What Would Become of Nuclear Risk if Governments Changed Their Regulations to Recognize the Evidence of Radiation’s Beneficial Health Effects for Exposures That Are Below the Thresholds for Detrimental Effects?

Abstract

The 1953 Atoms for Peace Speech to the United Nations proposed applying nuclear energy to essential needs, including abundant electrical energy. The widespread fear of ionizing radiation from nuclear facilities and medical procedures began after the United States National Academy of Sciences performed a study of radiation dangers to the human genome. This study, initiated and managed by an oil industry benefactor, recommended in 1956 that the risk of radiation-induced mutations be assessed using the linear no-threshold dose-response model instead of the threshold model. It was followed by a study that wrongly linked low radiation to cancer among the atomic bomb survivors. The ensuing controversy resulted in a compromise. The National Committee on Radiation Protection adopted the precautionary principle policy in 1959, justified by fear of cancer and lack of knowledge. The United States and all other countries followed this recommendation, which remains unchanged 62 years later. Its impact on nuclear energy and medicine has been profound. Many costly regulations have been enacted to prevent very unlikely human or equipment failures—failures that would lead to radiation exposures that are below the dose thresholds for lasting harmful effects. Potential low-dose radiation therapies, against inflammation, cancer, autoimmune, and neurodegenerative diseases, are shunned.

Treatment of Early-Stage Alzheimer’s Disease With CT Scans of the Brain: A Case Report

“…Low doses are only for diagnostic imaging, and each exposure must now be as low as reasonably achievable, to minimize the hypothetical risk of radiation-induced cancer, still calculated by the LNT model. 5 , 18 …”

“… 22 , 23 Studies by the lead author on the Hiroshima atomic bomb survivors have revealed the acute threshold dose for the onset of radiation-induced leukemia to be quite high, about 1.1 Gy. 5 , 18 …”

Addressing Risk Perceptions of Low-Dose Radiation Exposure

“…The 32 700 survivors in the low-dose zone, whose exposures were below this threshold, had a lower-thannormal incidence of leukemia. 1 In 1959, the NCRP adopted the precautionary principle policy, which, in effect, meant that the LNT model would be employed to estimate the risk of radiation-induced cancer. This decision, published in 1960, was based on public fear and lack of knowledge.…”

“…It has long been known that the public has concern in relation to radiation exposure, that is not shared with nuclear experts. 1 These concerns include that all radiation exposures (including X-rays) are harmful (i.e., carcinogenic), radiation exposures are cumulative within our body, and children are more susceptible to radiation. 2 A common thread between problems of radiation worker exposure during cancer treatment and keeping health care workers in these areas safe is the issue of exposure to low-dose radiation (LDR) (defined as below 100 mSv (the radiation protection policy definition.…”

Vanishing by Design of Cancer Risk Uncertainty for Low Radiation Doses Is Misleading and Unscientific

“…The main basis for cancer risk quantification for humans exposed to low radiation doses is epidemiologic studies. Findings from such studies have influenced the development of the current system of radiological protection along with the related radiation-dose-reducing concept 1 “As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA).” Cancer risk quantification for low radiation doses is mainly based on the controversial 2 linear-no-threshold (LNT) model which is unsupported 3 by modern radiation biology. There are uncertainties with any cancer risk assessment related to radiation exposure.…”