Are passive smoking, air pollution and obesity a greater mortality risk than major radiation incidents?

What's better for our health? Conducting protective actions during a nuclear emergency or accepting a certain radiation dose?

The threat caused by ionising radiation has resulted in the establishment of strict radiation protection guidelines. This is especially true for severe nuclear power plant (NPP) accident scenarios, which may involve the release of significant amounts of ionising radiation. However, we believe that the fine balance between the benefit of a certain protective action (e.g. evacuation) and its risks is not always accounted for properly. Deaths and mental health problems have been associated with protective actions (e.g. evacuation) implemented in the response to the Fukushima Daiichi (NPP) accident in 2011. The protective actions were implemented consistent with international recommendations, to reduce radiation-induced health effects, even though the off-site effective doses were too low to indicate that there would be any discernible radiation-induced health effects. In this paper, we will provide a first step for the development of tools to evaluate the risk of protective actions versus the radiation-induced health risk. Over 50 papers were selected as useful from more than 600 reviewed papers to characterise the health impact of protective actions taken during different emergencies (including, technical and natural emergencies). An analysis was performed comparing the radiation-induced health effects averted by protective actions with the health effects associated with the protective actions. We concentrated our analysis on deaths and mental health problems associated with protective actions compared with the inferred radiation-induced deaths averted by the protective actions. Our analysis is stated in terms of absolute risk (cases per 1000) of health effects to allow for a direct comparison. It indicates that taking protective actions consistent with dose criteria typically used in many countries could result in more excess deaths than the inferred radiation-induced deaths prevented, as well as resulting in mental health problems. We identified that residents of facilities for long stays and the elderly are particularly vulnerable and a significant number of the deaths among the general public are associated with a lack of emergency preparedness provisions.

A case study of cost-benefit analysis in occupational radiological protection within the healthcare system of Sweden

The aim of the present study was to demonstrate cases of cost-benefit analysis within healthcare, of how economic factors can be considered in occupational radiological protection, in agreement with the as low as reasonably achievable principle and present Swedish legislations. In the first part of the present study, a comparison of examples within health economics used by authorities and institutes in Sweden was made. The comparison focused on value of a statistical life, quality-adjusted life year, and monetary cost assigned to a unit of collective dose for radiation protection purposes (α-value). By this comparison, an α-value was determined as an interval between $45 and $450 per man-mSv, for the Swedish society in 2021. The α-value interval can be interpreted as following: Less than $45 per man-mSv is a good investment. From $45 to $450 per man-mSv, other factors than costs and collective dose are important to consider. More than $450 per man-mSv is too expensive. In the second part of the present study, seven cases of cost-benefit analyses in occupational radiological protection were provided. The present study focused specifically on cases where the relevant factors were costs and collective dose. The present case study shows a large variation in costs per collective dose from different types of occupational radiological protection, used at Skaraborg Hospital in Sweden.

'J'accuse.!': the continuous failure to address radiophobia and placing radiation in perspective

As far as carcinogens are concerned, radiation is one of the best studied, having been researched for more than 100 years. Yet, radiation remains feared in many contexts as a result of its invisibility, its relationship with cancers and congenital disorders, aided by a variety of heuristics and reinforced by negative imagery. The strong socio-psychological response relating to nuclear energy has made radiation a classical case in the risk literature. This is reflected clearly following the nuclear accidents that have taken place, where the socio-psychological impacts of the clear dissonance between real and perceived health effects due to radiation exposure have caused considerable health detriment, outweighing the actual radiological impacts. Despite considerable efforts to normalise humankind's relationship with radiation, there has been little shift away from the perceived uniqueness of the health risks of radiation. One consistent issue is the failure to place radiation within its proper perspective and context, which has ensured that radiophobia has persisted. The radiation protection community must get better at placing its research within the appropriate perspective and context, something that is far too rarely the case in discussions on radiation matters outside of the scientific community. Each member of the radiation protection community has an ethical, professional and moral obligation to set the record straight, to challenge the misconceptions and factual errors that surround radiation, as well as putting it into the proper perspective and context. Failing to do so, the well-established harms of radiophobia will remain, and the many benefits of nuclear technology risk being withheld.

Radiation Exposure and Health Effects - is it Time to Reassess the Real Consequences?

Our acceptance of exposure to radiation is somewhat schizophrenic. We accept that the use of high doses of radiation is still one of the most valuable weapons in our fight against cancer, and believe that bathing in radioactive spas is beneficial. On the other hand, as a species, we are fearful of exposure to man-made radiation as a result of accidents related to power generation, even though we understand that the doses are orders of magnitude lower than those we use everyday in medicine. The 70th anniversary of the detonation of the atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was marked in 2015. The 30th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident will be marked in April 2016. March 2016 also sees the fifth anniversary of the accident at the Fukushima nuclear power plant. Perhaps now is an opportune time to assess whether we are right to be fearful of the effects of low doses of radiation, or whether actions taken because of our fear of radiation actually cause a greater detriment to health than the direct effect of radiation exposure.

Nuclear Accidents

In the wake of the Fukushima accident, this chapter provides a summary and comparison of the four previous major accidents in the history of exploitation of nuclear power for military and civilian purposes: Windscale, Kyshtym, Three-Mile Island (TMI) and Chernobyl. The events leading to each accident, and their consequences to environmental and human health, are summarised. The earlier accidents at Windscale (UK) and Kyshtym (former Soviet Union) could be attributed in large part to the pressures to produce plutonium for atomic weapons programmes during the early years of the Cold War. This led to nuclear facilities being built with insufficient emphasis on design safety and, in some cases, lack of full understanding of the processes involved. The latter accidents at TMI (USA) and Chernobyl (former Soviet Union) were also in part caused by design and equipment failures, but operator errors (caused by poor training, insufficient or unclear information and a failure in safety culture) made a key contribution. In terms of environmental and human health impacts, the Kyshtym and Chernobyl accidents were of much greater significance than those at Windscale and TMI. Both Kyshtym and Chernobyl caused mass permanent evacuation and significant long-term environmental contamination. As demonstrated at TMI, even where radiation doses to the public are very low, psychological and social consequences of nuclear accidents can be serious. Concerning impacts of nuclear accidents on ecosystem health, there is no clear evidence that even the Kyshtym and Chernobyl accidents have caused significant damage in the long term. However, studies of the effects of radiation damage in these contaminated environments have been confounded by the largely positive impact evacuation of the human population has had on the ecosystem.