Health Risks of Ionizing Radiation: - Clark University
Health Risks of Ionizing Radiation: - Clark University
Health Risks of Ionizing Radiation: - Clark University
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
may be <strong>of</strong> little benefit to those who bear the burden<br />
<strong>of</strong> risk.<br />
A figure such as this can also be misleading<br />
because <strong>of</strong> the variability <strong>of</strong> individual exposure<br />
histories. For example, a person who works in a<br />
nuclear facility will probably be exposed to more<br />
manmade radiation than a person who does not; this<br />
will alter the distribution <strong>of</strong> the pie chart and the<br />
overall amount <strong>of</strong> exposure. A person who lives in<br />
an area <strong>of</strong> particularly high fallout from the Nevada<br />
Test Site will also have a different exposure pattern<br />
than the average American, and so will someone<br />
with a history <strong>of</strong> extensive diagnostic radiation for a<br />
medical condition such as scoliosis.<br />
1.4 Standards<br />
In 1946 the Atomic Energy Act established the<br />
Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) to maintain<br />
control <strong>of</strong> atomic technology and to further its use<br />
for military purposes. In 1954 Congress passed new<br />
legislation outlining three roles for the AEC: 1)<br />
continue its weapons program, 2) promote the private<br />
use <strong>of</strong> atomic energy for peaceful application, and 3)<br />
protect public health and safety from the hazards <strong>of</strong><br />
commercial nuclear power. It soon became apparent<br />
that there was a conflict <strong>of</strong> interest with the same<br />
agency promoting the use <strong>of</strong> nuclear power and<br />
setting the standards <strong>of</strong> safety for this use. In 1974<br />
Congress divided the AEC into the Energy Research<br />
and Development Administration (ERDA) and<br />
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The<br />
NRC is not the sole agency with regulatory power<br />
regarding nuclear safety. The Federal <strong>Radiation</strong><br />
Council, established in 1959 and consolidated into<br />
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in<br />
1970, advises the President regarding radiation and<br />
health. The EPA’s radiation protection guides (RPG)<br />
are approved by the President and have the force and<br />
effect <strong>of</strong> law as all federal agencies are required to<br />
follow them. NRC regulations, which nuclear power<br />
facilities must follow, must be consistent with the<br />
RPGs. Other agencies responsible for regulating<br />
aspects <strong>of</strong> radiation exposure include the Food<br />
and Drug Administration (FDA), the Occupational<br />
Safety and <strong>Health</strong> Administration (OSHA), the<br />
Introduction 3<br />
Postal Service (USPS), and the Department<br />
<strong>of</strong> Transportation (DOT). Naturally occurring<br />
radionuclides are normally regulated by state<br />
governments. Twenty nine states regulate byproduct<br />
radioactive material and radiation devices within the<br />
state. 3<br />
Two series <strong>of</strong> reports provide much <strong>of</strong> the data<br />
used in radiation standard setting. The reports are<br />
produced by the National Academy <strong>of</strong> Sciences’<br />
Committee on the Biological Effects <strong>of</strong> <strong>Ionizing</strong><br />
<strong>Radiation</strong> (NAS/BEIR) and the United Nations<br />
Scientific Committee on the Effects <strong>of</strong> Atomic<br />
<strong>Radiation</strong> (UNSCEAR). Both committees prepare<br />
reports as new data or analyses are made available<br />
indicating that previous risk estimates need to be<br />
revised either up or down.<br />
A relatively new radiation protection advisory<br />
committee was formed in 1997, the European<br />
Committee on <strong>Radiation</strong> Risk (ECRR). This<br />
committee was formed by the Green Group in the<br />
European Parliament to discuss details <strong>of</strong> recent<br />
progress in radiological protection standards.<br />
The ECRR strives to make no assumptions about<br />
radiation safety based on preceding analyses and<br />
to remain independent <strong>of</strong> previous risk assessment<br />
committees such as the ICRP and the UNSCEAR. A<br />
report from the ECRR was released in 2003.<br />
Over the years, as the general consciousness<br />
has evolved about the risks <strong>of</strong> radiation exposure,<br />
the international and national radiation protection<br />
standards have dramatically changed. Figure 1-<br />
2 depicts the change in protection standards for<br />
nuclear workers. Because there is no one standard<br />
that all facilities and workplaces follow, the figure<br />
is based on recommendations <strong>of</strong> a variety <strong>of</strong> sources<br />
and summarizes the overall trend <strong>of</strong> standards.<br />
1.5 <strong>Radiation</strong> basics<br />
The physics and chemistry <strong>of</strong> radiation can be<br />
confusing, and the extensive terminology associated<br />
with radiation makes the problem much worse.<br />
We present below a minimum <strong>of</strong> information to<br />
avoid clouding our focus on epidemiology. Much<br />
more information is available online in the form <strong>of</strong><br />
tutorials and factsheets 4 .<br />
3 www.fpm.wisc.edu/safety/<strong>Radiation</strong>/2000%20Manual/chapter3.pdf<br />
4 For example: www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/cover.htm or www.nirs.org/factsheets/whatisradiation.htm