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

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Environmental; health effects; nuclear accident; radiation.

Fig 1

Sources of background radiation. Eighty-five per cent of an individual’s annual dose of radiation comes from natural sources (radon, a gas that is emitted from the rocks that form the crust of the planet; food/drinking water; cosmic radiation; exposure from buildings and soil). Fifteen per cent is from man-made sources, largely from exposures for medical reasons (14%). The remaining 1% comes from the nuclear industry. Fallout from atomic weapons testing or use and nuclear accidents accounts for around 0.3% of an individual’s annual radiation dose. Figure redrawn from data available at http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Safety-and-Security/Radiation-and-Health/Nuclear-Radiation-and-Health-Effects.