Radioactive Risk for Humans (eBook)

Jean-Claude Amiard, Jean-Claude Zerbib (Autoren)

eBook Download: EPUB

2024
541 Seiten
Wiley-Iste (Verlag)
978-1-394-33216-8 (ISBN)

Infos

Once scientists discovered radioactivity, they soon recognized its dangers. However, the assessment of radioactive risk to humans is still the subject of heated debate.
In this book, the authors present a summary of past and recent scientific work on estimating radioactivity in the anthroposphere and the radioactive contamination of human beings. They describe the various sources of exposure to ionizing radiation (external, internal and dietary) and estimate the irradiation doses suffered by humans under various conditions (both naturally occurring for the general public and professionals, and from accidents). The harmful effects of ionizing radiation at various biological levels (molecular, cellular and tissue) and health effects at the individual level are also discussed.
Particular focus will be placed on radiation-induced occupational illnesses. The relationship between doses of ionizing radiation and its harmful effects is discussed with reference to high, medium and low doses. The controversies on this subject are outlined, and international and French regulatory values are provided. Finally, an estimate of the radioactive risk for humans is suggested.

Jean-Claude Amiard is a Doctor of Science (State) in radioecology, Director of Research Emeritus at the CNRS (University of Nantes, France) and former Associate Professor in Quebec and China. He is the author of more than 250 publications, 80 books/chapters and 150 communications at international conferences.
Jean-Claude Zerbib is an experienced radiation protection engineer. He has managed a laboratory specializing in nuclear analysis and the radiation protection of accelerators. He has also overseen radioactive waste management and measurement and site decontamination. He is the author of more than 140 publications.

Textauszug

Preface

P.1. Our beliefs

When writing this book, we were guided by a certain number of convictions: independence, freedom of spirit, competence, transparency, scientific rigor, absence of conflict of interest and the right to err in all sincerity.

P.1.1. Independence

Our book aims to be scientific and therefore neither pro- nor anti-nuclear, detailing our current scientific knowledge with its strengths and shortcomings. To be independent and responsible, it soon became clear that we needed a limited number of authors. They assume full responsibility for their texts.

P.1.2. Freedom of spirit

There is a big difference between fundamental research organizations such as the CNRS, which until recently was one of our employers, and institutional organizations such as the CEA or IRSN, where the hierarchy is very strong. In the former case, researchers are totally free to publish under their own responsibility, whereas in the latter, the hierarchy controls the writings of its employees, resulting in the risk of censorship or self-censorship.

P.1.3. Competence

Both authors can legitimately claim competence in this field. One of them has completed two theses (specialist doctorate and state doctorate) involving research in marine radioecology. He has produced some 50 scientific publications in this field, most of them in international peer-reviewed journals. He did not abandon the field altogether, however, as he worked as an expert for CNRS Life Sciences division of the GRNC (Groupe Radioécologie Nord Cotentin) from 1997 to 2010. The GRNC has published numerous reports. Since then, he has joined the Scientific Committee, then the Expert Group of ANCCLI (Association Nationale des Comités et Commissions Locales d’Information). The Scientific Committee’s missions include advising and assisting Local Information Commissions, Local Committees and the ANCCLI in their expert appraisals, acting as an advisory body for Local Information Commissions and ANCCLI actions and publications, and acting as a point of contact for expert committees set up by various French and foreign bodies.

The other author was an engineer at the Commissariat à l’énergie atomique

(CEA) at the Saclay center. He has devoted his career to protection against ionizing radiation (radioactive measurements, radiation protection of X-ray generators and particle gas accelerators, remediation of contaminated sites). He took part in teaching radiation protection at INSTN (1980–1998) and in the IAEA’s international radiation protection courses (1994–1996). In 1996, he was appointed “Senior Expert” at the CEA on the advice of an external scientific commission.

He has taken part in a number of national commissions, including the Castaing commission on the reprocessing of irradiated fuels (1981–1984), the Jean Bernard commission on cancers at the Pasteur Institute (1986–1990), the Radioecology group of the North Cotentin region (GRNC) on the dosimetric impact of radioactive releases from plants (1997–2008), the pluralistic expert group (GEP) on uranium mines in the Limousin region (2006–2013), and the Ministry of Labor commissions on occupational diseases and chemical, physical and biological hazards (1983–1998). He is the author of around 100 articles and co-author of several books on nuclear and occupational health issues.

