Provided by the Rainbow Warrior Collective and Coalition for a Nuclear-Free Mississippi River

Sacrificing Science

The staggering discrepancy in regulatory standards for radiation-induced cancer versus other toxic substances in our drinking water is a glaring example of environmental injustice and discriminatory policymaking. The Environmental Protection Agency deems a lifetime cancer risk of one in one million acceptable for most toxins in our drinking water (like glyphosate, PFOA, PFOS, chromium(VI), PCBs, and vinyl chloride) while allowing radiation levels resulting in a lifetime cancer risk of one in only 143. This equates to a shocking 7,000-fold higher risk, underscoring a disturbing disregard for public health when it comes to radiation exposure. [1]

Set during the peak of nuclear weapons testing in the U.S., the 20,000 picocuries-per-liter limit for tritium in drinking water stands as a relic of a less informed and reckless era. This standard, still to this day never grounded in health research, has persisted despite our growing understanding of radiation’s risks and human vulnerabilities.

The 20,000 pCi/L limit was first recommended in the 1960 report by the Federal Radiation Council (FRC). According to a review by the late Prof. John W. Gofman, a molecular and cell biologist, this limit was not based on a rigorous analysis of health risks. Instead, it was derived from the existing concentrations of radionuclides in water supplies that were already contaminated by fallout from nuclear weapons testing. [2]

The EPA did not rely on health studies to set its original standards for tritium in drinking water. Instead, it back-calculated acceptable levels based on radiation exposure from existing radionuclides in surface waters, none of which were beta emitters like tritium. “It’s not a health-based standard, it’s based on what was easily achievable,” remarks David Kocher of the Oak Ridge Center for Risk Analysis, who has evaluated health risks from tritium and spent 30 years at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The standard of 20,000 pCi/L for drinking water made compliance easy. “No drinking water anywhere was anywhere close, so it cost nothing to meet.” [3]

According to “The Dangers of Tritium” by Cindy Folkers and Mary Olson, published in 2022 by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, “Research indicates that tritium can cross the placenta, posing heightened risks to fetuses during critical early developmental stages due to its radiological properties. The embryo and fetus are much more sensitive to radiation compared to adults.” [4]

The developing fetus is especially sensitive to the effects of ionizing radiation. At minute doses received in drinking water, radiation can impair fetal growth, cause birth defects, and damage brain development. There is no evidence of a dose threshold below which a fetus would be safe from these effects. This means that even very small amounts of radioactive contaminants in tap water may pose a risk during pregnancy. [5]

Sacrificing Women and Children

The current radiation protection standards are based on the “Reference Man” model, which represents a healthy, white, adult male. This model assumes a level of radiation resistance that does not accurately reflect the increased vulnerability of women and children to radiation-induced cancers:

● Women can have up to 53% higher cancer risk than men from the same radiation exposure. [6]

● Girls exposed as children have a 3-5 times higher risk of breast cancer in adulthood. [7]

● Children have a 7.7 times higher risk of thyroid cancer. [8]

● Children under 5 years living near nuclear reactors had a 1.6-fold increase in all cancers and a 2.2-fold increase in leukemias. [9]

By adjusting the 20,000 pCi/liter standard to account for scientific advancements and health risks specific to women and children, using established correction equations, some experts suggest a more health-protective level of just 0.00049225 pCi/liter.

Why States and Local Communities Should Take the Lead on Safety Standards

The EPA permits states to set stricter standards for water protection. Many are unaware of this responsibility or the potential dangers of tritium. This is a call to action for municipalities to take the lead in protecting its residents — especially women and children. We can demand the replacement of outdated federal guidelines and safeguard our water supplies based on the latest scientific evidence, specific risks like repeated tritium spills. There is no known treatment to filter out tritium from drinking water.

Through simple measures like enacting laws, statutes, executive orders, or mutual binding agreements, municipalities can ensure that entities like nuclear reactor operators are required to promptly inform the public of any tritium contamination to their water source as soon as it is known.

Clear and timely notification of contaminated water reaching drinking water sources can provide ample timing for testing and emergency action, if needed. Most importantly, it provides informed consent.

Some states, such as Colorado and California, have set stricter limits for the tritium in drinking water. The Environmental Working Group Health Guideline of 400 pCi/L for tritium was defined by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment as a public health goal, the level of a drinking water contaminant that does not pose a significant health risk. This health guideline protects against cancer. [5]

References:

1. Hirsch, D. (2018). The EPA guidance that allows the equivalent of one addl. cancer for every 143 people exposed: The use of ALARA for chemical and radioactive pollutants. Program on Environmental and Nuclear Policy, University of California.
2. Gofman, J. W. (1990). Radiation-Induced Cancer from Low-Dose Exposure. Committee for Nuclear Responsibility, Inc., San Francisco, CA.
3. Fairlie, I. (2014). A hypothesis to explain childhood cancers near nuclear power plants. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 133, 10-17.
4. Folkers, C., & Olson, M. (2022). The Dangers of Tritium. Nuclear Information and Resource Service.
5. Environmental Working Group. (n.d.). Reviewed Radiological Contaminants.
6. National Research Council. (2006). Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII Phase 2. The National Academies Press.
7. Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. (2011). Verifying Canadian Nuclear Energy Worker Radiation Risk: A Reanalysis of Cancer Mortality in Canadian Nuclear Energy Workers (1957-1994).
8. Veiga, L. H. (2012). A pooled analysis of thyroid cancer incidence following radiotherapy for childhood cancer. Radiation Research, 178(4), 365-376.
9. Kaatsch, P. (2008). Leukemia in young children living in the vicinity of German nuclear reactors. International Journal of Cancer, 122(4), 721-726.