|

Long Term Exposure: Health Studies of Nuclear Pros

ByRod Adams

Large populations of people have been exposed to carefully measured quantities of radiation in their professional work with nuclear power plant systems. These long term exposures to low level radiation offer a unique opportunity to determine what risk, if any, this new industry has added to the general level of risk in people’s daily lives.

The Health of Nuclear Professionals Studied

Of course, scientists have not ignored the opportunity to study the health of nuclear professionals. One study involved 71,000 people who had worked in shipyards that built and serviced nuclear powered ships in the United States.

Three broad categories were recognized in the study. One group of 25,000 had accumulated a lifetime occupational exposure of greater than 5 mSv. One group of 10,000 incurred occupational exposure less than 5 mSv. The control group consisted of those workers that were not exposed to any radiation other than background levels.

Results

The study showed that nuclear workers with more than 5 mSv of accumulated equivalent dose had a mortality rate that was 24 percent lower than expected, based on the control group. The workers with less than 5 mSv had a mortality rate that was 19 percent lower than the control group.

The death rates for both groups of exposed workers were equal to or lower than the expected death rates of the general population in all categories of disease studies except for mesothelioma. A total of 36 workers from the population of 71,000 died of mesothelioma. This disease of the lungs is closely associated with exposure to airborne asbestos fibers.

Why Were Study Results Delayed

The 1987 study was conducted at a cost of more than $10 million dollars by John Hopkins University under a Department of Energy contract, but was never published in scientific literature. Finally, in 1991, the 437-page study was made available to the public with a 2-page press release.

Some researchers have postulated that the release of the study was delayed nearly four year because of a fear of exposing the government to lawsuits for not adequately protecting workers from exposure to asbestos. With this decision, however, the good news about the lack of hazard from radiation never reached the public.

Other Studies

A similar study has been conducted in Great Britain of a population of workers with life-long employment in the nuclear industry. The vast majority of the workers, like those in the United States, had lifetime exposures that were within the variations in natural background levels. There were however, 542 people with exposures between 500 mSv and 2 Sv. These levels are between 200 and 800 times as high as the average annual background exposure.

This group had a measured mortality that was less than that of the general population. Their risk of lung cancer was significantly reduced, a fact attributed to their reduced smoking habits. It is difficult to smoke in anti-contamination clothing that is often worn in areas where workers can be exposed to relatively high radiation levels.

Unfortunately, many scientists review all the studies and still make the statement that they do not know the risk from low levels of radiation exposure. Because it is difficult to put an exact number on a risk that is vanishingly small, scientists can accurately claim that they do not know the exact risk. Their usual comment is that more study is needed.

In some ways, these researchers are engaging in job protection, their profession is to perform studies under contract to various organizations. In other ways, they are simply engaging in the old argument about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.

The Bottom Line

Here are the facts: High levels of radiation are harmful, and the correlation between the dose and the danger at high levels is linear. At levels that are within the natural variation of background radiation, the risk is too small to measure. In fact, evidence indicates that a certain amount of radiation acutally has beneficial effects.

Whatever the exact relationship is between low levels of radiation and human illness, it is too small to worry about while ignoring far more serious risks to human health and safety.

Rod Adams
Rod Adams

Rod Adams is Managing Partner of Nucleation Capital, a venture fund that invests in advanced nuclear, which provides affordable access to this clean energy sector to pronuclear and impact investors. Rod, a former submarine Engineer Officer and founder of Adams Atomic Engines, Inc., which was one of the earliest advanced nuclear ventures, is an atomic energy expert with small nuclear plant operating and design experience. He has engaged in technical, strategic, political, historic and financial analysis of the nuclear industry, its technology, regulation, and policies for several decades through Atomic Insights, both as its primary blogger and as host of The Atomic Show Podcast. Please click here to subscribe to the Atomic Show RSS feed. To join Rod's pronuclear network and receive his occasional newsletter, click here.

Similar Posts

  • Letter from the Editor: Exaggerated Truths are Falsehoods

    ByRod Adams

    The dose makes the poison. Almost anything can be a poison or health hazard if the dose is high enough. Most people are aware of this idea and use it in their daily decision making. Unfortunately, people do not often question just what constitutes a small, harmless dose and what constitutes a poisonous dose. Over…

  • Ethics of international radiation protection system

    ByRod Adams

    The U. S. National Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP) held its annual meeting in Bethesda, MD on March 16 and 17. On the second day of the meeting, Jacques Lochard, Vice Chair of the International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP), gave a talk titled The Ethics of Radiation Protection. The slides from that talk are…

  • Purposely imposed fear prevents properly using radiation benefits

    ByRod Adams

    On October 21, 2014, I was invited to be a speaker at the Eastern Washington American Nuclear Society Meeting. That talk was recorded and produced by volunteers at the section. Perhaps as a result of jet lag or nervousness, I neglected to provide proper credit for borrowed slides. Though the words were mine, the slides…

  • SARI Comment on EPA’s ANPR for 40 CFR 190

    ByRod Adams

    On February 4, 2014, the US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) issued an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) asking for interested stakeholders to review and provide comments and information about 40 CFR 190, Environmental Standards for Uranium Fuel Cycle Facilities. The comment period, originally scheduled to last 120 days, was extended to 180 days. That…

  • Why is Radiation Biology Funding Disappearing?

    ByRod Adams

    Atomic Insights has posted a number of articles about the health effects of low dose radiation that question the continuing use of the linear no-threshold dose response assumption. Those posts often attract passionate defenders of the status quo and occasionally stray into nastiness at the very idea of questioning the validity of regulatory standards based…

  • Biologist explains why LNT is just plain wrong

    ByRod Adams

    Dr. Ron Mitchel is a Canadian scientist with a PhD in biochemistry who has been studying the biological effects of low dose radiation on living creatures for the past 35 years. In January 2013, he gave a talk to the Pittsburgh chapter of the American Nuclear Society on biological responses to low dose radiation. Dr….