{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01651376146788991, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003669724770642202, 'mean_word_length': 5.204545454545454, '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}}
On "conservative" estimates of radiation hazards.

The problem of extrapolating radiation hazard risks from high doses to low doses is analyzed in regard to the controversy surrounding mammography in screening women under age 50 for breast cancer. The problem of faulty risk/benefit analysis based on an erroneously high estimate of risk is discussed. The author concludes that a conservative view of risk/benefit ratios is not possible, because equal risk may be associated with performing or not performing a particular radiological procedure.