- fact sheets
- Radiation Answers
- RADIATION RISK IN PERSPECTIVE - POSITION STATEMENT OF THE HEALTH PHYSICS SOCIETY revised May 2016
- The Health Physics Society advises against estimating health risks to people from exposures to ionizing radiation that are near or less than natural background levels because statistical uncertainties at these low levels are great. [...] below levels of about 100 mSv above background from all sources combined, the observed radiation effects in people are not statistically different from zero.
Answers to Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation
- What is radiation?
- How is radiation measured?
- How are people exposed to radiation?
- What levels of radiation exposure do people receive?
- What are the effects of exposure to radiation?
- 1 Radiation doses
- 2 Radioactive Isotopes
- 3 Radiation effects
- 4 Radiation and cancers
- 5 Hormesis *
- 6 atomic bomb survivors
- 7 Background radiation
- 8 childhood cancers
- 9 Philip Thomas / NREFS
- 10 Geraldine Thomas
- 11 radiation released from nuclear v. coal
- 12 Fukushima
- 13 Study of workers in nuclear industry
- 14 Genetic factors in radiation susceptibility
- 15 Treatment for radiation exposure
Ionising radiation: dose comparisons Public Health England; 18 Mar 2011
Radiation Dose Chart Randall Munroe; xkcd
Radiation in Perspective Nuclear Energy Institute; Facebook; 13 Apr 2015
Infographic of the Day: The Best Radiation Chart We've Seen So Far MORGAN CLENDANIEL; fastcodesign; 29 Nov 2011
- Radiation levels outside the Fukushima power plant remain mostly safe, but just how close are they to being dangerous?
Viewpoint: We should stop running away from radiation Wade Allison; BBC; 26 Mar 2011
- More than 10,000 people have died in the Japanese tsunami and the survivors are cold and hungry. But the media concentrate on nuclear radiation from which no-one has died - and is unlikely to.
- Nuclear radiation at very high levels is dangerous, but the scale of concern that it evokes is misplaced. Nuclear technology cures countless cancer patients every day - and a radiation dose given for radiotherapy in hospital is no different in principle to a similar dose received in the environment.
- What of Three Mile Island? There were no known deaths there.
- And Chernobyl? The latest UN report published on 28 February confirms the known death toll - 28 fatalities among emergency workers, plus 15 fatal cases of child thyroid cancer - which would have been avoided if iodine tablets had been taken (as they have now in Japan). And in each case the numbers are minute compared with the 3,800 at Bhopal in 1984, who died as a result of a leak of chemicals from the Union Carbide pesticide plant.
- So what of the radioactivity released at Fukushima? How does it compare with that at Chernobyl? Let's look at the measured count rates. The highest rate reported, at 1900 on 22 March, for any Japanese prefecture was 12 kBq per sq m (for the radioactive isotope of caesium, caesium-137).
- A map of Chernobyl in the UN report shows regions shaded according to rate, up to 3,700 kBq per sq m - areas with less than 37 kBq per sq m are not shaded at all. In round terms, this suggests that the radioactive fallout at Fukushima is less than 1% of that at Chernobyl.
- (8 days)
- Iodine-131 (131I), is an important radioisotope of iodine discovered by Glenn Seaborg and John Livingood in 1938 at the University of California, Berkeley. It has a radioactive decay half-life of about eight days. It is associated with nuclear energy, medical diagnostic and treatment procedures, and natural gas production. It also plays a major role as a radioactive isotope present in nuclear fission products, and was a significant contributor to the health hazards from open-air atomic bomb testing in the 1950s, and from the Chernobyl disaster, as well as being a large fraction of the contamination hazard in the first weeks in the Fukushima nuclear crisis. This is because I-131 is a major uranium, plutonium fission product, comprising nearly 3% of the total products of fission (by weight). I-131 is also a major fission product of uranium-233, produced from thorium.
- Due to its mode of beta decay, iodine-131 is notable for causing mutation and death in cells that it penetrates, and other cells up to several millimeters away. For this reason, high doses of the isotope are sometimes less dangerous than low doses, since they tend to kill thyroid tissues that would otherwise become cancerous as a result of the radiation. For example, children treated with moderate dose of I-131 for thyroid adenomas had a detectable increase in thyroid cancer, but children treated with a much higher dose did not. Likewise, most studies of very-high-dose I-131 for treatment of Graves disease have failed to find any increase in thyroid cancer, even though there is linear increase in thyroid cancer risk with I-131 absorption at moderate doses. Thus, iodine-131 is increasingly less employed in small doses in medical use (especially in children), but increasingly is used only in large and maximal treatment doses, as a way of killing targeted tissues. This is known as "therapeutic use."
