Recent reports from the United Nations that challenge commonly held views on ionising radiation may prove crucial for a nuclear renaissance, Abel González – a senior adviser with the Argentine Nuclear Regulatory Authority – told delegates at the World Nuclear Association Symposium held in London last month. “Shouldn’t the nuclear industry being doing all it can to debunk the myths about radiation?” he asks.
Many people (and their political representatives) seem to be generally sensitive about radiation attributable to nuclear power. Energy policymakers often recognise the many benefits of nuclear energy, which are so well underlined in the World Nuclear Association’s Harmony programme. These include its contribution to a climate change solution.
However, they usually fall silent when challenged about the issue of radiation and thus the sense that radiation is the arch enemy of nuclear energy is being propagated around the world.
Recent reports from the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) are challenging the commonly held views on radiation among the misinformed.
Radiation and the United Nations
A recent document issued by the United Nations Environment Programme and UNSCEAR recognises that, “Although the production of electricity by using nuclear power is often controversial, in normal operation it contributes very little to global radiation exposure.” Notwithstanding this definitive statement, a review of the more relevant formal reporting of UNSCEAR includes:
- As many as ten years ago, UNSCEAR estimated that public radiation exposure attributable to nuclear power generation was minute. Radiation exposure from nuclear power is several orders of magnitude lower than the exposures people normally experience from natural radiation sources, such as cosmic radiation and emissions from the many natural radioactive elements present on Earth since primordial times. Radiology and nuclear medicine used in hospitals expose patients to relatively high levels of radiation in comparison with nuclear power. In fact, UNSCEAR estimated that the global annual average radiation dose to the public attributable to the full nuclear fuel cycle was 1/10000 of that from other sources.
- Following these estimates and in response to theoretical calculations of the health effects caused by low radiation exposures, UNSCEAR considered the attribution of health effects to different levels of exposure to ionising radiation and reached, inter alia, the following conclusions:
- Increases in the incidence of health effects cannot be attributed reliably to chronic exposure to radiation at levels that are typical of the global average background levels of radiation.
- It does not therefore recommend multiplying very low doses by large numbers of individuals to estimate the number of radiation-induced health effects within a population exposed to incremental doses at levels equivalent to or lower than natural background levels.
- Increases in the incidence of hereditary effects among the human population cannot be attributed to radiation exposure.
- Finally, while recognising that public health bodies need to allocate resources appropriately and that this may involve making projections of numbers of health effects for comparative purposes, UNSCEAR emphasised that: this method could be useful, provided it was applied consistently; uncertainties in the assessments were taken fully into account; and it were not inferred that the projected health effects were other than notional.
- More recently, UNSCEAR has estimated radiation exposures attributable to the generation of electricity through different technologies to show the differences resulting from each technology. It concluded, inter alia, that:
- Radiation exposures attributable to the generation of electricity are generally low in comparison with the exposure from other sources, such as natural or medical.
- Notwithstanding, the larger radiation exposures due to electrical energy generation are not delivered by nuclear energy but mainly by coal and geothermal plants.
- Surprisingly, the larger exposures due to the installation of electrical power plants are caused by the installation of solar and wind plants, which results from the use of rare earth minerals and estimates of occupational exposures for their mining.
These UNSCEAR conclusions, while placing radiation from nuclear energy in a proper perspective, still can be challenged. What about waste and accidents, people might retort!
“Although the production of electricity by using nuclear power is often controversial, in normal operation it contributes very little to global radiation exposure”
On waste UNSCEAR has been definitive: proper disposal of the waste should not give rise to exposure of people even in the distant future. As for accidents, the variability of potential scenarios makes any estimates contentious and neither UNSCEAR, nor any other UN body, has a mandate to estimate and compare the consequences of accidents arising from the production of electricity.
If the main concern is the number of casualties that an accident may produce among members of the public, hydroelectricity is far ahead as a source of electricity – collapsed dams have had catastrophic consequences for human life.
If the main consideration is the lives of workers, then coal-mining accidents predominate. If the major worry is impact, then oil and gas spills are the major culprits. But if the salient apprehension is the presence of radiation, then nuclear accidents are certainly the first to be considered.
For Fukushima, UNSCEAR reported that: no radiation-related deaths or acute diseases have been observed among the workers and general public exposed to radiation
UNSCEAR has produced comprehensive ad hoc reports on two of the three accidents that have occurred in the nuclear industry with radiation consequences. For Three Mile Island, the exposure was so minute that this was not even included in the UNSCEAR conclusions.
For Chernobyl, UNSCEAR reported that the major radiation impact was on the emergency workers responding to the accident and on children who were fed contaminated milk, but among the general public to date there has been no consistent evidence of any other health effect that can be attributed to radiation exposure.
For Fukushima, UNSCEAR reported that: no radiation-related deaths or acute diseases have been observed among the workers and general public exposed to radiation from the accident; the doses to the general public, both those incurred during the first year and estimated for their lifetimes, are generally low or very low; and no discernible increased incidence of radiation-related health effects are expected among those exposed.
The realities of radiation I have described are not speculation by the nuclear industry, but are based on the scientific findings of UNSCEAR, which have been commended in formal resolutions from the UN General Assembly, whose members comprise 193 sovereign states.
The time is therefore ripe to ask: Are policymakers aware of the facts about radiation? Is the general public informed of the evidence reported by UNSCEAR? Shouldn’t the nuclear industry being doing all it can to debunk the myths about radiation?
