Cost of fear and radiation protection actions: Washington County, Utah and Fukushima, Japan {Comparing case histories}

How the Science of Radiation Biology Can Help Reduce the Crippling Fear of Low-level Radiation

ABSTRACT

The fear of radiation has been present almost since the discovery of radiation, but has intensified since the "dawn of the atomic age" over 75 y ago. This fear has often served as an impediment to the safe and beneficial uses of radiation and radioactive material. The underlying causes of such fear are varied, can be complex, and are often not associated with any scientific knowledge or understanding. The authors believe that a clear understanding of the current scientific knowledge and understanding of the effects of radiation exposure may be useful in helping to allay some of the fear of radiation. This manuscript attempts to (1) address several scientific questions that we believe have contributed to the fear of radiation, (2) review the data derived from research that can be used to address these questions, and (3) summarize how the results of such scientific research can be used to help address the fear of low-dose and low-dose-rate radiation. Several examples of how fear of radiation has affected public perception of radiological events are discussed, as well as a brief history of the etiology of radiation fear. Actions needed to reduce the public fear of radiation and help fulfill the full societal benefits of radiation and radioactive materials are suggested.

Radiobiology of Select Radionuclides in Hanford Site Tank Waste

There are several important radionuclides involved in the "clean-up" or environmental isolation of nuclear waste contained in US Department of Energy Hanford Site underground waste tanks that drive many of the decisions associated with this activity. To make proper human health risk analyses and ensure that the most appropriate decisions are made, it is important to understand the radiation biology and the human health risk associated with these radionuclides. This manuscript provides some basic radiological science, in particular radiation biology, for some of these radionuclides, i.e., 3 H, 90 Sr, 137 Cs, 99 Tc, 129 I, and the alpha emitters 239, 240 Pu, 233,234,235,238 U, and 241 Am. These radionuclides were selected based on their designation as "constituents of potential concern," historical significance, or potential impact on human health risk. In addition to the radiobiology of these select radionuclides, this manuscript provides brief discussions of the estimated cost of planned management of Hanford tank waste and a comparison with releases into the Techa River from activities associated with the Mayak Production Association. A set of summary conclusions of the potential human health risks associated with these radionuclides is given.

Educational dialogue on public perception of nuclear radiation

PURPOSE

Across the world, nuclear radiation and its effects on the population has been the topic of back-burner debates, given the strong emotional connotations involved. We believe that education is crucial for people to make informed decisions regarding nuclear energy. With a science-technology-society (STS) approach, a seminar-style educational module on Radiation and Society was formulated at Tembusu College, National University of Singapore (NUS) in 2015. This primarily aimed to equip students with the necessary analytical tools to assess evidence and thus, evaluate existing assumptions on radiation/nuclear power/nuclear energy, the effects on mankind and societal perception of radiation.

METHODS

Radiation and Society was a seminar-style module which consisted of weekly 3-hour interactive sessions for 13 weeks. Throughout the semester, students were acquainted with themes and concepts related to radiation and society, such as the historical dimensions, radiation science, role in medicine, the psychology of radiation fear, existing radiation myths, complexities in radiation disaster response, communication of risks and emergency preparedness. Discussions during the sessions covered a variety of topics, including ionizing radiation as a result of nuclear fall-out, historical contextualization of nuclear fear, and uses of radiation in (bio)medicine, STS and science communication. Field visits to research reactors and cancer centers were arranged to showcase the diverse applications of nuclear radiation. Experts involved in various related spheres of influence shared their perspectives on matters such as technological developments in emergency preparedness, nuclear reactors, and societal impacts.

RESULTS

The interactive facilitator-student sessions helped educate young minds about nuclear radiation. A post-course survey was conducted to obtain opinions of students on their perceptions of reliability and safety of nuclear energy, effectiveness of the seminar, and where radiation ranked relative to alternative energy sources. Overall findings of the survey indicated that although nuclear energy was perceived as a safe and reliable substitute, renewable energy was considered a better option. Participants felt that, as per the learning objectives, the sessions were effective in improving awareness regarding nuclear energy.

CONCLUSION

This seminar-style module equipped students with the analytical tools required to critically assess sources of knowledge and social perceptions of radiation. In addition to the concluding perceptions toward nuclear energy from the post-course survey, a pre-module/course survey to reveal changes in student attitudes is planned to aid refinement of the course in future iterations. Such educational efforts will allow students to be aware of both the pros and cons of nuclear radiation and thus, construct informed opinions.

The Double Threshold: Consequences for Identifying Low-Dose Radiation Effects

Prior to observing low-dose-induced cell signaling and adaptive protection, radiogenic stochastic effects were assumed to be linearly related to absorbed dose. Now, abundant data prove the occurrence of radiogenic adaptive protection specifically at doses below ∼ 200 mGy (with some data suggesting such protection at a dose even higher than 200 mGy). Moreover, cells do not thrive properly when deprived of radiation below background dose.

Two threshold doses need be considered in constructing a valid dose-response relationship. With doses beginning to rise from zero, cells increasingly escape radiation deprivation. The dose at which radiation-deprived cells begin to function homeostatically provides dose Threshold A. With further dose increase, adaptive protection becomes prominent and then largely disappears at acute doses above ∼ 200 mGy. The dose at which damage begins to override protection defines Threshold B.

Thresholds A and B should be terms in modeling dose-response functions. Regarding whole-body responses, current data suggest for low-LET acute, non-chronic, irradiation a Threshold B of about 100 mGy prevails, except for leukemia and probably some other malignancies, and for chronic, low dose-rate irradiation where the Threshold B may well reach 1 Gy per year. A new Research and Development Program should determine individual Thresholds A and B for various radiogenic cell responses depending on radiation quality and target.

Assessment of probable scenarios of radiological emergency and their consequences

PURPOSE

Despite the vast amount of literature on radiological emergencies, to the best of our knowledge there is no systematic review of probable scenarios and their consequences. This work aimed for compiling such review.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The authors comprised a Red Team - that is, simulated best efforts to inflict maximal damage to the society by various means of radiological attacks. Nuclear warfare including improvised nuclear devices is beyond the scope of this work.

RESULTS

The direct radiogenic health consequences of any conceivable radiological accident, natural or man-made, are much less dangerous than those which are usually perceived. In each scenario, direct health effects are only a small part of the damage caused by fear and over-reaction; the damage is somewhat independent of the small health effect predicted for most of the scenarios. The reason is that nuclear radiation has become perceptually connected with nuclear apocalypses. This connection has caused the emotional description of radiological emergencies to frequently substitute quantitative considerations. For example, Chernobyl and Fukushima became major humanitarian disasters not because of the radiation itself but because of the over-reaction of both the authorities and the public, that led to the unjustified relocation of hundreds of thousands of people. In Fukushima, the evacuation was not justified at all and in Chernobyl the evacuated zone should have been re-populated after 1 month.

CONCLUSIONS

It is vital to educate decision makers, first responders and the public about the factual extent of possible radiological consequences, as well as about the very real danger of over-reaction. Since the extent of the countermeasures deployed is unavoidably connected, in the eye of the public, with the extent of the danger, we suggest launching educational campaigns that explain the factual extent of the radiation risk, followed by easing regulations and narrowing safety margins. Such measures will probably be the most efficient method of countering radiological terrorism: by depriving any adversary of the most important ability which is to cause an over-reaction.