{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.013663535439795047, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.201058201058201, '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}}
A decade of changes in radiation protection.

Although radiation protection standards have changed remarkably little over the past decade, there have been changes in our understanding of radiation hazards that may affect the practice of radiation medicine over the next decade. With recognition of indoor radon exposure has come a new focus for public health concerns, because it is now clear that radon rather than medical exposure is the largest controllable source of radiation exposure to the general public. Continued follow-up of irradiated populations has led to an increase in our estimate of the cancer risk for high-dose exposures; this increased risk estimate is, in turn, leading to decreases in radiation exposure limits. Although our concern about the carcinogenic risk for radiation exposure has increased, our concern about genetic consequences has decreased, because no genetic effects have yet been observed in the offspring of atomic bomb survivors. Studies of atomic bomb survivors have also led to a change in the focus of concern over prenatal radiation exposure; the principle risk now appears to be mental retardation rather than childhood cancer.