Letter to Peshastin Conference attendees (Andrzej Strupczewski)

Prof. dr Andrzej Strupczewski Chairman of Nuclear Safety Commission at National Centre for Nuclear Research, Poland

August 25, 2017

Letter to Peshastin Conference attendees Nuclear power is safe and reliable, yet people are afraid of it. Nuclear power is the first industry that has taken care of its waste and has successfully managed radioactive waste separating it from human environment without any accident – and yet people quote the “problem of nuclear waste “ as insoluble and protest against nuclear power in the name of countless future generations. Nuclear power plants do not emit radiation – the doses that people can get in the closest vicinity to the nuclear power plant are less than the natural variations of radioactive background between two cities in the same country – and yet people equate nuclear power with cancer.

Why is that so?

The public has been convinced by opponents of nuclear power that radiation is the greatest hazard to human life. “Every dose of radiation can initiate cancer “ says antinuclear propaganda. And all our efforts to show people that we have reduced radiation exposures do not change the basic attitude which is “we do not want any additional chance of cancer, even a small one”. Even when we show that the radiation from nuclear power is much smaller than the natural radiation variations, the reaction is that natural radiation may be OK, but additional radiation from nuclear power is man-made and so it is harmful.

The opponents of nuclear power have very strong reasons for perpetrating these false beliefs, even when they know that nuclear power is one of the safest sources of energy. It is a simple fight for money – either for large sums coming to big oil or big coal, which are threatened with loss of part of the market for energy, or for enormous amounts of subsidies paid to developers of wind power or solar power, which would be unnecessary if clean, reliable and inexpensive energy were available from nuclear power plants.

There is a basic difference between proponents of nuclear power and its adversaries. People in nuclear power industry are good engineers and scientists, generally dealing with scientific and technical problems. They can and do find ingenious solutions to most difficult technical tasks, but they have no training nor inclination to deal with public relation issues. Contrary to them, the opponents are people trained in gaining public confidence. If they were not, the successful organisations like Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth would have long disappeared due to the lack of funds. So the speakers for antinuclear forces are being constantly trained in contacts with the public. In addition, their job is easier than that of nuclear power defenders, because getting people scared takes seconds, while explaining to them that there is no reason to fear takes long hours.

Moreover, the religion of fear is supported by part of nuclear establishment itself. For half a century the regulations of radiation protection have been based on LNT assumption, which says that the harm done by radiation is proportional to the radiation dose, even for the smallest doses down to zero. This was leading to multiplication of very low radiation doses by very large numbers of people all over the world and quoting the numbers of theoretical fatalities obtained in this way as the health costs of nuclear power. Although International Committee on Radiation Protection ICRP repudiated this practice, the opponents of nuclear power use it still, especially in public speeches when serious discussion is impossible.

The answer of nuclear industry has been to tighten radiation protection rules and introduce ever new and more sophisticated systems to reduce potential radiation hazards. This involved large expenses bringing no real benefits, although the radiation doses have been reduced lower and lower. It has been repeatedly shown that the costs of potential saving a human life by introducing additional safety systems in nuclear power are many time larger that the costs of saving human life by improvements in medicine or traffic safety, or by supplying poor people with clean water. And yet the pressure to tighten the radiation protection regulations goes on and on, and with each reduction of allowed radiation doses the opponents say “Look, we were right that the radiation is unsafe, now they have reduced the allowed doses again!”

However, the experience shows that low dose and low dose-rate radiation is not harmful, contrarily, it enhances natural mechanisms of defence against cancer, and these mechanisms protect us not only against cancer due to radiation but first of all against cancer due to natural processes. This effect of low doses of radiation is called radiation hormesis and has been confirmed by epidemiological studies of hundreds of thousands of people. The studies covered people living in high background radiation areas, people receiving radiation doses in medical diagnostic and treatment processes and nuclear workers in establishments all over the world, from the USA and Canada to China, Japan, India and Brazil. The existence of radiation hormesis is generally unknown to the public and yet it contradicts strongly the assumptions that every dose of radiation can be harmful.

The USA is undoubtedly the leader in the field of nuclear energy and the US approach to the effects of low radiation doses has a decisive influence on position of international and national organisations dealing with radiation protection. Recently non-governmental organisation of Scientists for Accurate Radiation Information (SARI) wrote to Environmental Protection Agency showing the necessity to change the basis of radiation protection. The assumption of LNT which has no scientific justification and has been shown wrong in thousands of studies should be removed from regulations and new rules based on hormetic theory should be introduced. The arguments for the change are briefly listed in the letter of SARI http://radiationeffects.org/2017/05/15/radiation-hormesis-should-be-the-basis-forestablishing-radiation-protection-standards/. The new regulations should protect people from receiving high radiation doses - which are harmful – and allow using harmless low radiation doses in medicine to the benefit of the patients. Removing fears of low doses of radiation will reduce resistance against nuclear power and will allow to reduce the costs and bureaucratic processes characteristic of nuclear power, which presently hamper construction and operation of nuclear power plants.

The change in the attitude to low dose and low dose-rate radiation will also bring positive changes in the discussion of radwaste management and will facilitate final acceptance of Yucca Mountains repository. Resolving the controversies around Yucca Mountains will be an important step towards renewed development of nuclear power in the USA. Radiation is part of the universe and an element of our environment and people should be made aware of its existence. Also the problem of risks should be reflected in educational programs. The USA are already the world leader in this respect, with nuclear safety regulations which require risk informed decisions to be taken in nuclear power plant designs.

The important step to be taken is to introduce awareness of this risk balance into school education programs.

The present US administration trying to reduce the administrative burdens on US industry has a great chance of removing the main obstacle on the road to full acceptance and better viability of nuclear power. Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy – USA should provide full support to that SARI initiative.