- (30 years)
- Caesium-137 (Cs-137), cesium-137, or radiocaesium, is a radioactive isotope of caesium which is formed as one of the more common fission products by the nuclear fission of uranium-235 and other fissionable isotopes in nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons. It is among the most problematic of the short-to-medium-lifetime fission products because it easily moves and spreads in nature due to the high water solubility of caesium's most common chemical compounds, which are salts.
- (28.8 years)
X-rays don’t cause cancer: study safety and health magazine
US Low dose radiation research program US Department of Energy, Office of Biological and Environmental Research; 13-15 Mar 2012
- DOE’s Low Dose Program: Is unique within the U.S. government in focusing on low dose iological research aimed at informing current and future national radiation risk policy for the public and the workplace
Radiation burns - Beta burns Wikipedia
- "Beta burns" are shallow surface burns, usually of skin and less often of lungs or gastrointestinal tract, caused by beta particles, typically from hot particles or dissolved radionuclides that came to direct contact with or close proximity to the body. They can appear similar to sunburn. Unlike gamma rays, beta emissions are stopped much more effectively by materials and therefore deposit all their energy in only a shallow layer of tissue, causing more intense but more localized damage. On cellular level, the changes in skin are similar to radiodermatitis.
Radiation and cancers
Cancer Mortality Among People Living in Areas With Various Levels of Natural Background Radiation Ludwik Dobrzynski, Krzysztof W. Fornalski, Ludwig E. Feinendegen; Dose-response; Jul-Sep 2015
- There are many places on the earth, where natural background radiation exposures are elevated significantly above about 2.5 mSv/year. The studies of health effects on populations living in such places are crucially important for understanding the impact of low doses of ionizing radiation. This article critically reviews some recent representative literature that addresses the likelihood of radiation-induced cancer and early childhood death in regions with high natural background radiation. The comparative and Bayesian analysis of the published data shows that the linear no-threshold hypothesis does not likely explain the results of these recent studies, whereas they favor the model of threshold or hormesis. Neither cancers nor early childhood deaths positively correlate with dose rates in regions with elevated natural background radiation.
Comment On: NRC-2015-0057-0086 Linear No-Threshold Model and Standards for Protection Against Radiation; Extension of Comment Period Mohan Doss, Ph.D., MCCPM, Medical Physicist, Associate Professor, Diagnostic Imaging, Fox Chase Cancer Center, 333 Cottman Avenue Philadelphia, PA 19111; 17 Nov 2015
- I am responding to comments received from many members of the public who have raised major concerns regarding the recent petitions to discontinue the use of the linear no-threshold (LNT) model for establishing radiation safety regulations, and the proposed higher radiation dose limits for the public. These concerns are based on a misunderstanding that exists regarding cancer and radiation effects in our society.
Linear No-Threshold Model and Standards for Protection Against Radiation Nukes Pretty Please; 8 Mar 2016
- This is a, sort of, re-blog of Mohan Doss' submission to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC, on radiation protection standards (link is above). Don't let that put you off reading it. It is a well-written summary of what we currently know about the harms of radiation and actual causes of cancer.
Radiation and Cancer Risk – What Do We Know? Iida Ruishalme; Thoughscapism; 1 Mar 2018
- After my visit to the nuclear waste facility ZWILAG, I set out to answer one question: How dangerous is their “high radiation area?”
- I found that regulatory limits on radiation are set very cautiously, that effects of low level radiation are really hard to pin down, and that there are people naturally living with radiation levels far beyond what are the legal limits for nuclear plant workers. Some of those areas I visit every year.
- I conclude that I could camp in the dry cask hall without being likely to have an increased cancer risk, but I should probably think twice about living there.
atomic bomb survivors
Genetic studies at the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission–Radiation Effects Research Foundation: 1946–1997 James V. Neel; PNAS; 12 May 1998
Background Radiation Wikipedia
Hot Spots: Earth’s 5 Most Naturally Radioactive Places Steve; Web Ecoist;
- Guarapari, Brazil
- Ramsar, Iran
- Paralana Hot Springs, Arkaroola, Australia
- Yangjiang, China
- Karunagappally, Kerala, India
The Most Radioactive Places on Earth (Veritasium; YouTube; 17 Dec 2014)
- Who on Earth is exposed to the most ionizing radiation? I'm filming a documentary for TV about how Uranium and radioactivity have shaped the modern world. It will be broadcast in mid-2015, details to come. The filming took me to the most radioactive places on Earth (and some places, which surprisingly aren't as radioactive as you'd think). Chernobyl and Fukushima were incredible to see as they present post-apocalyptic landscapes. I also visited nuclear power plants, research reactors, Marie Curie's institute, Einstein's apartment, nuclear medicine areas of hospitals, uranium mines, nuclear bomb sites, and interviewed numerous experts.
