the samples of radium painters or radium injected patients to evaluate the permissible radium level in our body with a load of activities [6].

Radiation effects on our body consist of external exposures and internal exposures. External exposures like X-rays, in which ionizing rays pass through our body and giving their energy to our tissues, which may cause harm occasionally. Internal exposures were coming from radioactive elements inhaled or digested into our body, stayed in a certain period, and gave exposures to our bodies.

It must be noted that as early as the 1930s, the basis of controlling external radiation and internal radiation was already established. Therefore, we are generally free of radiation detriment to our health due to great efforts by our preceding generations.

However, all of the controlled personnel were professionals or patients who gave their consent to radiotherapy.

In the Manhattan Project, a secret code of atomic bomb development project, they used a considerable amount of uranium resources. They produced uranium, irradiated them in their nuclear reactor, and extracted plutonium for military purposes. During the development of plutonium separation, they needed to use many stages of chemical units and fission products, radioactive substances produced by the fission of uranium are distributed throughout the plant.

This was the first experience of a human encountering such a significant amount of man-made radioactive substances. The controlled area was set-up to eliminate the infinite migration of radioactive substances to the outer area or environment. Radiation measurement instruments must protect workers in the controlled area. Although radiation protection for workers by radiation exposure was established for X-ray technicians in 1934, they needed to establish other criteria for goods, articles, components to be removed from the controlled area to create a normal environment. This was the origin of clearance or exemption in the later establishment of radiation protection, although the ethical values sometimes seem misinterpreted. It will be shown later in this document.

#### **3. Age of Manhattan project and its entrails**

In the Manhattan Project, the concerns were mainly bulky office equipment such as desks and tools for fixing processing units. Even if the project had the highest priority, the number of radiation measurement instruments was limited. The radiation protection experts were requested to give the most effective means of free release criteria, which they call and are still calling the process of removing, for example, office equipment from controlled areas to the USA's outer areas.

The contamination was expected to be on the surface of the equipment. Therefore, they decided to determine the surface-specific radioactivity. **Table 1** shows the criteria given by AEC in 1974 [3].

**155**

*Ethical Values in Radiation Protection*

U-nat, U-235, U-238, and associated decay

products

I-129

*a*

*b*

*c*

*d*

*e*

*be wiped.*

**Table 1.**

Transuranics, Ra-226, Ra-228, Th-230, Th-228, Pa-231, Ac-227, I-125,

Th-nat, Th-232, Sr-90, Ra-223, Ra-224, U-232, I-126, I-131, I-133

Beta-gamma emitters (nuclides with decay modes other than alpha emission or spontaneous fission) except Sr-90 and others noted above.

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.93786*

Removable radioactive material per 100 cm2

*alpha- and beta-gamma-emitting nuclides should be applied independently.*

*The maximum contamination level applies to an area of not more than 100 cm2*

of Radioactive Substances would be established [7].

on the surfaces in the Manhattan Project.

*Acceptable surface contamination levels.*

*geometric factors associated with the instrumentation.*

*surface area, the average should be derived for each such objects.*

*The amount of removable radioactive material per 100 cm2*

release practices.

assuming a certain efficiency, since most of the contamination was expected to be

**Nuclidea Averageb,c Maximumb,d Removableb,e**

5000 dpm β-γ/100 cm2 15,000 dpm

*Where surface contamination by both alpha- and beta-gamma-emitting nuclides exists, the limits established for*

*As used in this table, dpm (disintegrations per minute) means the rate of emission by radioactive material as determined by correcting the counts per minute observed by an appropriate detector by background, efficiency, and*

*Measurements of average contaminant should not be averaged over more than 1 square meter. For objects of less*

*area with dry filter or soft absorbent paper, applying moderate pressure, and assessing the amount of radioactive material on the wipe with an appropriate instrument of know efficiency. When removable contamination on objects of less surface area is determined, the pertinent levels should be reduced proportionally, and the entire surface should*

