Cargando…

What Would Become of Nuclear Risk if Governments Changed Their Regulations to Recognize the Evidence of Radiation’s Beneficial Health Effects for Exposures That Are Below the Thresholds for Detrimental Effects?

The 1953 Atoms for Peace Speech to the United Nations proposed applying nuclear energy to essential needs, including abundant electrical energy. The widespread fear of ionizing radiation from nuclear facilities and medical procedures began after the United States National Academy of Sciences perform...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cuttler, Jerry M., Calabrese, Edward J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8647278/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34880717
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/15593258211059317
_version_ 1784610582870097920
author Cuttler, Jerry M.
Calabrese, Edward J.
author_facet Cuttler, Jerry M.
Calabrese, Edward J.
author_sort Cuttler, Jerry M.
collection PubMed
description The 1953 Atoms for Peace Speech to the United Nations proposed applying nuclear energy to essential needs, including abundant electrical energy. The widespread fear of ionizing radiation from nuclear facilities and medical procedures began after the United States National Academy of Sciences performed a study of radiation dangers to the human genome. This study, initiated and managed by an oil industry benefactor, recommended in 1956 that the risk of radiation-induced mutations be assessed using the linear no-threshold dose-response model instead of the threshold model. It was followed by a study that wrongly linked low radiation to cancer among the atomic bomb survivors. The ensuing controversy resulted in a compromise. The National Committee on Radiation Protection adopted the precautionary principle policy in 1959, justified by fear of cancer and lack of knowledge. The United States and all other countries followed this recommendation, which remains unchanged 62 years later. Its impact on nuclear energy and medicine has been profound. Many costly regulations have been enacted to prevent very unlikely human or equipment failures—failures that would lead to radiation exposures that are below the dose thresholds for lasting harmful effects. Potential low-dose radiation therapies, against inflammation, cancer, autoimmune, and neurodegenerative diseases, are shunned.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8647278
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-86472782021-12-07 What Would Become of Nuclear Risk if Governments Changed Their Regulations to Recognize the Evidence of Radiation’s Beneficial Health Effects for Exposures That Are Below the Thresholds for Detrimental Effects? Cuttler, Jerry M. Calabrese, Edward J. Dose Response Commentary The 1953 Atoms for Peace Speech to the United Nations proposed applying nuclear energy to essential needs, including abundant electrical energy. The widespread fear of ionizing radiation from nuclear facilities and medical procedures began after the United States National Academy of Sciences performed a study of radiation dangers to the human genome. This study, initiated and managed by an oil industry benefactor, recommended in 1956 that the risk of radiation-induced mutations be assessed using the linear no-threshold dose-response model instead of the threshold model. It was followed by a study that wrongly linked low radiation to cancer among the atomic bomb survivors. The ensuing controversy resulted in a compromise. The National Committee on Radiation Protection adopted the precautionary principle policy in 1959, justified by fear of cancer and lack of knowledge. The United States and all other countries followed this recommendation, which remains unchanged 62 years later. Its impact on nuclear energy and medicine has been profound. Many costly regulations have been enacted to prevent very unlikely human or equipment failures—failures that would lead to radiation exposures that are below the dose thresholds for lasting harmful effects. Potential low-dose radiation therapies, against inflammation, cancer, autoimmune, and neurodegenerative diseases, are shunned. SAGE Publications 2021-11-26 /pmc/articles/PMC8647278/ /pubmed/34880717 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/15593258211059317 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Commentary
Cuttler, Jerry M.
Calabrese, Edward J.
What Would Become of Nuclear Risk if Governments Changed Their Regulations to Recognize the Evidence of Radiation’s Beneficial Health Effects for Exposures That Are Below the Thresholds for Detrimental Effects?
title What Would Become of Nuclear Risk if Governments Changed Their Regulations to Recognize the Evidence of Radiation’s Beneficial Health Effects for Exposures That Are Below the Thresholds for Detrimental Effects?
title_full What Would Become of Nuclear Risk if Governments Changed Their Regulations to Recognize the Evidence of Radiation’s Beneficial Health Effects for Exposures That Are Below the Thresholds for Detrimental Effects?
title_fullStr What Would Become of Nuclear Risk if Governments Changed Their Regulations to Recognize the Evidence of Radiation’s Beneficial Health Effects for Exposures That Are Below the Thresholds for Detrimental Effects?
title_full_unstemmed What Would Become of Nuclear Risk if Governments Changed Their Regulations to Recognize the Evidence of Radiation’s Beneficial Health Effects for Exposures That Are Below the Thresholds for Detrimental Effects?
title_short What Would Become of Nuclear Risk if Governments Changed Their Regulations to Recognize the Evidence of Radiation’s Beneficial Health Effects for Exposures That Are Below the Thresholds for Detrimental Effects?
title_sort what would become of nuclear risk if governments changed their regulations to recognize the evidence of radiation’s beneficial health effects for exposures that are below the thresholds for detrimental effects?
topic Commentary
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8647278/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34880717
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/15593258211059317
work_keys_str_mv AT cuttlerjerrym whatwouldbecomeofnuclearriskifgovernmentschangedtheirregulationstorecognizetheevidenceofradiationsbeneficialhealtheffectsforexposuresthatarebelowthethresholdsfordetrimentaleffects
AT calabreseedwardj whatwouldbecomeofnuclearriskifgovernmentschangedtheirregulationstorecognizetheevidenceofradiationsbeneficialhealtheffectsforexposuresthatarebelowthethresholdsfordetrimentaleffects