Message is reaching the public – radiation risks have been greatly exaggerated

An important message that has been discussed often by web publications like Hiroshima Syndrome, Yes Vermont Yankee, Canadian Energy Issues, Nuke Power Talk, Neutron Bytes, Atomic Power Review, and ANS Nuclear Cafe has jumped to the mainstream press in the form of a New York Times article by George Johnson titled When Radiation Isn’t the Real Risk.

The article, in a publication whose daily readership and established reputation dwarfs even the best read nuclear focused blogs, informs readers that evacuating the area near the Fukushima nuclear plants and forcing people to remain away from their property for more than four years has caused immeasurably more harm than simply allowing the people to remain in place and letting the radioactive materials naturally disperse and decay.

As Johnson wrote:

But about 1,600 people died from the stress of the evacuation — one that some scientists believe was not justified by the relatively moderate radiation levels at the Japanese nuclear plant.

Had the evacuees stayed home, their cumulative exposure over four years, in the most intensely radioactive locations, would have been about 70 millisieverts — roughly comparable to receiving a high-resolution whole-body diagnostic scan each year. But those hot spots were anomalies.

By Dr. Doss’s calculations, most residents would have received much less, about 4 millisieverts a year. The average annual exposure from the natural background radiation of the earth is 2.4 millisieverts.

Johnson might also have included the fact that the variations in human exposures from natural radiation and medical diagnostic procedures range from a low of about 1 mSv per year to a high of approximately 250 mSv per year. Even the people who received doses on the high end of the estimate would have been well within the existing variations in dose. There is little, if any, evidence pointing to excess negative health effects due to variations in existing radiation doses.

The reason the computed doses are so low is that there was not much radioactive material released. The small amount that escaped was distributed over a large area, with much of it being washed out to sea. The most active and hazardous materials are also the ones that disappear the fastest.

Dilution might not be the solution to routine pollution, but it is the generally accepted, effective solution to the unplanned release of hazardous gases or fine particles.

Unfortunately, decision makers have been taught to believe that radioactive material is especially hazardous and that even the smallest measurable amounts need to be avoided if at all possible. They have been repeatedly told by loud voices that there is no safe dose of radiation. The organizations that have been established as the protectors of public health with regard to radiation have focused on establishing regulations that require their licensees to control radiation doses to levels that are as low as reasonably achievable.

The agencies that have the legislated responsibility for being experts on radiation have not invested enough effort helping agencies charged with other aspects of public safety to recognize the difference between dose standards established to raise the performance bar for radioactive material licensees and radiation doses that are high enough to detectably harm human health. There are at least two orders of magnitude of difference between the two.

Most radiation protection specialists know that current standards are far lower needed to protect health and willingly expose themselves to much higher doses. They tell each other that establishing and enforcing tighter than needed standards is okay because at least it’s “conservative.”

They ignore the important fact that misunderstanding risks can lead to hazardous decision making. In a crisis situation where panic kills and calm, properly focused efforts lead to the greatest chance for survival and recovery, improper prioritization is far from protective.

Crisis decision making has been one of my focus areas for many years. I’ve spend a good portion of my life learning to evaluate hazards and protect people from harm, starting with the Red Cross senior lifesaving course that I took in 1975 in preparation for working as a lifeguard.

As a submarine junior officer, I was trained to be a first responder and leader of casualty assistant teams. My mentors emphasized the importance of promptly evaluating risks and prioritizing actions based on reducing the most immediately hazardous items as rapidly as possible before later addressing less pressing items. Only after taking care of top priorities would we move to items that were merely annoyances needing to be cleaned up.

Because I was a first responder in a nuclear powered ship, my training included an emphasis on understanding when radiation was hazardous to health, when it was a concern to be managed, and when it could be ignored. It’s probably worth noting here that I was transferred out of my first responder role — after nine years of heavily reinforced training and practice — in December 1990.

As I worked my way into positions of increasing responsibility, I learned to coordinate multiple teams of first responders, to write procedures that could be studied in advance, and to prepare quick reference material that could be consulted in emergencies in order to help people in pressure situations take the right paths. Getting the guidance right was vital to producing correct, timely decisions.

The importance of good guidance is not limited to the information provided to people on the scene; higher level leaders are often not specialists and “crisis mode” does not provide time for extensive research.