5000 dpm α/100 cm2 15,000 dpm α/100 cm2 1000 dpm α/100 cm2

100 dpm /100 cm2 300 dpm /100 cm2 20 dpm/100 cm2

1000 dpm /100 cm2 3000 dpm / 100 cm2 200 dpm / 100 cm2

β-γ/100 cm2

*.*

 *of surface area should be determined by wiping that*

1000 dpm β-γ/100 cm2

Since the measurement was made manually, highly ethical values were requested to radiation protection experts, but they managed to have no disputes in their free

In 1986, NRC launched the Below Regulatory Concern (BRC) policy to enhance the recycling of waste materials. However, it gave rise to metal industry and cement industry's concern with radiation safety on its implementation, and it was in the

This means our highly ethical valued conduct can overcome our worry about unknown radiation detriment. On the other hand, the proposal based on utilitarian ethical value had been gone in the USA. Before the Chernobyl accident, the world scene of the nuclear industry was led by utilitarian ethics. In 1982, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) announced that General Principles for Exemptions

Up to that moment, the exemption, as defined by the specific concentration of radioactivity, specified only two levels: one for natural origin radioactive element and the other for the artificial radioactive element [6]. Soon after, the exemption

moratorium. However, the free release was still implemented [6].

was measured by smear methods

#### *Ethical Values in Radiation Protection DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.93786*

*Bioethics in Medicine and Society*

generations.

their consent to radiotherapy.

will be shown later in this document.

**3. Age of Manhattan project and its entrails**

shows the criteria given by AEC in 1974 [3].

**2. Dawn of radiation protection**

for X-ray and radium protection in 1934 [1, 2].

Radiation protection has a long history since the first recommendation of the International Committee on Radiation Protection (hereinafter referred to as ICRP)

The permissible dose is chosen to be 0.2 r/day (600 mSv/y), referring to 1/100 of the exposure to induce erythema [2]. Although the ICRP recommendation for radium is limited only to the radiation shield from the radium sources, 1 year ahead of the recommendation adopted in 1933, Robley D. Evans, US scientist, evaluated the maximum load of radium in the body at 10 Ci (3700 Bq). He made an excellent effort to extract the samples of radium painters or radium injected patients to evaluate the permissible radium level in our body with a load of activities [6].

Radiation effects on our body consist of external exposures and internal exposures. External exposures like X-rays, in which ionizing rays pass through our body and giving their energy to our tissues, which may cause harm occasionally. Internal exposures were coming from radioactive elements inhaled or digested into our

It must be noted that as early as the 1930s, the basis of controlling external radiation and internal radiation was already established. Therefore, we are generally free of radiation detriment to our health due to great efforts by our preceding

However, all of the controlled personnel were professionals or patients who gave

This was the first experience of a human encountering such a significant amount of man-made radioactive substances. The controlled area was set-up to eliminate the infinite migration of radioactive substances to the outer area or environment. Radiation measurement instruments must protect workers in the controlled area. Although radiation protection for workers by radiation exposure was established for X-ray technicians in 1934, they needed to establish other criteria for goods, articles, components to be removed from the controlled area to create a normal environment. This was the origin of clearance or exemption in the later establishment of radiation protection, although the ethical values sometimes seem misinterpreted. It

In the Manhattan Project, the concerns were mainly bulky office equipment such as desks and tools for fixing processing units. Even if the project had the highest priority, the number of radiation measurement instruments was limited. The radiation protection experts were requested to give the most effective means of free release criteria, which they call and are still calling the process of removing, for

example, office equipment from controlled areas to the USA's outer areas. The contamination was expected to be on the surface of the equipment. Therefore, they decided to determine the surface-specific radioactivity. **Table 1**

In the Manhattan Project, a secret code of atomic bomb development project, they used a considerable amount of uranium resources. They produced uranium, irradiated them in their nuclear reactor, and extracted plutonium for military purposes. During the development of plutonium separation, they needed to use many stages of chemical units and fission products, radioactive substances produced

body, stayed in a certain period, and gave exposures to our bodies.

by the fission of uranium are distributed throughout the plant.

