Advertisement

How Dangerous is Radiation?

  • Bernard L. Cohen

Abstract

The most important breakdown in the public’s understanding of nuclear power is in its concept of the dangers of radiation. What is radiation, and how dangerous is it?

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    S. Novick, The Careless Atom ( Dell Publishing, New York, 1969 ), p. 105.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    See Chapter 5 Appendix.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), “Natural Background Radiation in the United States,” NCRP Report No. 45 (1975).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Report of the President’s Commission on The Accident at Three Mile Island,” Washington, D.C. (1979); “Three Mile Island, A Report to the Commissioners and to the Public,” Nuclear Regulatory Commission Special Inquiry Group; Ad Hoc Interagency Dose Assessment Group, “Population Dose and Health Impact of the Accident at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,” Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document NUREG-0558 (1979). Early assessment gave an average dose of 1.7 mrem, but later revisions reduced this to 1.2 mrem.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    James Hardin (Kentucky Department of Human Resources), private communication. He was in charge of environmental monitoring in the area.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Philadelphia Evening Bulletin (May 6, 7, 8, 1979).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Private communication with health physicists from the Ginna plant.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    L. Garfinkel, C. E. Poindexter, and E. Silverberg, “Cancer Statistics—1980,” American Cancer Society (1981).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    United Nations Scientific Committee on Effects of Atomic Radiation (UN- SCEAR), “Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation,” United Nations, New York (1977).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Radiation Exposure from Consumer Products and Miscellaneous Sources, NCRP Report No. 56, Washington, D.C. (1977).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    National Academy of Sciences Committee on Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation, “Health Effects of Exposures to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation” (BEIR-V), Washington, D.C. (1990). Note discussion in Chapter 5 on how we correct for low dose rate.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    United Nations Scientific Committee on Effects of Atomic Radiation (UN- SCEAR), “Sources, Effects, and Risks of Ionizing Radiation,” United Nations, New York (1988).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    B. L. Cohen and I. S. Lee, “A Catalog of Risks,” Health Physics, 36, 707 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    National Academy of Sciences Committee on Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation, “Health Risks of Radon and Other Internally Deposited Alpha- Emitters,” Washington, D.C., 1988.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    U.S. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), “Evaluation of Occupational and Environmental Exposures to Radon and Radon Daughters in the United States,” NCRP Report No. 78 (1984).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), Risk from Indoor Exposure of Radon Daughters, ICRP Publication No. 50 ( Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1987 ).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    National Academy of Sciences Committee on Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR), “The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation,” Washington, D.C. (1980).18. B. L. Cohen, “Alternatives to the BEIR Relative Risk Model for Explaining A-Bomb Survivor Cancer Mortality,” Health Physics 52, 55 (1987).Google Scholar
  18. 19.
    U.S. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), “Influence of Dose and Its Distribution in Time on Dose-Response Relationships for Low LET Radiation,” NCRP Report No. 64 (1980).Google Scholar
  19. 20.
    R. Garrison, U.S. Department of Energy, private communication, on transport accidents. Estimates for others from various sources of information.Google Scholar
  20. 21.
    C. C. Lushbaugh, S. A. Fry, C. F. Hubner and R. C. Ricks, “Total-Body Irradiation: A Historical Review and Follow-up,” in C. F. Hubner and S. A. Fry (eds.), The Medical Basis for Radiation Accident Preparedness ( Elsevier-North Holland, Amsterdam, 1980 ).Google Scholar
  21. 22.
    T. F. Mancuso, A. Stewart, and G. Kneale, Health Physics, 33, 369 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 23.
    E. S. Gilbert, Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory Document PNL-SA-6341; G.B. Hutchison, B. MacMahon, S. Jablon, C. E. Land, Health Physics, 207 (1979); U.S. General Accounting Office, “Problems in Assessing the Cancer Risks of Low-Level Ionizing Radiation Exposure,” Report EMD-81, Washington, D.C. (1981); J. A. Reissland, “An assessment of the Mancuso study,” Publication NRPB-79, U.K. National Radiological Protection Board, Didcot, Berk. (1978); T. W. Anderson, Health Physics, 35, 743 (1978); A. Brodsky, testimony before the Subcommittee on Health and the Environment, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C., 8 February 1978; B. L. Cohen, Health Physics, 35, 582 (1978); S. M. Gertz, ibid., 35, 723 (1978); E. S. Gilbert, “Methods of Analyzing Mortality of Workers Exposed to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation,” Report BNWL-SA-634, Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington (May 1977); E. Gilbert and S. Marks, Health Physics, 37, 791 (1979); ibid., 40, 125 (1981); J. W. Gofman, ibid, 37, 617; D. J. Kleitman, “Critique of Mancuso-Stewart-Kneale Report” (prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., 1978); S. Marks, E. S. Gilbert, and B. D. Breitenstein, “Cancer mortality in Hanford workers,” Document IAEA-SM-224, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna (1978); R. Mole, Lancet, i, 582 (1978); “Staff Committee Report of November 1976,” Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. (1976); “Staff Committee Report of May 1978,” Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. (1978); “The Windscale Inquiry,” Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London (1978); D. Rubenstein, “Report to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,” Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. (1978); L. Sagan, “Low-Level Radiation Effects: The Mancuso Study,” Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California (1978); B. S. Sanders, Health Physics, 34, 521 (1978); F. W. Spiers, ibid., 37$1784 (1979); G. W. C. Tait, ibid., 37, 251 (1979).Google Scholar
  23. 24.
    The Media Institute, “Television Evening News Covers Nuclear Energy,” Washington, D.C. (1979).Google Scholar
  24. 25.
    B. L. Cohen, “Perspective on Genetic Effects of Radiation,” Health Physics, 1113 (1984).Google Scholar
  25. 26.
    E. B. Hook, “Rates of Chromosome Abnormalities at Different Maternal Ages,” Obstetrics and Gynecology, 58, 282 (1981).Google Scholar
  26. 27.
    J. M. Friedman, “Genetic Disease in the Offspring of Older Fathers,” Obstetrics and Gynecology, 57, 745 (1981).Google Scholar
  27. 28.
    International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, ICRP Publication No. 26 ( Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1977 ).Google Scholar
  28. 29.
    R. J. Lewis (ed.), “Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances,” U.S. Public Health Service, November (1981) (available by computer access). L. Fishbein, in Chemical Mutagens Vol. 4, A. Hollaender (ed.) (Plenum, New York, 1976) pp. 219ff.Google Scholar
  29. 30.
    K. Sax and H. J. Sax, “Radiomimetric Beverages, Drugs, and Mutagens,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 55, 1431 (1966).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 31.
    L. Ehrenberg, G. von Ehrenstein, and A. Hedgram, “Gonad Temperature and Spontaneous Mutation Rate in Man,” Nature, December 2, 1433 (1957).Google Scholar
  31. 32.
    U.S. Department of HEW, “Antenatal Diagnosis,” National Institutes of Health Publication No. 79–1973 (1979).Google Scholar
  32. 33.
    G. W. Beebe, H. Kato, and C. E. Land, “Mortality Experience of Atomic Bomb Survivors 1950–1974,” Radiation Effects Research Foundation Technical Report RERF TR 1–77 (1977). The data for Hiroshima and Nagasaki were added here.Google Scholar
  33. 34.
    National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), “Review of NCRP Radiation Dose Limit for Embryo and Fetus in Occupationally Exposed Women,” NCRP Report No. 53 (1977).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Bernard L. Cohen 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernard L. Cohen

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations