Nukewatch Quarterly Fall 2013
“It is lamentable that the US government is not speaking with a coherent, science-based voice on the risks of radiation,” says the President of the IEER, Dr. Arjun Makhijani, on the group’s website. “There is no safe level of radiation exposure in the sense of zero risk. Period. This has been repeatedly concluded by official studies, most recently a 2006 study done by the National Academies. Yet there is no shortage of unfortunate official statements on radiation that may seek to placate the public about ‘safe’ levels of radiation, but actually undermine confidence.”
IEER, based in Takoma Park, Maryland, cites one statement in particlular by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission: “In general, a yearly dose of 620 millirem from all radiation sources has not been shown to cause humans any harm.”* This annual dose includes medical uses of radiation, including CAT scans, and other voluntary exposures from which people get some benefits. It also includes indoor radon, which the EPA estimates “is the number one cause of lung cancer among non-smokers…. Overall, radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer [after smoking]. Radon is responsible for about 21,000 lung cancer deaths every year. About 2,900 of these deaths occur among people who have never smoked.”**
Makhijani says, “While the NRC is saying the 620 millirem a year on average has not been shown to cause harm, the EPA says that about one-third of this total average annual dose is attributable to indoor radon, which is responsible for thousands of cancer deaths every year.”
“The NRC statement is an appalling misrepresentation of the science that underlies its own regulations as well as published statements on radon risks by the EPA,” Makhijani said. “Using the 2006 National Academies risk estimates for cancer, 620 millirem per year to each of the 311 million people in the United States would eventually be associated with about 200,000 cancers each year; about half of them would be fatal.”
Makhijani continued, “The largest risks by far are in Japan. The risks from Fukushima in the US, based on the limited data so far, appear to be very low at the individual level. But they are being experienced by large populations, as they were during Chernobyl fallout. More intensive measurements, a frank portrayal of both individual and population risks, for children and adults using National Academies risk numbers, and prompt publication are essential. If the government does not provide accurate, science-based, trustworthy information, how can people make well-informed decisions for themselves and their families at a confusing time?”
*http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/radiation/around-us/doses-daily-lives.html; **http://www.epa.gov/radon/healthrisks.html —JL
Leave a Reply