**154**

*a Where surface contamination by both alpha- and beta-gamma-emitting nuclides exists, the limits established for alpha- and beta-gamma-emitting nuclides should be applied independently.*

*b As used in this table, dpm (disintegrations per minute) means the rate of emission by radioactive material as determined by correcting the counts per minute observed by an appropriate detector by background, efficiency, and geometric factors associated with the instrumentation.*

*c Measurements of average contaminant should not be averaged over more than 1 square meter. For objects of less surface area, the average should be derived for each such objects.*

*d The maximum contamination level applies to an area of not more than 100 cm2 .*

*e The amount of removable radioactive material per 100 cm2 of surface area should be determined by wiping that area with dry filter or soft absorbent paper, applying moderate pressure, and assessing the amount of radioactive material on the wipe with an appropriate instrument of know efficiency. When removable contamination on objects of less surface area is determined, the pertinent levels should be reduced proportionally, and the entire surface should be wiped.*

#### **Table 1.**

*Acceptable surface contamination levels.*

Removable radioactive material per 100 cm2 was measured by smear methods assuming a certain efficiency, since most of the contamination was expected to be on the surfaces in the Manhattan Project.

Since the measurement was made manually, highly ethical values were requested to radiation protection experts, but they managed to have no disputes in their free release practices.

In 1986, NRC launched the Below Regulatory Concern (BRC) policy to enhance the recycling of waste materials. However, it gave rise to metal industry and cement industry's concern with radiation safety on its implementation, and it was in the moratorium. However, the free release was still implemented [6].

This means our highly ethical valued conduct can overcome our worry about unknown radiation detriment. On the other hand, the proposal based on utilitarian ethical value had been gone in the USA. Before the Chernobyl accident, the world scene of the nuclear industry was led by utilitarian ethics. In 1982, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) announced that General Principles for Exemptions of Radioactive Substances would be established [7].

Up to that moment, the exemption, as defined by the specific concentration of radioactivity, specified only two levels: one for natural origin radioactive element and the other for the artificial radioactive element [6]. Soon after, the exemption

was provided by exposure dose per year, and corresponding specific concentration was named as the exemption levels given to individual radioactive elements.

The radiation exposure dose of several tens of micro Sievert per year was adopted for exemption in 1988 [8]. This is the reflection of utilitarian ethics in radiation protection society. However, the timing was the worst. The world witnessed that the general public could be exposed to significant radiation levels, aside from atomic bomb victims.

Thus, the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) admitted that their ethical values were based on utilitarian ethical values and changed their thinking from a utilitarian ethical value to an individual-oriented philosophy [4].

The public opinion in the USA objected to the unlimited circulation of very low slightly contaminated waste from the nuclear industry. However, they trusted the site workers who verified waste with an instrument to let the waste freely released.

The public acceptance comes from establishing a long safe record since the Manhattan Project that no one has been receiving any health detriment by the conduct of free releases.

This is one of the examples that the general public cannot accept the utilitarian interpretation of the lowest risk at the happiness of the majority. However, the trust in the workers full of ethical dignity allowed people to accept the release of verified waste to the conventional environment from nuclear facilities.

### **4. Hiroshima/Nagasaki and its entrails**

We witnessed that the general public suffered from radiation diseases. Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission (ABCC) was established to undertake the long-term study of the survivors of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki [9]. First, the purpose was for military support to use the data for infantry at a stage of atomic bomb deployment. Thereafter, with the statement of atoms for peace, the data was gradually declassified for the public with the purpose of radiation protection.

The life span study of atomic bomb survivors had been continued, and the carcinogenic effects of low-LET radiation exposure in humans had been piled up during the term between 1958 and 1998. One of the examples is an excess relative risk of solid cancer with colon exposures [10].