P.1.4. Transparency

Among the multitude of books, scientific publications and gray literature, a choice had to be made. This choice was dictated by scientific quality. Our choices were based on a hierarchy, with French-language publications being the most accessible to the majority. Secondly, work published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, i.e. where peers, other scientists, evaluate and criticize the work before deciding whether its quality justifies publication. As all experts are fallible, this does not certify an absolute value of veracity and quality, but it does contribute significantly to it. Next, all information from official national and international bodies directed our choice. Finally, when we feel that it reinforces information, we include so-called “gray literature”, i.e. documents that are much less easily accessible to the public, especially if this literature is old and in the form of printed reports. In this way, anyone can return to most of the sources used in this book.

P.1.5. Scientific rigor

Scientific rigor obviously depends on the choice of information and the way in which it is presented. We read a large part of the literature published on this subject, both pro- and anti-nuclear, as well as literature considered to be scientific. We then formed our own opinion. This is what appears in this book.

P.1.6. Conflicts of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest in the nuclear field, as they have not carried out any research in this area for many years, and have no shareholdings in companies operating in this niche.

P.1.7. The right to err in all sincerity

On such a vast subject, two authors cannot master everything, and they must necessarily trust their peers and the information published. They have not necessarily assimilated all the information correctly, and may therefore have made biased interpretations. All these deviations, if they exist, have been made in all sincerity and the authors apologize in advance to the reader. We undertake to correct them should a second version of this book be published.

P.2. Public opinion

Public opinion on the nuclear phenomenon has evolved over time. Initially, the public’s enthusiasm for radium was very strong, and the most far-fetched applications, even dangerous for consumers, were developed, such as the addition of radium-226 to toothpaste, beauty creams and chocolate, alongside more “useful” applications such as luminescent paints. The next applications were military, with the military bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is associated with the use of “defense secrecy” for the majority of nuclear applications. The result is strong public distrust and even opposition. The various accidents that have occurred, particularly the most serious ones such as Three Mile Island in 1979, Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima in 2011, have accentuated the opposition that now arises whenever a new basic nuclear infrastructure (BNI) is created or modified.

P.2.1. Public perception of radioactive risk

The public generally fails to distinguish between danger and risk. Furthermore, risk is measured in terms of probability. As a result, the hazard–risk pair is perceived very differently from one individual to another. Some hazards with uncertain risk potential will be perceived as paramount by the public. Conversely, hazards associated with proven risks will be considered derisory by the public. In the first group we find GMOs, and in the second group alcohol, road accidents, tobacco, etc.

In 2021, the rising concern of the French population was the management of nuclear waste in France: 41% of French people believe that nuclear power plants are a source of high risk, and 48% have the same perception of nuclear waste. This is in line with the 31% of French people who believe that the leading cause of accidental risk is that of a major nuclear accident, such as those at Chernobyl and Fukushima, and that this is the main obstacle to the use of nuclear energy. The second most important potential risk is the storage of radioactive waste (21% of opinions) [IRS 21].

P.2.2. People trust science, not researchers

Do you trust scientists to tell the truth about the results and consequences of their work on nuclear energy? The image of scientific experts remains positive for 50% of French people surveyed. The main qualities sought are competence, honesty and independence. Five organizations – the CNRS, ASN, IRSN, HCTISN and CEA – working in the nuclear field had a public confidence rating of over 70% in November 2020 [IRS 21].

P.2.3. The creation of independent official bodies

In the past, the protection of humanity and the environment, as well as nuclear safety, were ensured by various services that were too closely linked to industrial interests, such as the CEA. Others, such as OPRI, had had a critical attitude during the Chernobyl accident, and were therefore completely disqualified in the eyes of the public. To compensate for these serious drawbacks, the French government created a number of new bodies that were dependent on the state but independent of the nuclear lobby. These included the IRSN and ASN. The qualities expected of these organizations are competence, independence, rigor and transparency. The gamble has largely paid off.

Alongside institutional experts, there are independent experts who often work for various associations (ANCCLI, ACRO, Global Chance, etc.). Unfortunately, their perfectly independent work is largely neglected, even denigrated or scorned. This is probably due to the fact that independent experts are very often volunteers, and that unpaid work is undervalued.

P.3. The expert and the biases of scientific expertise

P.3.1. Choice of experts

The selection of experts for scientific appraisals varies from one field...

Produkt-Details

• Erscheint lt. Verlag: 29.10.2024
• Reihe/Serie: ISTE Consignment
• Sprache: englisch
• Themenwelt: Naturwissenschaften ► Chemie ► Physikalische Chemie
• Themenwelt: Technik ► Bauwesen
• Schlagworte: anthroposphere • Anthroposphere • ionizing radiation • Ionizing Radiation • irradiation • Irradiation • occupational illnesses • occupational illnesses • radiation • Radiation • radioactive contamination • Radioactive Contamination • radioactive risk • regulatory values • regulatory values
• ISBN-10: 1-394-33216-5 / 1394332165
• ISBN-13: 978-1-394-33216-8 / 9781394332168