Energy use is central to human society and provides many health benefits. But each source of energy entails some health risks. This article reviews the health impacts of each major source of energy, focusing on those with major implications for the burden of disease globally. The biggest health impacts accrue to the harvesting and burning of solid fuels, coal and biomass, mainly in the form of occupational health risks and household and general ambient air pollution. Lack of access to clean fuels and electricity in the world's poor households is a particularly serious risk for health. Although energy efficiency brings many benefits, it also entails some health risks, as do renewable energy systems, if not managed carefully. We do not review health impacts of climate change itself, which are due mostly to climate-altering pollutants from energy systems, but do discuss the potential for achieving near-term health cobenefits by reducing certain climate-related emissions.

An apparent disparity exists between RBE (relative biological effectiveness) values for low-range beta and Auger emitters, and the current value for their radiation weighting factor (w(R)). This paper presents evidence that the current w(R) value of unity for these nuclides is inconsistent with most RBE evidence and should be increased by a factor of two to three. It recommends that the ICRP should clearly state that the most appropriate RBE value for these nuclides, and not the w(R) value, should be used in specific dose calculations, retrospective dose estimations and epidemiological studies. The ICRP should also publish guidance as to the methods and data sources that could be used for these RBE values.

Recent proposals for a new scheme of radiation protection leave little room for collective dose estimations. This article discusses the history and present use of collective doses for occupational, ALARA, EIS and other purposes with reference to practical industry papers and government reports. The linear no-threshold (LNT) hypothesis suggests that collective doses which consist of very small doses added together should be used. Moral and ethical questions are discussed, particularly the emphasis on individual doses to the exclusion of societal risks, uncertainty over effects into the distant future and hesitation over calculating collective detriments. It is concluded that for moral, practical and legal reasons, collective dose is a valid parameter which should continue to be used.

In 2008, the KiKK study in Germany reported a 1.6-fold increase in solid cancers and a 2.2-fold increase in leukemias among children living within 5 km of all German nuclear power stations. The study has triggered debates as to the cause(s) of these increased cancers. This article reports on the findings of the KiKK study; discusses past and more recent epidemiological studies of leukemias near nuclear installations around the world, and outlines a possible biological mechanism to explain the increased cancers. This suggests that the observed high rates of infant leukemias may be a teratogenic effect from incorporated radionuclides. Doses from environmental emissions from nuclear reactors to embryos and fetuses in pregnant women near nuclear power stations may be larger than suspected. Hematopoietic tissues appear to be considerably more radiosensitive in embryos/fetuses than in newborn babies. Recommendations for advice to local residents and for further research are made.

No abstract