**Figure 1** shows the linear-averaged excess relative risk (ERR) [10].

On this base, the linear no-threshold (LNT) hypothesis for radiation protection was proposed and adopted as a base of regulation for radiation protection in a pragmatic way [11]. After the Hiroshima and Nagasaki tragedy, the general public must be protected, and for the Atomic Bomb victims, LNT sounded more comfortable since it is a way of conservatism. If we choose the LNT hypothesis, it cannot show threshold values. The radiation protection experts will face difficulties in persuading the general public to feel comfortable even though their additional exposure to the natural background is small.

At the beginning of the LNT campaign, the Rockefeller Foundation gave financial support to Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation (BEAR) of the US Academy of Science (NAS). Most of the Genetics Panel members, one of the committees in BEAR, believed that any doses of radiation were harmful, irreversible, cumulative, and linearly acting [12]. This suggested that those who believed atoms for peace had chosen utilitarian ethics in radiation with LNT assumption in their global application to nuclear industries.

Radiation effects are categorized as somatic, also known as deterministic, or late somatic, also known as stochastic effects [13]. Somatic or deterministic effects

**157**

*Ethical Values in Radiation Protection*

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.93786*

mean that the effects appear soon after the explosion. In contrast, late somatic or stochastic effects mean that the effects appear after a certain period and follow a random process. In some countries, the stochastic effect is translated into a prob-

*Solid cancer dose-response function. The thick solid line is the fitted linear gender-averaged excess relative risk (ERR) dose-response at age 70 after exposure at age 30 based on data in the 0- to 2-Gy dose range. The points are nonparametric estimates of the ERR in dose categories. The thick dashed line is a nonparametric smooth of the category-specific estimates, and the thin dashed lines are one standard error above and below this smooth*

Mechanism of detriment inducement in such levels of doses believed to have a

Hereditary risk estimates, observed over years, decreases the confidence to

The radiation protection standard in 1934 had been revised, according to the data obtained in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In 1990, ICRP recommended exposure levels for an occupationally exposed person. The total effective dose received in a full working life should not exceed about 1 Sv received and a limit on the effective dose of 20 mSv per year. Averaged over five years, with the further provision that

The number of 1 Sv from the estimation with solid linear extrapolation of the estimates at 1 Sv could be used to estimate solid cancer risks at lower doses [15].

As for the threshold of 50 mSv in any single year, the author would like to show one of the samples given to the Fukushima Accident. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) 2017 white paper suggested that "among the 173 workers with doses greater than 100 mSv (mainly from external exposure), the Committee had considered it unlikely that such increased incidence of cancer due to irradiation would be discernible" [16]. Those sentences or expressions are very common in the society of radiation protection; namely, they are the best to express themselves concerning the threshold with their dignity of ethical dimensions. The development of nuclear energy had been completed in such a short period from 1942 to 1945 with such a large scale of development as President Harry S. Truman stated, "We have spent two billion dollars

Since the general public was exposed to the levels over fatal doses in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the situation of radiation protection surrounded by society changed themselves dramatically from protecting occupational radiation personnel to protecting the general public. For the best ethically dignified experts, the sample

ability effect, which sounds more scientific than ethical.

quantify the hereditary risk [13].

*[10] ©2020 radiation research society.*

**Figure 1.**

stochastic effect below 50 mSv/y cannot be explained [11].

the effective dose should not exceed 50 mSv in any single year [14].

on the greatest scientific gamble in history-and won" [17].

*Ethical Values in Radiation Protection DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.93786*

#### **Figure 1.**

*Bioethics in Medicine and Society*

from atomic bomb victims.

conduct of free releases.

philosophy [4].

was provided by exposure dose per year, and corresponding specific concentration was named as the exemption levels given to individual radioactive elements. The radiation exposure dose of several tens of micro Sievert per year was adopted for exemption in 1988 [8]. This is the reflection of utilitarian ethics in radiation protection society. However, the timing was the worst. The world witnessed that the general public could be exposed to significant radiation levels, aside

Thus, the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) admitted that their ethical values were based on utilitarian ethical values and changed their thinking from a utilitarian ethical value to an individual-oriented

The public opinion in the USA objected to the unlimited circulation of very low slightly contaminated waste from the nuclear industry. However, they trusted the site workers who verified waste with an instrument to let the waste freely released. The public acceptance comes from establishing a long safe record since the Manhattan Project that no one has been receiving any health detriment by the

