Radiation And Reason

This is a positive and accessible account of the effect of radiation on life that brings good news for the future of mankind. For more than half a century the view that radiation represents an extreme hazard has been accepted. This book challenges that view by facing the question "How dangerous is ionising radiation?" Briefly the answer is that radiation is about a thousand times less hazardous than suggested by current safety standards. For many this will come as a surprise and then quickly raise a second question "Why are people so worried about radiation?" This is the out-of-date result of Cold War politics combined with a concern about radiation that was appropriate in an earlier age when the scientific understanding was limited. In the book these answers are explained in accessible language and related directly to modern scientific evidence and understanding, for instance the high levels of radiation used to the benefit of health in every major hospital. Four facts illustrate the need for a new understanding. 1. The radiation levels in the nuclear waste storage hall at Sellafield, UK are so low (1 micro-sievert per hour) that anyone would have to stay there for a million hours to receive the same dose that any patient on a course of radiotherapy treatment receives to their healthy tissue in a single day (1 sievert or gray). 2. The radiation dose experienced by the survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs caused 0.6% to die of radiation-induced cancer between 1950 and 2000, that is about 1/20 of the chance of dying of cancer anyway and less than the chance of being killed on US highways in that period. 3. The wildlife at Chernobyl today is reported to be thriving, despite being radioactive. 4. The mortality of UK radiation workers before age 85 from all cancers is 15-20% lower than comparable groups. The case for a complete change in attitude towards radiation safety is unrelated to the effects of climate change. But the realisation that radiation and nuclear energy are much safer than is usually supposed is of extreme importance to the current discussion of alternatives to fossil fuels and their relative costs.

A forefront radiation expert who consulted during the Chernobyl and Fukushima crises and the author of The Mold in Dr. Florey's Coat identify the radioactive fundamentals of the planet while correcting myths to reveal the role of radiation in everyday life and what should and should not raise concern.

Radiation and the effects of radioactivity have been known for more than 100 years. International research spanning this period has yielded a great deal of information about radiation and its biological effects and this activity has resulted in the discovery of many applications in medicine and industry including cancer therapy, medical diagnostics

This book reevaluates the health risks of ionizing radiation in light of data that have become available since the 1980 report on this subject was published. The data include new, much more reliable dose estimates for the A-bomb survivors, the results of an additional 14 years of follow-up of the survivors for cancer mortality, recent results of follow-up studies of persons irradiated for medical purposes, and results of relevant experiments with laboratory animals and cultured cells. It analyzes the data in terms of risk estimates for specific organs in relation to dose and time after exposure, and compares radiation effects between Japanese and Western populations.

In the late 1980s, the National Cancer Institute initiated an investigation of cancer risks in populations near 52 commercial nuclear power plants and 10 Department of Energy nuclear facilities (including research and nuclear weapons production facilities and one reprocessing plant) in the United States. The results of the NCI investigation were used a primary resource for communicating with the public about the cancer risks near the nuclear facilities. However, this study is now over 20 years old. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission requested that the National Academy of Sciences provide an updated assessment of cancer risks in populations near USNRC-licensed nuclear facilities that utilize or process uranium for the production of electricity. Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations near Nuclear Facilities: Phase 1 focuses on identifying scientifically sound approaches for carrying out an assessment of cancer risks associated with living near a nuclear facility, judgments about the strengths and weaknesses of various statistical power, ability to assess potential confounding factors, possible biases, and required effort. The results from this Phase 1 study will be used to inform the design of cancer risk assessment, which will be carried out in Phase 2. This report is beneficial for the general public, communities near nuclear facilities, stakeholders, healthcare providers, policy makers, state and local officials, community leaders, and the media.

Does radiation medicine need more regulation or simply better-coordinated regulation? This book addresses this and other questions of critical importance to public health and safety. The issues involved are high on the nation's agenda: the impact of radiation on public safety, the balance between federal and state authority, and the cost-benefit ratio of regulation. Although incidents of misadministration are rare, a case in Pennsylvania resulting in the death of a patient and the inadvertent exposure of others to a high dose of radiation drew attention to issues concerning the regulation of ionizing radiation in medicine and the need to examine current regulatory practices. Written at the request from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Radiation in Medicine reviews the regulation of ionizing radiation in medicine, focusing on the NRC's Medical Use Program, which governs the use of reactor-generated byproduct materials. The committee recommends immediate action on enforcement and provides longer term proposals for reform of the regulatory system. The volume covers Sources of radiation and their use in medicine. Levels of risk to patients, workers, and the public. Current roles of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, other federal agencies, and states. Criticisms from the regulated community. The committee explores alternative regulatory structures for radiation medicine and explains the rationale for the option it recommends in this volume. Based on extensive research, input from the regulated community, and the collaborative efforts of experts from a range of disciplines, Radiation in Medicine will be an important resource for federal and state policymakers and regulators, health professionals involved in radiation treatment, developers and producers of radiation equipment, insurance providers, and concerned laypersons.

The purpose of Understanding Radiation Science: Basic Nuclear and Health Physics is to provide the reader a basic understanding of radiation science. Therefore, basic nuclear physics and health physics principles are presented through chapters on atomic structure, types of radiation, terminology and units, radiation biology, exposure and controls, background radiation, personnel monitoring, and radiation instrumentation. The book concludes with chapters on historical events and definitions. This book provides introductory information for students starting their education in nuclear physics, health physics and nuclear engineering. The material covered in this book is appropriate for all types of radiation workers. Persons studying to take the health physics certification exam, radiation protection technologist exam, or the certifying examinations to become radiologic technologists, radiation therapy technologists, ultrasound technologists, or nuclear medicine technologists will find this information most useful.

The Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) was set up by Congress in 1990 to compensate people who have been diagnosed with specified cancers and chronic diseases that could have resulted from exposure to nuclear-weapons tests at various U.S. test sites. Eligible claimants include civilian onsite participants, downwinders who lived in areas currently designated by RECA, and uranium workers and ore transporters who meet specified residence or exposure criteria. The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), which oversees the screening, education, and referral services program for RECA populations, asked the National Academies to review its program and assess whether new scientific information could be used to improve its program and determine if additional populations or geographic areas should be covered under RECA. The report recommends Congress should establish a new science-based process using a method called "probability of causation/assigned share" (PC/AS) to determine eligibility for compensation. Because fallout may have been higher for people outside RECA-designated areas, the new PC/AS process should apply to all residents of the continental US, Alaska, Hawaii, and overseas US territories who have been diagnosed with specific RECA-compensable diseases and who may have been exposed, even in utero, to radiation from U.S. nuclear-weapons testing fallout. However, because the risks of radiation-induced disease are generally low at the exposure levels of concern in RECA populations, in most cases it is unlikely that exposure to radioactive fallout was a substantial contributing cause of cancer.