11 November 2011

The Limits of Precaution

The FT has a nice piece which highlights our fundamental ignorance of the long-term health effects of low levels of radiation exposure.  When precautionary policies are not cost-free, how then do we manage our ignorance?  Here is an excerpt:
In May, radiation safety researcher Toshiso Kosako tearfully resigned as a scientific adviser to Japan’s prime minister after the government decided to set the limit for exposure in schools at 20 millisieverts a year, a level usually applied to nuclear industry workers. “It’s unacceptable to apply this figure to infants, toddlers and primary school pupils,” Professor Kosako said.

But Wade Allison of Oxford university says the 20mSv a year limit for evacuation could safely be raised by a factor of five, arguing that the principal health threat posed by the Fukushima Daiichi crisis is “fear, uncertainty and enforced evacuation”.

Underlying such stark differences lies a lack of clarity about what radiation does to the body at doses below 100mSv per year, the level at which an increase in cancer becomes clearly evident in epidemiological surveys. Prof Allison and many other scientists believe that, below a certain threshold, radiation is likely in effect to do no harm to health at all. However, the mainstream assumption is that even very low doses carry some risk, even if it is not yet measurable.

The result has been highly precautionary limits on artificial radiation exposure, such as an international safety standard for the public of just 1mSv in a year. That is less than half the exposure most people receive naturally from background radioactivity in rocks, soil and building materials, and from cosmic rays. This may make sense in normal times – but it means that in a crisis people tend to assume exposure above the limit is dangerous. The problem for authorities is that it is next to impossible to judge exactly at what point it will be safer to move a population away from the radiation or to limit its exposure by, for example, keeping children indoors and closing schools. Such moves themselves have health risks: evacuation can kill the elderly and thrust younger people into unemployment. Disrupted education can mar children’s future careers. Loss of exercise habits makes people vulnerable to illness and obesity.
As is often the case, the FT suggests that the antidote for ignorance is science, so that we might better understand the health risks of radiation exposure. More research is of course a good idea, but in the context of decision making, what if certainty is not forthcoming and our decision making remains clouded by ignorance?

7 comments:

AJ said...

“fear, uncertainty and enforced evacuation”

Is he calling the threat FOEE (i.e. Phooey)?

Harrywr2 said...

I read the FT article differently.

The 1mSv/yr limit is the difference between living in Denver and at Sea Level.

It's also the limit at the front gate of a nuclear plant boundary.

It's a 'lowest economically achievable standard'.

To impose a 'lowest economically achievable' standard generally no solid evidence of potential harm has to be presented. The EPA doesn't have to present anything more scientific then 'less is probably better' because the nuclear industry can't make a case that meeting the standard would cost more.

Standard Tort Law - no economic loss = no case.

The IAEA has standards.
http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1467_web.pdf

The problem isn't the lack of science. The problem is a political problem of walking back from a standard that was a 'no cost' standard to a standard 'supported by best available science'.

We have the same problem now with Florescent Light bulbs. We set all sorts of 'less is better' standards for mercury exposure then we turn around and say the amount of mercury in florescent light-bulbs doesn't pose a health risk that outweighs the greater societal benefit.

Khan said...

I suggest reading this report - which seems to indicate that the Linear No-Threshold theory is wrong for radiation.

EJ's recent book posits that China will not leapfrog the west in IP & technology because their lack of IP protection deters invention.

sien said...

There is a very interesting IEEE spectrum podcast about the linear no threshold radiation response and how it became accepted.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/podcast/at-work/education/radiations-big-lie?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IeeeSpectrumPodcasts+%28IEEE+Spectrum+Podcasts%29&utm_content=FeedBurner

Edward Calebrase, a toxicologist at Umass maintains the original justification for the linear model was questionable at best. More at:

http://www.umass.edu/newsoffice/newsreleases/articles/136706.php

Khan said...

Strange, wrong info pasted...

The actual link:

http://www.nuceng.ca/refer/radiation/Myron%20Pollycove_PBNC98.pdf

Mark Bahner said...

Hi,

I'm not an expert on this, but I find it hard to believe that radiation can't be substantially mitigated at fairly low cost.

For example, take a parking lot with a high level of radioactive deposition. Just run a street cleaner with a HEPA filter.

In fact, vacuums with HEPA filters could be used on roofs and yards, too.

Even trees...I'd expect that it would be possible to both blow the dust off of them, and suck up at least much of the material that is released with HEPA filter vacuums.

Charlie Martin said...

As is often the case, the FT suggests that the antidote for ignorance is science, so that we might better understand the health risks of radiation exposure. More research is of course a good idea, but in the context of decision making, what if certainty is not forthcoming and our decision making remains clouded by ignorance?

I agree -- but doesn't this apply equally to carbon mitigation when it's unclear that human-released CO2 is causing observable warming?

Carbon mitigation is not cost-free.

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.