This is one of the examples that the general public cannot accept the utilitarian interpretation of the lowest risk at the happiness of the majority. However, the trust in the workers full of ethical dignity allowed people to accept the release of verified

We witnessed that the general public suffered from radiation diseases. Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission (ABCC) was established to undertake the long-term study of the survivors of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki [9]. First, the purpose was for military support to use the data for infantry at a stage of atomic bomb deployment. Thereafter, with the statement of atoms for peace, the data was gradually declassified for the public with the purpose of radiation protection. The life span study of atomic bomb survivors had been continued, and the carcinogenic effects of low-LET radiation exposure in humans had been piled up during the term between 1958 and 1998. One of the examples is an excess relative

On this base, the linear no-threshold (LNT) hypothesis for radiation protection was proposed and adopted as a base of regulation for radiation protection in a pragmatic way [11]. After the Hiroshima and Nagasaki tragedy, the general public must be protected, and for the Atomic Bomb victims, LNT sounded more comfortable since it is a way of conservatism. If we choose the LNT hypothesis, it cannot show threshold values. The radiation protection experts will face difficulties in persuading the general public to feel comfortable even though their additional exposure to the

At the beginning of the LNT campaign, the Rockefeller Foundation gave financial

Radiation effects are categorized as somatic, also known as deterministic, or late somatic, also known as stochastic effects [13]. Somatic or deterministic effects

support to Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation (BEAR) of the US Academy of Science (NAS). Most of the Genetics Panel members, one of the committees in BEAR, believed that any doses of radiation were harmful, irreversible, cumulative, and linearly acting [12]. This suggested that those who believed atoms for peace had chosen utilitarian ethics in radiation with LNT assumption in their global application to nuclear

**Figure 1** shows the linear-averaged excess relative risk (ERR) [10].

waste to the conventional environment from nuclear facilities.

**4. Hiroshima/Nagasaki and its entrails**

risk of solid cancer with colon exposures [10].

natural background is small.

**156**

industries.

*Solid cancer dose-response function. The thick solid line is the fitted linear gender-averaged excess relative risk (ERR) dose-response at age 70 after exposure at age 30 based on data in the 0- to 2-Gy dose range. The points are nonparametric estimates of the ERR in dose categories. The thick dashed line is a nonparametric smooth of the category-specific estimates, and the thin dashed lines are one standard error above and below this smooth [10] ©2020 radiation research society.*

mean that the effects appear soon after the explosion. In contrast, late somatic or stochastic effects mean that the effects appear after a certain period and follow a random process. In some countries, the stochastic effect is translated into a probability effect, which sounds more scientific than ethical.

Mechanism of detriment inducement in such levels of doses believed to have a stochastic effect below 50 mSv/y cannot be explained [11].

Hereditary risk estimates, observed over years, decreases the confidence to quantify the hereditary risk [13].

The radiation protection standard in 1934 had been revised, according to the data obtained in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In 1990, ICRP recommended exposure levels for an occupationally exposed person. The total effective dose received in a full working life should not exceed about 1 Sv received and a limit on the effective dose of 20 mSv per year. Averaged over five years, with the further provision that the effective dose should not exceed 50 mSv in any single year [14].

The number of 1 Sv from the estimation with solid linear extrapolation of the estimates at 1 Sv could be used to estimate solid cancer risks at lower doses [15].

As for the threshold of 50 mSv in any single year, the author would like to show one of the samples given to the Fukushima Accident. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) 2017 white paper suggested that "among the 173 workers with doses greater than 100 mSv (mainly from external exposure), the Committee had considered it unlikely that such increased incidence of cancer due to irradiation would be discernible" [16].

Those sentences or expressions are very common in the society of radiation protection; namely, they are the best to express themselves concerning the threshold with their dignity of ethical dimensions. The development of nuclear energy had been completed in such a short period from 1942 to 1945 with such a large scale of development as President Harry S. Truman stated, "We have spent two billion dollars on the greatest scientific gamble in history-and won" [17].

