[en] Evaluations of radiation risk often include a spectrum of extreme and unrealistic views. Ethical analysis of risks in terms of uncertainty, equity, consent, and compensation often can help to provide more just, moderate, and realistic evaluations. In particular, ethical analysis argues for several propositions. (1) Although all evaluations of radiation risk ought to include economic analyses, these analyses could be ethically weighted to reflect values such as equitable risk distribution, compensation and consent. Evaluations ought to reflect the fact that such ethical factors are just as important in determining risk acceptability as risk magnitude. (2) Although technical assessment is necessary for a rational societal risk evaluation, it is not sufficient. Therefore rational risk evaluation needs also to include components such as evaluation of democratic preferences, citizen negotiation, and alternative assessments, so that the procedures, not merely the outcomes, of risk evaluation satisfy ethical constraints. (3) Although it is reasonable for good scientists to limit false positives, ethical risk evaluators also need to limit false negatives and to protect the most vulnerable parties in situations of uncertainty. (4) Although economically realistic evaluations, in a society of limited resources, ought not to presuppose an infinite value for health and safety, neither ought risk evaluations to presuppose a zero value for even small threats to health and safety, particularly if compensation or consent is inadequate. Citizen consent and compensation are often necessary to justify risk tradeoffs. (author). 50 notes