- with sources
Here's Why Every Glass Of Wine You Drink Is Radioactive -- Yes, Really (Quora; Forbes; 2 Feb 2016)
Human exposure to high natural background radiation: what can it teach us about radiation risks? Jolyon H Hendry, Steven L Simon, Andrzej Wojcik, Mehdi Sohrabi, Werner Burkart, Elisabeth Cardis, Dominique Laurier, Margot Tirmarche, and Isamu Hayata
- Natural radiation is the major source of human exposure to ionising radiation, and its largest contributing component to effective dose arises from inhalation of 222Rn and its radioactive progeny. However, despite extensive knowledge of radiation risks gained through epidemiologic investigations and mechanistic considerations, the health effects of chronic low-level radiation exposure are still poorly understood. The present paper reviews the possible contribution of studies of populations living in high natural background radiation (HNBR) areas (Guarapari, Brazil; Kerala, India; Ramsar, Iran; Yangjiang, China), including radon-prone areas, to low dose risk estimation. Much of the direct information about risk related to HNBR comes from case–control studies of radon and lung cancer, which provide convincing evidence of an association between long-term protracted radiation exposures in the general population and disease incidence. The success of these studies is mainly due to the careful organ dose reconstruction (with relatively high doses to the lung), and to the fact that large-scale collaborative studies have been conducted to maximise the statistical power and to ensure the systematic collection of information on potential confounding factors. In contrast, studies in other (non-radon) HNBR areas have provided little information, relying mainly on ecological designs and very rough effective dose categorisations. Recent steps taken in China and India to establish cohorts for follow-up and to conduct nested case–control studies may provide useful information about risks in the future, provided that careful organ dose reconstruction is possible and information is collected on potential confounding factors.
Childhood leukaemia incidence around UK nuclear power plants Department of Health / Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE); 6 May 2011
- The aim of this report by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) is to undertake a further review of the incidence of childhood leukaemia in the vicinity of nuclear power plants (NPPs) in Great Britain, with particular reference to recent publications, including the German ‘Kinderkrebs in der Umgebung von Kernkraftwerken’ study and studies from other countries (for example France and Finland), and in relation to the conclusions in the tenth and eleventh COMARE reports. This review considers England, Scotland and Wales, because there are no NPPS in Northern Ireland.
Nuclear power 'not source of leukaemia' NHS choices; 9 May 2011
- commentary on COMARE 14th report, and Guardian article quoting it.
Case–control study on childhood cancer in the vicinity of nuclear power plants in Germany 1980–2003 Claudia Spix, Sven Schmiedel, Peter Kaatsch, Renate Schulze-Rath, Maria Blettner; European Journal of Cancer; 2007
- The 1984 Windscale study raised concern about a possible association between living in the vicinity of nuclear power plants and childhood cancer. No such effect for all cancers was seen in ecological studies in Germany (1980–1995). Results from exploratory analyses led to a new study.
- Pre-selected areas around all 16 major nuclear power plants in Germany formed the study area. The design is a matched case–control study; cases are all cancers under five years diagnosed in 1980–2003: 1592 cases, and 4735 controls. Inverse distance of place of residence to the nearest nuclear power plant at the time of diagnosis was used as the independent variable in a conditional logistic regression model.
- Results show an increased risk for childhood cancer under five years when living near nuclear power plants in Germany. The inner 5-km zone shows an increased risk (odds ratio 1.47; lower one-sided 95% confidence limit 1.16). The effect was largely restricted to leukaemia.
- The results are compatible with the corresponding subgroups in the previous German ecological studies, with which this study shares most of the cases. They contrast with the lack of an effect observed or expected from other studies due to low doses from routine nuclear power plant operation.
Leukaemia in young children in the vicinity of British nuclear power plants: a case–control study J F Bithell, M F G Murphy, C A Stiller, E Toumpakari, T Vincent, R Wakeford; British Journal of Cancer; 12 Sep 2013
- background: Concern about the risk of leukaemia in children living near nuclear power plants (NPPs) persists. Previous British analyses have been area based and consequently thought to be less effective than case–control studies.