Since the general public was exposed to the levels over fatal doses in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the situation of radiation protection surrounded by society changed themselves dramatically from protecting occupational radiation personnel to protecting the general public. For the best ethically dignified experts, the sample

statement shown above would be agreed on by the general public the most in terms of low dose carcinogenesis effects.

Since the general public is not radiation controlled, the dose limit for the general public is down from 20 mSv/year to 1 mSv/year. However, ICRP alerted that the dose limit shall not be regarded as the criteria to judge the situation is safe or not [18].

### **5. Fukushima and its entrails**

Japan was the only country to keep utilitarian ethical values, even after the Chernobyl Accident. The general public in Japan had been listening to voices saying that nuclear was safe, different from Three Mile Ireland (TMI), which had an accident in 1974 and Chernobyl, in 1986. Due to the unexpected Tsunami, the radiation levels in the adjacent area easily exceeded the levels to achieve the happiness of majorities. Since utilitarian ethics promised the residents that nuclear power plants would have no significant increase in radiation levels. However, neighboring societies could not accept the detectable increase in radiation levels.

Since Japan's government sets the levels of doses for safety as low as 1 mSv for the public, waiving the pressure of media to announce evacuation to all the residents, whether they are young or old at a nursing home, 1600 accidental deaths were piled other than radiation effects. This is the saga of the LNT application in Fukushima [12].

As for the fallout, ICRP states that although fallout has never been explicitly excluded in legislation, not requiring additional controls are defined on a caseby-case basis instead of defining a category. It further states that for the codified systems, the concepts of exclusion and exemption are very useful [18].

Japan adopted exemption and exclusion for naturally radioactive substances, although they cannot be applied to man-made radioactive substances. Thus, once the soil was found to be contaminated by the fallout of Fukushima nuclear plants, the residents asked for it to be removed. This led to the tremendous amount of very slightly contaminated soil, piled up to 15 million tons, or another estimated 28 million tons of contaminated soil, collected and waiting for reuse [19].

Exclusion and exemption are vital concepts in the implementation of ethical values. A cordial system is governing radiation dose levels at a rigid value. Such swift development of nuclear energy hinders us from understanding radiation control for the general public in a cordial manner. However, it must be done by our unconscious societal rationales provided by virtue and wisdom acquired through our experience and daily ethical conduct.

As is indicated by ICRP, exclusion and exemption are essential elements in radiation protection. Japan has to move from such an obstinate cordial protection system to a flexible system following our ethical values.

#### **6. Discussions**

As does the other ordinary industries using hazardous substances did, radiation protection was started by systemizing protection means for occupational personnel. However, due to the atomic bomb explosion, the protection of the general public is requested. Entering the atoms for peace phase, radiation protection for the public becomes a critical issue in their use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

In this initial stage in the civil development of nuclear energy, LNT's adoption was chosen to persuade the general public to have their consent on using the power

**159**

*Ethical Values in Radiation Protection*

the Chernobyl Accident.

contribute to our society.

nuclear energy can survive.

sible level of radiation exposure.

radioactive substances.

welcomed it [23].

based on realistic assessments of doses [5].

**7. Conclusion**

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.93786*

increase was observed, contrary to the LNT hypothesis [20].

from nuclear power plants. Whether the founders of LNT were conscious or not, it attributes the ethical values to utilitarianism, which was applicable before witnessing

Nine to 22 years exposures of apartment residents given by accidental contamination of 60Co to the recycled steel in Taiwan were analyzed, and no mortality rate

The author believes that LNT is an assumption of two-edged swords. Our sincere endeavors with prudence and dignity shall allow our community to understand the

The Fukushima Accident gave attention to the severe accident beyond designbased accidents. As is stated in the German Ethics Commission for a Safe Energy Supply, a nuclear disaster in the worst-case scenario is unknown or can no longer be assessed [21]. The Ethics Commission concluded that less risky energy sources could replace nuclear capacity following ecological, economic, and social compatibility; however, the author believes that nuclear energy still has the potentials to

