When many are concerned about nuclear power, the concern can be boiled down to one thing: fear of radiation. It is widely believed that radiation is something distinct and dangerous, causing a very high cancer burden and dramatically shortened lifespan, and that their offspring were affected by elevated mutation rates and frequent abnormalities. But it is not supported by the actual evidence.
The truth is radiation has always been all around us in many natural forms. Life has evolved in a world with significant levels of ionizing radiation. The human body, like all life on Earth, has naturally developed and adapted to live with the radiation. Our cells have developed protective mechanisms that stimulate DNA repair in response to radiation damage [1]. In fact, life would be almost impossible without radiation.
It’s about the dose #
There is a simple dose-response relationship for all toxins, and radiation is just another toxin our bodies are exposed to.
Radiation and cancer #
Radiation can cause cancer and non-cancer outcomes, but it does not cause all types of cancer. And also remember that cancer does not equal death.
The large population studies #
Many large population studies have been carried out in which a clearly defined group of individuals who have been exposed to a certain influence – in this case ionizing radiation – were followed up throughout their lives. The group’s development, in terms of health and disease, is then compared with a group that was not exposed to the same influence.
This includes the atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, who received an average radiation dose of 2250 mSv (2.25 Sv), the Chernobyl workers and people living in places with naturally high background radiation.
In a 2017 summary study on the evidence for the link between radiation and cancer, the graph below shows data from a number of these studies [2]. We therefore need to exceed 100 mSv (0.1 Sv) before it is possible to see a clear correlation between radiation dose and cancer.
Figure 1.
Cancer risk calculation #
To make a calculation. If we expose 100 people to 100 mSv of radiation, 1 will probably get cancer as a result. Those who would get cancer for other reasons are 42 [3]. As shown in Figure 2.
It is worth remembering that a level of 100 mSv per year is a large dose, very few of us will ever come close to. Even the evacuees in connection with the accidents in Chernobyl and Fukushima were nowhere near receiving such large doses of radiation.
Molecular pathologist and Director of the Chernobyl Tissue Bank Geraldine Thomas
I’d be a damn sight more worried about the 42, especially when that one case could mean we make other mistakes in determining where our energy should come from.
Figure 2.
Cancer risk factors #
The baseline lifetime risk of developing cancer is 40% [4]. A large part is an inevitable consequence of the error rate in our biochemical processes [5]. The biggest cancer risk factors are poor health: smoking, obesity and alcohol. As shown in scheme 3.
Cancer incidence can therefore also increase in a population, not because of radiation, but because of lifestyle changes. All these factors can affect the actual number of cancer cases that appear in the statistics.
Figure 3.
Correct assessment #
The only way to attribute a cause is to look for an effective dose. So where the dose is higher, it can be expected to see more cases and fewer where the dose is lower. It is called an epidemiological curve cohort study or case-control study.
The reports made by anti-nuclear power groups such as Greenpeace do not use this method.
Hereditary effects #
Ionizing radiation, despite what most people believe, has never actually shown heritable effects in humans. No increase in birth defects was observed after Chernobyl, not even in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is the conclusion of the Danish Health Authority [5].
The Danish Health Authority follows the scientific consensus as outlined in the report from the UN expert panel on the effects of radiation (UNSCEAR) [6]:
Radiation exposure has never been shown to cause heritable effects in human populations. The absence of observable effects in children of atomic bomb survivors in Japan, one of the largest study populations, indicates that moderate acute radiation exposures of even a relatively large human population must have little effect.
It was also confirmed in 2021 by an international research team with a study where they examined children from the Chernobyl cleanup who had received a high dose of radiation in exchange for a short period of time. In relation to the effect of the radiation, nothing was found in children in this group [7].
Radiation risks in context #
Presenting risks without context is very bad practice. We should always assess the health effects of radiation with others with known risk factors. We can try to compare with known risk factors such as smoking, obesity and one of the survivors of the atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, who was closest when the bombs went off, without dying from the explosion.
A study has looked at it [8]. The absolute most dangerous thing is to be a smoker and then very overweight, which shortens life more than the victims of the atomic bombs in Japan. As shown in the figure below.
Figure 4
We can also try to compare the increased risk of early death, like the clean-up workers after Chernobyl with people exposed to second-hand smoke, or people living in a big city like London versus a smaller city. The result shows the probability of an earlier death by living in a big city is almost three times greater compared to the group of clean-up workers at Chernobyl who received the highest radiation doses.
9 out of 10 people globally breath polluted air and the World Health Organisation warns it is literally destroying our health [9]. Outdoor air pollution kills about 4.200.000 people every year, a number equal to half the population of New York City, USA [10]. 93% percent of the worlds children are breathing polluted air, which is killing 600.000 of them every year [11].
On average, humanity at large loses 1,8 years of life expectancy due to air pollution. That’s twice as much as people living in the middle of a nuclear accident fallout zone would lose if they were so bold as to refuse being relocated! [12].
Sources #
- https://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2020/4834965/
- On page 6 og 7. https://philrutherford.com/Radiation_Risk/BEIR/BEIR_VII.pdf
- https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-basics/lifetime-probability-of-developing-or-dying-from-cancer.html
- https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/05/your-body-acquires-trillions-of-new-mutations-every-day/559472/
- https://sst.dk/da/viden/straalebeskyttelse/om-ioniserende-straaling/hvad-er-ioniserende-straaling/helbredsrisici
- On page 1. https://www.unscear.org/docs/publications/2001/UNSCEAR_2001_Report.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2ww3-Sztx5Djj3AC2MbuTvQr49Wk8RR7NI-CeWw6iZZKr4RkcuX0Pl6cs
- https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abg2365
- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6413531_Are_passive_smoking_air_pollution_and_obesity_a_greater_mortality_risk_than_major_radiation_incidents
- https://www.who.int/air-pollution/news-and-events/how-air-pollution-is-destroying-our-health
- https://www.who.int/airpollution/en/
- edition.cnn.com
- Air pollution cuts two years off global average lifespan, says study | Air pollution | The Guardian