- methods: Cases of childhood leukaemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (LNHL) born and diagnosed in Great Britain between 1962 and 2007, with matched cancer-free controls, were analysed by logistic regression to estimate the risk of residential proximity at birth and diagnosis to the nearest NPP, adjusting for relevant variables.
- results: For 9821 children with LNHL under the age of 5 years, the estimated extra risk associated with residential proximity to an NPP at birth was negative—interpolated Odds Ratio (OR) at 5 km was 0.86 (0.49–1.52). The comparison of 10 618 children with LNHL under five with 16 760 similarly aged children with other cancers also gave a negative estimate of the extra risk of residential proximity at diagnosis—interpolated OR at 5 km was 0.86 (0.62–1.18).
- conclusion: Our results show little evidence of an increase in risk of LNHL to children aged under 5 years from living in the vicinity of an NPP. Risk estimates are incompatible with comparable ones published in a recent German case–control study.
'No link' between nuclear plants and child cancer NHS choices; 13 Sep 2013
- article based on the Bithell et al study
Philip Thomas / NREFS
- Misconceptions over Health Impacts of Nuclear Accidents United Nations University Fukushima Communications Program; 9 Nov 2014
- Health Risks from Radiation from Nuclear Accidents – Facts and Fantasy
- video of lecture (with Q&A) at the CDT Festival of Science 2015 at Imperial College London
Look at the science – smoking and obesity are more harmful than radiation Geraldine Thomas; Guardian; 26 Apr 2011
- Chernobyl and the WW2 bombs should have taught us about how dangerous nuclear really is, but it continues to be hyped up
radiation released from nuclear v. coal
Coal Ash Is More Radioactive Than Nuclear Waste Mara Hvistendahl; Scientific American; 13 Dec 2007
- By burning away all the pesky carbon and other impurities, coal power plants produce heaps of radiation
- based on 1978 paper for Science, J. P. McBride at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)
Radiological Impact of Airborne Effluents of Coal-Fired and Nuclear Power Plants J. P. McBride, R. E. Moore, J. P. Witherspoon, R. E. Blanco; ORNL Chemical Technology Division; Aug 1977
Nuclear proliferation through coal burning Gordon J. Aubrecht, II; Physics Education Research Group, Department of Physics, Ohio State University; 25 May 2003
- page 8
- The EPA found slightly higher average coal concentrations than used by McBride et al. of 1.3 ppm and 3.2 ppm, respectively. Gabbard (A. Gabbard, “Coal combustion: nuclear resource or danger?,” ORNL Review 26, http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html.) finds that American releases from each typical 1 GWe coal plant in 1982 were 4.7 tonnes of uranium and 11.6 tonnes of thorium, for a total national release of 727 tonnes of uranium and 1788 tonnes of thorium. The total release of radioactivity from coal-fired fossil fuel was 97.3 TBq (9.73 x 1013 Bq) that year. This compares to the total release of 0.63 TBq (6.3 x 1011 Bq) from the notorious TMI accident, 155 times smaller.
- The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) similarly found that population exposure from operation of comparable (1 GWe) nuclear and coal-fired power plants was 4.9 personSv/yr for coal plants and 4.8 x 10-2 person-Sv/yr for nuclear plants, a factor of ~100 greater for the coal-fired plants.
- A single 1 GWe coal-fired plant causes 25 fatalities, 60,000 cases of respiratory disease, and $12 million in property damage, as well as emitting an amount of NOx equivalent to 20,000 cars per year. It also produces ashes and sludge.
- The Linear No Threshold hypothesis is extremely difficult to test below levels quite a bit above typical background levels because it predicts effects in terms of rates of cancers so much lower than occur naturally anyway that rates of radiation-induced cancers down in the "noise" of normal variability and confounding effects, such as especially inaccuracies in reported levels of smoking earlier in subjects' lives.
What I Learned from an Ocean Radioactivity Testing Project Ken Buesseler; Scientific American; 12 Dec 2018
- We live in a radioactive world. That simple fact about our planet kept coming to me in the weeks and months after March 11, 2011, when the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power plant overheated, exploded and began releasing radioactivity into the ocean and atmosphere. It was a fact that I also learned after Chernobyl in 1986, when I was a graduate student in chemical oceanography studying plutonium in the ocean produced during nuclear weapons testing.
- In the days and years after Fukushima, I would find myself responding to audiences up and down the West Coast who expressed concern about reports of a radioactive “blob” making its way across the Pacific or dead birds found on a beach or decomposing starfish. I kept hearing the same questions from worried parents, fisherman and surfers: Is it safe? Should I stay out of the water? Can I eat seafood? Is the Pacific dying?
