Letter re: Overestimation of Adverse Effects of Low-Dose Low-Rate Ionizing Radiation: Cui Bono?

Since many years we have tried to show that certain scientific writers act in accordance with the interests of governments selling fossil fuels. ¹ The overestimation of adverse effects of nuclear power production leads to its strangulation, supporting appeals to eliminate nuclear power plants (NPPs). The cost of dismantling each NPP may amount to billions of US$. ² The use of atomic energy is on the agenda today due to increasing needs of the growing humankind. Health risks and environmental damage are maximal for coal and oil, lower for gas and much lower for nuclear power. ³ Considering vulnerability of large NPPs during armed conflicts, attention should be directed to smaller nuclear reactors, which have some economic advantages. Small reactors can be used by the military. Hopefully, nuclear fission will be replaced in the future by fusion, which should offer a source of clean power generation with a plentiful supply of raw materials. ⁴ The Chernobyl accident contributed to destabilization of the Soviet society. Violations of instructions were among the causes of the accident. The number of control rods in the reactor was about a half of the minimum required for a safe functioning. ⁵ These days, the single most important consideration against nuclear facilities is that they are potential war targets. Accordingly, military threats are arguments against NPPs. Escalation of military conflicts contributes to boosting fossil fuel prices. The Chernobyl accident has been exploited for the same purpose.

The shape of a dose-response curve at low doses can be predicted theoretically. There are many chemical and physical agents in the environment that are toxic at higher doses. The lower would be anthropogenic addition to the natural radiation background (NRB), the less would be its share compared to NRB and other factors. Therefore, the linear no-threshold model (LNT) is inapplicable to low radiation doses. Evolutionary adaptation to a changing factor would lag behind its current value and correspond to some average from the past. The NRB has been decreasing during the time of life existence. Furthermore, the evidence in favor of radiation hormesis is against the LNT; references are in. ¹ Studies of human populations exposed to low-dose low-rate radiation will hardly add reliable information on dose-effect relationships. Screening effect, selection and ideological bias will contribute to appearance of new reports on elevated risks from a moderate anthropogenic increase of NRB, which would prove no cause-effect relationship. Reliable results can be obtained in lifelong animal experiments. The optimal approach to the radiation protection is to determine thresholds by large-scale experiments and establish regulations to ensure that doses are well below the thresholds, ⁷ as low as reasonably achievable considering economical and political realities. Adjustments of the limits must be accompanied by measures guaranteeing their observance. Strictly observed realistic safety norms would bring more benefit for the public health than excessive restrictions that would be trespassed in some countries disregarding laws and regulations. In regard to further research, studies of nonlinearity in biology, toxicology and medicine are of great importance. ⁸