Articles like Johnson’s need to be repeated and promoted. The people charged with regulating “use of radioactive materials to protect public health and safety, promote the common defense and security, and protect the environment,” need to clearly separate regulations designed to hold licensees to a high standard and public safety limits that should be established by determining — in advance of any future crisis — how high radiation doses have to be before they have the potential for observable harm to human health.

NRC calls off expensive search for witches

On September 8, 2015, the NRC announced that it would stop funding the National Academy of Sciences’s (NAS) five-year-long, multimillion dollar effort to create a method that could be used to study whether or not populations that are exposed to radiation doses that are a tiny fraction of average background radiation related to proximity to […]

Read more »

Fukushima – The Price of “No Safe Dose” Assumption

A friend pointed me to a heart-rending piece in the New York Review of Books titled Fukushima: The Price of Nuclear Power by Michael Ignatieff. The piece is a first hand account of a visit to Japan’s Fukushima prefecture; it includes vivid descriptions of the devastation caused by the massive earthquake and tsunami that struck […]

Read more »

The Left Needs to Reconsider its Automatic Position Against Nuclear Energy

by BILL SACKS and GREG MEYERSON As leftists who have studied the issue of nuclear energy for years, we want to reply to Robert Hunziker’s “Real Story” titled What’s Really Going on at Fukushima? (CounterPunch, June 15, 2015). It’s time for much of the left to reconsider a long-standing opposition to nuclear energy that often […]

Read more »

Leukemia and lymphoma study recently published in Lancet being strong challenged by SARI

A recent study published in Lancet Haematology claims to show that even extremely low doses of radiation increase the risk of leukemia and lymphoma. The study includes several statistical flaws, ignores the effects of medical exposures — which are of similar levels to occupational exposures — that change dramatically over the duration of the study, […]

Read more »

Atomic Show #240 – Prof Gerry Thomas radiation health effects

Gerry Thomas, Professor of Molecular Pathology of the Imperial College of London, has a subspecialty in the study of the health effects of radiation. She strongly believes that “public involvement and information is a key part of academic research,” and she is “actively involved in the public communication of research, particularly with respect to radiation […]

Read more »

Doctors petitioning NRC to revise radiation protection regulations

The wheels are in motion for an official review of radiation protection regulations at the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Doctors who are radiation health specialists are challenging the NRC’s use of the linear, no-threshold (LNT) dose response model as the basis for those regulations and the associated direction to maintain radiation doses As Low As […]

Read more »

Romance of Radium – How did our relationship with radioactive material sour?

Radium glow finale

Note – This post was initially published on February 23, 2013. After attending the ANS President’s Special Session about the way we should communicate about radiation, I thought it would be worth repeating. Sometimes, we need to look outside of our immediate time and place to find “best practices” that we should emulate. Hitting road […]

Read more »

Atomic Show #239 – Sarah Laskow and the LNT model

In March 2015, Foreign Policy magazine published an article by Sarah Laskow titled The Mushroom Cloud and The X-Ray Machine. The article described the controversy over the radiation protection model known as the linear, no-threshold dose response. Ms. Laskow conducted some admirable literature research and talked with a number of well-known people. The ones that […]

Read more »

Consumer Reports Editor Clings to LNT to Spread Uncertainty About Radiology

Consumer Reports, a widely read magazine in the U. S., has published more than half a dozen articles in the past couple of years warning people that every CT scan carries with it the risk of causing cancer. Here are the headlines of those articles. Consumer Reports: January 03, 2013. Many patients unaware of radiation […]

Read more »

Professor Gerry Thomas explains radiation health risks

A friend whose Twitter handle is @ActinideAge just posted a link to Gerry Thomas Highlights Misconceptions over Health Impacts of Nuclear Accidents. (Embedded below.) Even though it was published in November 2014 on the UN University YouTube channel, it had received a grand total of 189 views at the time I visited on April 6, […]

Read more »

Time to stop consuming precious resources to harmonize occupational dose limits

Pressure groups and interested individuals have been striving for more than two decades to force the U. S. to reduce its occupational worker radiation protection limit from 50 mSv/year to 20 mSv/year. The primary justification for this effort is that in 1991 the International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP) issued publication 60 and provided their […]

Read more »