No safe dose...

There is no safe dose of ionizing radiation. In the words of Dr Helen Caldicott,1 “all it takes is one cell and one radioactive decay for the possibility of cancer, or a genetic defect.” No one can say that there will be damage and harm, but there are no guarantees it won’t happen.

There are already reports of increased incidence of human cancers and diseases, particularly in children. The effluent pathways of nuclear facilities impact human reproduction and undercut conclusions drawn primarily from studies in which adult males were exposed to external gamma radiation doses. We are still in the process of describing the effects of chronic low doses of ionizing radiation on diverse populations. A number of new studies that sound an alarm about low doses of radiation were reviewed by Resnikoff and Fairlie 2 and also Gofman 3.

Epidemiological studies, including the work of Wing et al 4 , Morgenstern et al 5 , Burlakova 6 and others, deliver findings that low doses of ionizing radiation cause more harm per unit of dose than higher exposures. This calls into question standard dose-response ratios and anticipates the findings of Gofman 7 who analysed data from Japanese atomic bomb survivors.

Genetic impacts are discussed less frequently than cancer. A recent review by Edwards reports that ionizing radiation can cause genetic impacts that are not displayed for several generations8 . This is called ‘genomic instability’ and it affects all forms of life. Latent genetic damage is like a time bomb waiting to go off. The radioactive dose already committed to the biosphere has dangerous consequences and should not be allowed to increase.

Polluters know that a small, determined group, working energetically for its own special interests, can impose -- via government or via direct force -- an injustice upon a vastly larger group, provided that the larger group believes that the injury is either "hypothetical," or real-but-small. This is the axiom of concentrated benefit versus diffuse injury.

Each time some relatively low radiation dose is approved, it allows levels of radiation or release of radioactivity that may become persistent. Radionuclides with a long half-life are cumulatively loaded into the environment and may result in health impacts or long-term damage to the gene pool. Both entail loss and cost not only to the individual but to the larger system of which they are a part. Genetic effects may be persistent within the population generation after generation. Non-persistent radionuclides may also have a long-term effect on the population. These exposure standards are cynically based on the Law of Concentrated Benefit Over Diffuse Injury9.

What matters biologically is the sum of all these relatively small doses. The loading of the environment with releases of radioactivity from multiple sites - in the US alone, it is thousands of sites - violates the principle of precaution. Altering the collective gene pool of life on Earth is not an experiment that is reversible. In this case, we can’t wait until we see adverse effects and then adjust our programs. Zero is the only acceptable level and there should be no increase over naturally occurring background radiation levels.

People of the future have an equal right to a sustainable biosphere. They deserve the chance to continue to isolate our wastes. Anything we do with our radioactive waste must not preclude the possibility for them to maintain radioactive waste containment.

References

1. Caldicott 1994, Nuclear Madness, W.W. Norton, New York.

2. Resnikoff and Fairlie 1997, The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists Nov/Dec, “No Dose Too Low,” pp 52-56.

3. Gofman 1997, “A Wake-Up Call for Everyone Who Dislikes Cancer and Inherited Afflictions,” Committee for Nuclear Responsibility, San Francisco.

4. Wing et al 1991. “Mortality Among Workers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory: Evidence of Radiation Effects in Follow-up Through 1984.” JAMA, v 265 no 11. March 20, 1991.

5. Morgenstern 1997. Epidemiologic Study to Determine Possible Adverse Effects to Rocketdyne / Atomics International Workers from Exposure to Ionizing Radiation. State of California Health and Welfare Agency.

6. Burlavokova 1996, Consequences of the Chernobyl Catastrophe, Center for Russian Environmental Policy Scientific Council on Radiobiology Russian Academy of Sciences.

7. Gofman 1997, “A Wake-Up Call for Everyone Who Dislikes Cancer and Inherited Afflictions,” Committee for Nuclear Responsibility, San Francisco.

8. Edwards 1997, New Scientist, “Radiation Roulette,” Vol 156, No 2103, pp 36-40.

9. Gofman 1993, “What is Humanity’s Most Harmful Law? The Law of Concentrated Benefit Over Diffuse Injury,” CNR, San Francisco.