Revision 1
March 19, 1998

 
by Radiation, Science, and Health, Inc.,
Edited by J. Muckerheide

1.8
Costs

...in the December 1994 rule making proposal by "the US EPA ... Four UNSCEAR documents, from 1977, 1982, 1986, and 1988, are used to support a need for revision of the current radiation standards. The most recent UNSCEAR document from 1994, however, on the adaptive effects of low doses of radiation, is not taken into account. .. in which a new radiation limit for the public of 1 mSv/year (70 mSv in a lifetime) is proposed.. .. Such a low radiation standard, only about 3% of the natural radiation background in many regions of the world, would bring enormous costs for society, and it would be ethically fair only through a large reduction of identifiable health hazards . . .

"The four UNSCEAR documents quoted by the EPA as estimating that the risks of ‘cancer have increased roughly threefold and have become more certain’ were critically examined by UNSCEAR during the past 8 years, especially the interpretation of the results of epidemiological studies in Hiroshima and Nagasaki . . .

"The most important message of the recent UNSCEAR (1994) document, however, is the recognition of the existence of stimulating and adaptive effects of ionizing radiation. During the past 4 decades these effects were ignored in radiation protection philosophy and practice.

"Each human life hypothetically saved by implementing the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s regulations costs about $2.5 billion (Cohen 1992). Such spending is morally questionable. Studies of radiation hormesis suggest that such expenditures may be futile and actually have an adverse effect on the health of the population."