Severe accidents beyond design-based accidents cannot be assessed, as is the case with design-based accidents that provide scenarios in the anticipated consequences of an accident. Thus, criteria for levels of radiation exposure could not be supplied to severe accidents in nature. However, the magnitude of an accident can be assumed in the hypothetical worst scenario. The author believes that the justification for nuclear energy options can be given even to Japan with its ethical dignity,

Radiation protection had been soundly developed since gradually, the researchers, medical doctors, and X-ray operators realized the health detriment caused by radiation exposure. Due to the exposure of the people in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombing, the general public is very keen and sometimes reluctant to accept the permis-

Our society has chosen the protection system with ethical values instead of systematic coding since the threshold cannot be provided or mutually agreed upon by the LNT hypothesis. However, LNT itself dominates the position of regulatory principles and never tries to give the post to a more rational and scientific one with either threshold or linear-quadratic models [22]. Radiation protection experts have shown much scientific evidence, regulatory authorities insist on keeping LNT at the center of regulation. Only experts with ethical dignity can explain both sides of LNT, namely, pragmatic in radiation protection in normal practices and generation of unnecessary worry, dispute, chaos, and social expenditures, as we have experienced in the TMI, Chernobyl, and Fukushima Accidents. Inexhaustible efforts of dissemination by radiation protection experts will advance our society to understand the defects of LNT and regain our peaceful daily life surrounded by

International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA) will soon deliver a statement on 'Reasonableness' in Optimization of Protection. Its draft referred to the balancing of fundamental ethical values and the importance of optimized processes

In July 6, 2020, the European Commission decided to appoint its Joint Research Centre (JRC) as the group of experts to assess nuclear under the sustainable finance taxonomy. FORATOM, the European nuclear trade body, has

safe, sustainable, and comfortable environment coexisting with radiation.

#### *Ethical Values in Radiation Protection DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.93786*

*Bioethics in Medicine and Society*

not [18].

Fukushima [12].

**6. Discussions**

of low dose carcinogenesis effects.

**5. Fukushima and its entrails**

statement shown above would be agreed on by the general public the most in terms

Japan was the only country to keep utilitarian ethical values, even after the Chernobyl Accident. The general public in Japan had been listening to voices saying that nuclear was safe, different from Three Mile Ireland (TMI), which had an accident in 1974 and Chernobyl, in 1986. Due to the unexpected Tsunami, the radiation levels in the adjacent area easily exceeded the levels to achieve the happiness of majorities. Since utilitarian ethics promised the residents that nuclear power plants would have no significant increase in radiation levels. However, neighboring

Since Japan's government sets the levels of doses for safety as low as 1 mSv for the public, waiving the pressure of media to announce evacuation to all the residents, whether they are young or old at a nursing home, 1600 accidental deaths were piled other than radiation effects. This is the saga of the LNT application in

As for the fallout, ICRP states that although fallout has never been explicitly excluded in legislation, not requiring additional controls are defined on a caseby-case basis instead of defining a category. It further states that for the codified

Japan adopted exemption and exclusion for naturally radioactive substances, although they cannot be applied to man-made radioactive substances. Thus, once the soil was found to be contaminated by the fallout of Fukushima nuclear plants, the residents asked for it to be removed. This led to the tremendous amount of very slightly contaminated soil, piled up to 15 million tons, or another estimated 28

Exclusion and exemption are vital concepts in the implementation of ethical values. A cordial system is governing radiation dose levels at a rigid value. Such swift development of nuclear energy hinders us from understanding radiation control for the general public in a cordial manner. However, it must be done by our unconscious societal rationales provided by virtue and wisdom acquired through

As is indicated by ICRP, exclusion and exemption are essential elements in radiation protection. Japan has to move from such an obstinate cordial protection

As does the other ordinary industries using hazardous substances did, radiation protection was started by systemizing protection means for occupational personnel. However, due to the atomic bomb explosion, the protection of the general public is requested. Entering the atoms for peace phase, radiation protection for the public becomes a critical issue in their use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

In this initial stage in the civil development of nuclear energy, LNT's adoption was chosen to persuade the general public to have their consent on using the power

societies could not accept the detectable increase in radiation levels.

systems, the concepts of exclusion and exemption are very useful [18].

million tons of contaminated soil, collected and waiting for reuse [19].

our experience and daily ethical conduct.

system to a flexible system following our ethical values.

