Radiation standards

The International Committee on Radiological Protection (ICRP) makes recommendations to regulatory bodies for radiation standards. ICRP advocates defining a justification for radioactive practices, which then justifies the level of exposure allowed by the standard.

However, U.S. practises indicate the exact opposite happens. If a set of assumptions can be given to show that a practice will meet the set regulation, it is automatically justified. Parties affected by radiation have little or no recourse. We must note that the vast majority of the involuntarily affected parties can’t intervene because they have not yet been born or they are not homosapiens. A large group of people would be banging down the door if they knew what was happening. They simply do not know because their governments and schools do not tell them. When it comes to involuntary exposure, an informed public does not tolerate any level of additional dose.

The “permissible dose” levels recommended by ICRP for waste practices relevant to this document suggest the organisation privileges radioactivity when compared to the regulation of other harmful materials.

The recommended standard of 1 millisievert (100 millirems) annual maximum exposure for the public translates, using ICRP’s dose-response assumptions, to a risk of 3.5 fatal cancers in 1000 people exposed annually over a lifetime of 70 years. ICRP uses a linear, quasi-no-threshold model. Doing the math, this is a lifetime fatal cancer risk of 1 in 286.

The regulation of toxic substances in the U.S. looks protective in comparison. These also allow a lethal risk to those exposed, but the limit is set at only 1 fatal cancer in 100,000 or in some cases, 1 in 10,000. Policy makers also debate whether it is acceptable for industrial activities to result in one death in a million.

The nuclear industry is enjoying tremendous privilege. That’s a nice way to say it. The honest way to say this is the nuclear industry has been granted a “kill limit” on the local population. This kill limit is 35 times higher than the least protective toxic standards.

There is an assumption that ICRP’s non linear, no-threshold conservative model is designed to err on the side of safety because there is no data on low-dose exposures.

In fact, if ICRP incorporated conclusions from Hiroshima survivors 1 , the risk factor would be multiplied by 3.4 – a substantial increase in the risk associated with 1 mSv (100 mR) dose levels.

Permissive radiation standards result in a subsidy to the nuclear cartel. Those subject to lax regulation don’t have to spend as much to prevent exposures and environmental contamination, or reduce waste production. Instead, the real cost is born by those who receive the “allowable” dose. Many of these people receive a higher dose since standards set an average allowable dose. However, radioactivity is not known to distribute itself evenly in the environment.

It is important to note that ICRP and national regulators who adopt their recommendations are under attack for the use of a linear, no-threshold model. Boosters for a nuclear industry dependant upon irradiating people say there is a huge threshold of exposure before any harm occurs. Some take the radical position that radiation is healthful. Decades of data do not support this, to the contrary, there appears to be no safe dose of radiation.

The public, and certainly other species, do not fit ICRP’s assumptions in calculating the risk. There are layers of impact that are invisible to this model, for example, the greater sensitivity of the fetus, children and elders to radiation, and other factors. ICRP’s model, is not a truly linear, no-threshold equation. The use of the Standard Man, the ICRP’s non-conservative Dose, Dose-Rate Effect Factor, adoption of effective dose equivalent and averages create an effective threshold in their model.

The resulting underestimation of harm becomes yet another cost to society and bonus to the nuclear waste generators. Those who suggest these more sensitive groups might “skew” the results of study of low-dose radiation health effects are signing a death warrant for all species.

References

1. Preston 1987, RERF TR 9-87.