{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023183925811437404, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.641025641025641, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Standards for environmental, non-threshold, carcinogens: a comparison of the approaches used for radiation and for chemicals.

Environmental standards for ionising radiation and for chemical carcinogens have been developed independently of each other. Radiation standards have been derived by deciding upon what is an acceptable risk, and then finding the corresponding dose from the exposure/risk relationship-quantitative risk assessment (QRA). The extent and the quality of the exposure/risk data for radiation, and the authority of the recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), have resulted in universally accepted guidance and standards. This is not the case for chemical, non-threshold carcinogens. Their carcinogenicity ranges from doubtful to well-established, the exposure/response data are generally of poor quality, and there is no authoritative international body analogous to the ICRP. For some of these carcinogens, some organisations have used QRA to derive environmental standards. Others consider the data inadequate for such an approach and have used more pragmatic methods. The problems associated with the various approaches used and the prospects of an integrated approach for both radiation and chemical carcinogens are discussed.