Have an X-ray, and you will receive a small dose of radiation to visualize your bones and body structures for medical help. Buy a smoke detector, you are inviting a small source of radiation, americium-241, into your home to protect yourself. But we do not take that radiation carelessly. Maybe by now.
The US regulates the amount of radiation that people are exposed to by using something Linear no-threshold modelWhich says that each additional dose of ionizing radiation, no matter how small, adds a small risk to health. This is a simple equation that describes the relationship between dose and exposure. For decades it has anchored radiation dose limits For both the public and radiation workers. But as of February 23, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is expected to change its rules, potentially eliminating this risk model. may executive order By President Donald Trump.
Why loosen this protection? Reportedly promoting nuclear power production. The administration says this risk model is too cautious, leading to conservatism in reactor design, understaffing, and rigidity in licensing. The executive order promises that its removal will accelerate nuclear reactor licensing while lowering the cost of providing nuclear power to the grid.
On supporting science journalism
If you enjoyed this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism Subscribing By purchasing a subscription, you are helping ensure a future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
As a nuclear power supporter and former Department of Energy official, I want to see more nuclear power on the grid soon. But loosening the security of the linear no-threshold (LNT) model is not supported by current research. Some experts warn Relaxing this could put women and children in particular at greater risk of harm from radiation.
The LNT model is based on the idea that exposure to any amount of radiation increases health risks, including cancer risk, proportionally. From data on high radiation exposure, scientists estimate, or predict, what might happen if people are exposed to low levels of radiation. However, at low doses, it becomes difficult to distinguish the health effects of radiation from other environmental and lifestyle factors that may affect health. It is this uncertainty that makes regulators rely on a cautious approach like the LNT model, and is why some question its use.
People are willing to accept the radiation risks inherent in medicine, industry, and energy because they trust that standards are set by trusted experts relying on evidence that errs on the side of caution and protects human health. Weakening the rules without new evidence will be counterproductive. Last time the question of increasing the public dosage limit came up NRC said no-There was not enough evidence. We must urge the current commissioners of the NRC to demand evidence and put science over political agendas.
Many international radiation protection organizations agree that this model is conservative. International Atomic Energy Agency standards, recommendations From the International Commission on Radiological Protection, official vaccine From the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, A Review by France’s Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety, and several recent letters Accept that the evidence at lower doses is inconclusive.
More data is needed—this is important for those organizations and the U.S. Is said National Academies Says science, engineering and medicine. Other models for low-dose exposure have been proposed, but only additional research can test them. Until then, the LNT, although conservative, remains the most defensible basis for security.
To fill the gaps in understanding radiation exposure at different doses, we need well-designed biological and epidemiological studies of large numbers of people. Increased concern for vulnerable populations demands particular attention to the effects of low doses on age, gender, and exposure both at home and at work. America should also give priority to coordination other countries Already engaged in this work.
This will require both money and patience. In 2022 the National Academies estimated that appropriate research infrastructure and effort could cost $100 million per year for 15 years.
language of may executive ordercoupled with a first order is requiredPresuming that any regulatory changes are consistent with President Trump’s policies effectively demands that the NRC’s decision be political rather than scientific. In his Senate confirmation, the latest Commissioner, Chairman ho neeh and commissioner douglas weaverStill promised to make science-based, risk-informed decisions. Between 2015 and 2021, when the NRC systematically re-evaluated and reaffirmed the LNT model, the process was public, evidence-based, and rooted in international consensus. This time, public comment has been sparse and hasty, with no suggestion of international coordination or consensus building.
Commissioners need better data before taking action. Anything less than that would break the promises of Nieh and Weaver and weaken public support for new nuclear reactors.
Where should America go from here?
We should reject changes to existing risk models until we have new data. We should fund the many researchers who are willing to do this work, and we should take into account what international research says. Furthermore, the notion that the public would meekly accept weaker radiation standards without explanation seems foolish.
Only with new data can we reevaluate radiation limits without political interference and a public forum is essential to ensure transparency. Scientists, medical experts, policy makers and administrators, as well as citizens who care about public health and nuclear energy, can increase public confidence in nuclear energy by considering this decision with the latest, most rigorous information. Scientific regulatory decisions must be thoughtful, thorough, and evidence-based.
There is no other moral option.
This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed are not necessarily those of the author or creators scientific American.