Since the general public is not radiation controlled, the dose limit for the general public is down from 20 mSv/year to 1 mSv/year. However, ICRP alerted that the dose limit shall not be regarded as the criteria to judge the situation is safe or

**158**

from nuclear power plants. Whether the founders of LNT were conscious or not, it attributes the ethical values to utilitarianism, which was applicable before witnessing the Chernobyl Accident.

Nine to 22 years exposures of apartment residents given by accidental contamination of 60Co to the recycled steel in Taiwan were analyzed, and no mortality rate increase was observed, contrary to the LNT hypothesis [20].

The author believes that LNT is an assumption of two-edged swords. Our sincere endeavors with prudence and dignity shall allow our community to understand the safe, sustainable, and comfortable environment coexisting with radiation.

The Fukushima Accident gave attention to the severe accident beyond designbased accidents. As is stated in the German Ethics Commission for a Safe Energy Supply, a nuclear disaster in the worst-case scenario is unknown or can no longer be assessed [21]. The Ethics Commission concluded that less risky energy sources could replace nuclear capacity following ecological, economic, and social compatibility; however, the author believes that nuclear energy still has the potentials to contribute to our society.

Severe accidents beyond design-based accidents cannot be assessed, as is the case with design-based accidents that provide scenarios in the anticipated consequences of an accident. Thus, criteria for levels of radiation exposure could not be supplied to severe accidents in nature. However, the magnitude of an accident can be assumed in the hypothetical worst scenario. The author believes that the justification for nuclear energy options can be given even to Japan with its ethical dignity, nuclear energy can survive.

## **7. Conclusion**

Radiation protection had been soundly developed since gradually, the researchers, medical doctors, and X-ray operators realized the health detriment caused by radiation exposure. Due to the exposure of the people in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombing, the general public is very keen and sometimes reluctant to accept the permissible level of radiation exposure.

Our society has chosen the protection system with ethical values instead of systematic coding since the threshold cannot be provided or mutually agreed upon by the LNT hypothesis. However, LNT itself dominates the position of regulatory principles and never tries to give the post to a more rational and scientific one with either threshold or linear-quadratic models [22]. Radiation protection experts have shown much scientific evidence, regulatory authorities insist on keeping LNT at the center of regulation. Only experts with ethical dignity can explain both sides of LNT, namely, pragmatic in radiation protection in normal practices and generation of unnecessary worry, dispute, chaos, and social expenditures, as we have experienced in the TMI, Chernobyl, and Fukushima Accidents. Inexhaustible efforts of dissemination by radiation protection experts will advance our society to understand the defects of LNT and regain our peaceful daily life surrounded by radioactive substances.

International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA) will soon deliver a statement on 'Reasonableness' in Optimization of Protection. Its draft referred to the balancing of fundamental ethical values and the importance of optimized processes based on realistic assessments of doses [5].

In July 6, 2020, the European Commission decided to appoint its Joint Research Centre (JRC) as the group of experts to assess nuclear under the sustainable finance taxonomy. FORATOM, the European nuclear trade body, has welcomed it [23].

Starting July 1, 2020, Germany, Portugal, and Slovenia are in cooperation, referred to as a Trio, by the EU's presidency. JRC participation in sustainable finance taxonomy suggests the possibility of a reconsideration of nuclear energy, which might further lead to be involved in the framework of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) or Environment, Society, and Governances (ESGs).

The author believes that nuclear energy can be back as an essential source of energy, and our ethical conduct of dignity gives way to receive the understanding of the general public not in long time intervals as ordinary people are expecting now.