- I am a scientist, so my first response after the accident was to head to Japan, collect samples and assess the situation. Near the reactors, where we were not allowed to sample, levels of radioactivity in the ocean spiked to more than 10 million times the pre-accident background in early April. By the time we arrived in June, levels had thankfully had fallen thousands of times, but it was still easy to detect this new source of radioactivity as it mixed into the ocean and began moving inexorably east.
- To my surprise, as radioactivity levels near Japan decreased, public concern in the United States increased. Maps pinpointing the spread and dilution of radioactive cesium-134 and -137—the principal markers of radioactivity from Fukushima—did little to allay public concerns. But because no federal agency claims oversight for radioactivity in ocean water, there was no place I could apply for funding to respond to these concerns in a comprehensive way. And since there was also no way I could take everyone in California on a research cruise to see what I was seeing, I decided to get people to see for themselves how much radiation there was.
- The result was Our Radioactive Ocean (ORO), a crowd-funded campaign to measure the levels of radioactive cesium along the West Coast of North America and around Hawaii. Our goal was to empower individuals and groups to collect water at their favorite beach with our simple kit, then send the sample to my lab for analysis. In the process, they would take ownership of the information we returned to them and hopefully become ambassadors for the scientific process and the knowledge that we assembled, one sample at a time.
- What started out as a blank map of the eastern North Pacific, is now dotted with well over 300 sample locations. More importantly, we have photos of families, surfing groups, and classrooms, all wading into the ocean to collect a sample—their sample. The results we have assembled show that radioactivity levels in the ocean off the West Coast are lower today than they were in the 1960s when similar radioactive contaminants were first released as fallout from nuclear weapons testing.
Study of workers in nuclear industry
Researchers pin down risks of low-dose radiation Alison Abbott; Nature News; 8 Jul 2015
- "Large study of nuclear workers shows that even tiny doses slightly boost risk of leukaemia
- "A landmark international study has now provided the strongest support yet for the idea that long-term exposure to low-dose radiation increases the risk of leukaemia, although the rise is only minuscule"
- study of workers in the nuclear industry whose exposure (at work) is monitored by dosimeters, claims increased risks of leukaemia, but as the comments to the article point out there are possible flaws in these findings.
Plutonium and Health: How great is the risk? George L. Voelz; Los Alamos Science; 2000
- Because it is radioactive,
plutonium is dangerous when it finds its way into the human body. Driven by knowledge of the possible harmful health effects of plutonium, scientists carefully warned the public about them and established procedures to protect the workers in plutonium-processing facilities. In fact, their care was so extreme that many believe it was the scientists themselves who promoted an overstated idea that became well known at the end of the 1940s: “Plutonium is the most toxic substance known to man.”
- In this article, we will give a realistic assessment of the health risks of plutonium.
Genetic factors in radiation susceptibility
There is evidence that individuals' susceptibility to cancer from low-dose radiation depends on genetic factors.
Identification of genetic loci that control mammary tumor susceptibility through the host microenvironment Pengju Zhang et al; Scientific Reports; 9 Mar 2015
Treatment for radiation exposure
Comparison of Prussian blue and apple-pectin efficacy on 137Cs decorporation in rats. Le Gall B, Taran F, Renault D, Wilk JC, Ansoborlo E.; Biochimie; Nov 2006
- Cesium-137 (137Cs) is one of the most important nuclear fission elements that contaminated the environment after the explosion of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine (1986). The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy of two chelating agent, Prussian blue and apple-pectin on 137cesium decorporation in rats. Rats were intravenously injected with a solution of 137cesium (5 kBq per rat). Chelating agents, Prussian blue or apple-pectin were given immediately after Cs contamination and during 11 days by addition of each chelating agent in drinking water at a concentration corresponding to 400 mg kg(-1) day(-1). Efficiency was evaluated 11 days after contamination (at the end of treatment) through their ability to promote Cs excretion and to reduce the radionuclide accumulation in some retention compartments (blood, liver, kidneys, spleen, skeleton and in the remaining carcass). In these conditions after treatment with Prussian blue a fivefold increase in fecal excretion of Cs was observed and was associated with a reduction in the radionuclide retention in the main organs measured. In contrast, no significant differences were observed between untreated rats and rats treated with apple-pectin. These observations were discussed in terms of ability of pectins to bind Cs and compared to recently published results obtained after treatment of Cs-contaminated children with this chelate.