{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0224609375, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0029296875, 'mean_word_length': 5.101190476190476, '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}}
Current discussions of DDREF, cataracts, circulatory diseases and dose limits.

Although more than a century of radiation research has provided a lot of insight into radiation risk, there are still fields that need clarification. This is particularly true for the low dose range, meaning doses up to ∼100 mSv. One can detect biological effects in that dose range, but it is unclear whether these biological effects like mutations or chromosomal aberrations translate into health effects like cancer, cataracts or circulatory diseases. Thus, for radiation protection purposes, assumptions have to made that must be reappraised on the basis of new findings from time to time. Affected by new insights are currently the DDREF (dose and dose-rate effectiveness factor), cataracts and circulatory diseases. If the new findings are very convincing, dose limits have to be changed at short notice. If there are only weak indications, stability of the radiation protection system is more important than changing limits all the time.