In his review of ‘Manual for Survival: A Chernobyl Guide to the Future’ in ET Vitali Vitaliev refers several times to the effects of low level radiation exposure including a quote “Ignorance about low-dose exposure is, I have argued, partly deliberate.”
https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2019/03/book-review-manual-for-survival-a-chernobyl-guide-to-the-future/
I would rephrase that as “Ignorance about low-dose exposure is the greatest barrier to the development of clean reliable nuclear power”
There is quite a lot known about low dose exposure, most suggests that it is harmless, some suggests that it is beneficial/necessary. Quite a lot of effort has been put into trying to find harmful effects, so far without evidence.
High doses of radiation are definitely dangerous. 10 Sieverts (Sv) in one dose is Fatal. 4 Sv in one dose will require urgent medical treatment with a 50% chance of survival. 100 milli Sieverts (mSv) in one dose will increase the chance of cancer. This information all comes from high doses delivered over a short space of time, mostly from the atom bombs or radiation accidents.
The effects of low doses delivered over time are much less certain. Legislation is based on the Linear No Threshold theory (LNT) and Collective Dose. LNT is based on the assumption that the human response to radiation is linear down to zero dose. The only point of agreement between the pro and anti nuclear lobbies is that LNT is wrong. The anti nuclear lobby believes that the effect increase with low dose as this is the only way they can explain things like the Windscale/Selafield cancer cluster. The pro nuclear group believe that there is a threshold below which there are no harmful effects. Collective Dose is then based on LNT making the assumption that if 10 000 people receive a dose of 1 mSv that is a total dose of 10 Sv and one of them will die as a result.
The greatest problem with defining the effect of low doses delivered over time is natural background radiation. We are receiving natural radiation all the time from cosmic rays, naturally occurring radioactive materials in the ground and naturally occurring radioactive materials in our bodies (mostly potassium 40 and carbon 14). The dose received from this natural radiation varies widely from place to place due to the composition of the rocks and the height. The higher you are the higher the dose from cosmic rays. The dose is still higher if you fly. Typical doses range from 3 – 6 mSv per year. London is around 2 mSv per year, parts of Cornwall receive nearly 8 mSv per year. There are other areas of the world where the levels are much higher 50 mSv per year or more.
https://radwatch.berkeley.edu/dosenet/levels
If LNT is valid you would expect to find measurable health differences between high and low dose areas, especially as the doses vary by a factor of 10 or more. A lot of studies have been carried out but haven’t found significant, or even any, health differences.
Various people including Helen Caldicot and Chris Busby have tried to ‘prove’ that low doses have a larger effect. George Monbiot (much more green and left than me) got a surprise when he tried to investigate. In simple terms they were making it up as they went along.
https://www.monbiot.com/2011/11/22/how-the-greens-were-misled/
https://www.monbiot.com/2011/04/04/evidence-meltdown/
So to sum up Radiophobia has caused a huge amount of suffering and a significant number of deaths due to the unnecessary evacuations at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima. Yes there were areas that needed to be evacuated, but they were very much smaller that the areas that were evacuated. Trying unnecessarily to decontaminate the areas to background levels just prolongs the agony for the evacuees. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35761136
Best regards
Roger
