nuclear-news

Standard for “acceptable” radiation needs to be changed: it discriminates against women and children

The standard still used for “allowable” and “legal” radiation
doses is a chauvinistic and alarmingly dangerous method of calculating
risk.

The standard is called “reference man.” Created by the International
Commission on Radiological Protection in 1975,  it defines humanity as
a 5-foot-7-inch, 154-pound “Caucasian” male, 20-to-30 years old, who
is “Western European or North American in habitat and custom.” Of
course, this set represents neither the most vulnerable population nor
the average person.

Women & Children First! (to be Harmed by Radiation)
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/01/30/women-children-first-to-be-harmed-by-radiation/
  JANUARY 30, 2013
 “Reference Man” Risk Model Lambasted as Obsolete,
Unscientific by JOHN LaFORGE

“Woman and children first” is redefined in the nuclear age, now that
science has shown that they are far more susceptible to the ravages of
radiation than men and boys.

The nuclear power and weapons industry, people living near reactors,
practitioners of nuclear medicine and dentistry, and the
nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed Navy and Air Force all have a vested
interest in radiation protection. Likewise the irradiation industry
that zaps food, spices, medical instruments and merchandise with
Cobaolt-60, construction firms that use X-ray machines to check welds,
smoke detector manufacturers that place Americium-241 inside each
unit, and nuclear waste brokers, haulers and dumpers who come in close
proximity to radiation every day.

Yet the standard still used for “allowable” and “legal” radiation
doses is a chauvinistic and alarmingly dangerous method of calculating
risk.

The standard is called “reference man.” Created by the International
Commission on Radiological Protection in 1975,  it defines humanity as
a 5-foot-7-inch, 154-pound “Caucasian” male, 20-to-30 years old, who
is “Western European or North American in habitat and custom.” Of
course, this set represents neither the most vulnerable population nor
the average person.

An authoritative report from the Institute for Energy and
Environmental Research (IEER) — the influential scientific watchdog
group in Takoma Park, Maryland — declares that the use of Reference
Man is “scientifically inappropriate because the vast majority of
people, including women and children, fall outside the definition” and
“does not protect those most at risk” from radiation. As Matt Wald
reported in the New York Times: “Experts agree that women face a risk
about 50% higher than the Reference Man from the same amount of
radioactive material, while the risk for children is several-fold
higher.”

EER President Arjun Makhijani says “Reference Man … is used in, among
others, some drinking water regulations, the standard computer program
guiding the cleanup of radioactively-contaminated sites and guidance
and compliance documents of the EPA, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) and the Department of Energy.”

What’s Wrong with the Old Risk Model?

IEER’s main findings shatter the foundations that underlie the use of
radioactive materials in science, medicine, construction, the
irradiation of food and equipment, the military and the uranium fuel
cycle for nuclear power production. IEER’s findings are worth
outlining in some detail:

1. The use of Reference Man in radiation protection regulations and
guidelines, including those designed to protect the general public, is
pervasive. This is scientifically inappropriate because the vast
majority of people, including women and children, fall outside the
definition. In general, it does not protect those most at risk, who
are often women and children.

2. Radiation protection regulations are generally given in terms of
limits on radiation dose “per year,” or in terms of maximum allowable
concentrations of radionuclides in the environment. The use of
Reference Man in radiation dose calculations underestimates doses to
children in a large number of situations — and to women in many
situations. The underestimation of dose results in an underestimation
of cancer risk.
3. Overall, children have a higher risk of cancer for a given
radiation dose. This higher risk per unit of radiation dose compounds
the problem of underestimation of dose.

4. The regulations and guidelines that rely mainly on Reference Man
include the NRC’s radiation protection regulations in the workplace
and for the general public (specified in 10 CFR 20, EPA Federal
Guidance Reports 11 and 12, and DOE Order 5400.5). The default values
in the official computer program used to estimate allowable residual
radioactivity also use Reference Man. “He” is also used to assess
compliance with the Clean Air Act.

5. The Maximum Contaminant Levels for transuranic radionuclides
[isotopes like plutonium that are heavier than uranium] in drinking
water rely on Reference Man.

6. The [most recent] report on low-level ionizing radiation of the
National Academy of Sciences, known as the BEIR VII report, concluded
that women are at considerably greater risk of dying from cancer from
the same radiation dose — and also at greater risk of getting cancer
per unit of radiation dose — compared to an adult male.

7. Fetal exposure is only taken into account in radiation-controlled
workplaces in those cases where a woman declares her pregnancy. The
standards in effect are obsolete by a factor of five or more.

8. The failure to estimate doses to children and cancer risks to
children, when they are in excess of doses and risks received by
adults, would appear to be in violation of President Bill Clinton’s
1997 Executive Order on children, which was reaffirmed by George W.
Bush, with some changes, in 2003.

Take action: IEER and other involved in the campaign “Healthy from the
Start” are working to end the use of Reference Man. For more info’,
visit: www.healthyfromthestart.org.

January 31, 2013 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | 2 WORLD, radiation, Reference, women