Editor’s note
Abel González is a senior adviser with the Argentine Nuclear Regulatory Authority, Argentine representative at UNSCEAR, a member of the Commission of Safety Standards at the International Atomic Energy Agency, and a member of the Argentine delegation to IAEA’s General Conference and Board of Governors. This article first appeared in World Nuclear News and is republished here with permission.
[adrotate banner=”78”]
priffe says
The LNT theory was false the start, and Herman Muller, the Nobel Prize winner behind it knew it from his own research. How could it still take hold of people’s minds and make then fearful of low dose radiation even 70 years later? There you have something to write about when it comes to science and the relation to the politics, the media and the people. After decades of activism it is time to come to our senses – noone dies from radiation from nuclear power. The only dangerous radiation we are subjceted to is in cancer treatment, and then it is to prolong our lives and make us healthy.
If you are serious about lowering emissions from fossile fuel, then you cannot be against nuclear power. Unless you are uninformed, or a bigot. Ask James Hansen.
Bas Gresnigt says
It is a pity that UNSCEAR migrated from a science towards a propaganda organization.
In its 1958 report to the UN General Assembly, it stated that very small increases of radiation cause already genetic damage which becomes visible via an increase in the m/f ratio of newborn. Because male DNA is smaller hence has a smaller risk to be hit (killed or damaged) by a passing radiation particle.
And then noted that such m/f sex ratio increase of newborn is a sensitive indication to signal small increases of radiation levels.
Of course such increased DNA damage has serious health effects on our Children. E.g.
Workers at UK’s nuclear waste store, Sellafield, get 39% more boys than girls. So further research found:
– significant increased levels of still birth for their children
– significant increased levels of leukemia cancers for their children.
Research found significant increased levels of genetic damage in newborn up to 40km away around nuclear facilities in France and Germany. Germany even closed its prime nuclear dry cask waste store, Gorleben, in 2015 when due diligence research found even worse genetic damage.
Nuclear Power Plants also cause significant genetic damage to new born up to 40km away as shown for NPP’s in Germany, France, CH, Belgium, etc.
Note that there are no research results that show such increased genetic damage around wind, solar, gas plants (even not around coal plants).
So the issue is whether we like nuclear so much that we accept degenerated next generations in addition to the much higher risks and costs of nuclear, compared to the 100% renewable (wind, solar, storage, etc) solution.
Casper Blijveld says
Sorry Bas, but I think that you rather than UNSCEAR are part of a propaganda organisation. You are stating research done 60 years ago and which is already debunked many times over.
In France people live on average 1,3 year longer than in Germany. Must have something to do with the use of nuclear energy, don’t you think so? It’s statistics, so it must be true!
Bas Gresnigt says
@Casper,
Apparently you didn’t see any of the research that I linked, otherwise you would not state that it was done 60years ago…
The research that I linked are from 1996 to 2012.
There is no clear (theoretical) and repeated connection between life expectation of French people and nuclear.
While that regarding genetic damage shown by increased m/f ratio of newborn is theoretical shown and accepted by UNSCEAR in its 1958 report to the UN, as well as other scientific organizations such a the US National Academy of Sciences in its authoritative BEIR VII report. Furthermore such connection is shown repeatedly; read the linked PPT’s and the links they state.
Casper Blijveld says
Just like you have said, “UNSCEAR report 1958”. Calculate 2018-1958 and you get a report 60 years old! I do now understand why you have difficulty with statistics. What I do not understand is how it is that you still believe in the fake news spread by big oil and gas that low levels of radiation are dangerous. The latest research and 200+ scientist of UNSCEAR beg to differ.
It is clearly in the interest of big oil and gas that nuclear is not build because every single 1 GW station cost them about 300 million every.single.year in revenue. […]
Bas Gresnigt says
I used the 1958 UNSCEAR report only to demonstrate that UNSCEAR changed into a nuclear propaganda organization.
Research regarding the sex ratio of newborn is very cheap. The researcher downloads the data of the birth registers and runs the statistic tests. Near all is done by university staff. In Europe those are paid by govt. UK Atomic Energy Authority cooperated with at least the first study as you would know when you read the linked publication.
A 2012 GlobalResearch overview referring >10 independent studies published in peer reviewed scientific journals, also demonstrates the harmful effects of only small increases of radiation.
In S. Germany unique circumstances:
– 10 districts in S. Germany got significant Chernobyl fall-out (despite being 1600km away!) and 10 nearby similar districts did not (no rain from passing ‘Chernobyl’ clouds);
– S. German birth registers also register all important congenital defects (Down, abnormal limbs, malformations of the heart, etc) in addition to stillbirth (=dead birth in the last 6 weeks of pregnancy);
allowed comparisons in space (between nearby districts) and time (before and after Chernobyl).
So research facilitated by those circumstances could demonstrate that even radiation increases of only 0.2mSv/a (=~10% of local background) result in significant increases of very serious birth defects.
The birth defects increase per 1mSv/a radiation increase is for; stillbirth 33% (P=0.00003), malformations of the heart 83% (P=0.002), serious deformities 129% (P=0.00004)!
Note that it’s in line with the Linear Non Threshold Theory accepted by a.o. the US National Academy of Sciences.
________
*) At cell division DNA is single stranded hence cannot be repaired correctly by the cell as there is no reference. So the higher the cell division rate, the higher the vulnerability for radiation. Hence the younger people are the more vulnerable they are. So fetuses are very vulnerable. Sperm in production even nn times more as their cell division rate is so much higher.