There is an interesting article on the website of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists discussing the bill recently passed in the US House Science, Space, and Technology Committee aimed at boosting low-dose radiation research.
The bipartisan bill would potentially set in motion a $96 million research effort to take a closer look at the real health effects of ionizing radiation in the low-dose region, defined as being below 100 millisieverts (roughly the equivalent of 10 CT scans, the article states, which in itself is misleading as CT scans can be as low as 1 mSv, depending on which part of the anatomy is being scanned).
Opinions among experts regarding the impact of low radiation doses exposure vary widely and is discussed in some depth in Yoshida’s Dilemma. Those who insist the risks of developing cancers from low doses point to data gathered from survivors of the 1945 Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where long-term cancer risk for adults receiving a dose of 100 millisieverts increased by 1 percent. That risk reportedly decreased in proportion to decreased dose rate.
Some scientists, such as Imperial College London cancer specialist Gerry Thomas and Oxford University professor emeritus Wade Allison, are insistent that such levels are harmless and impossible to unequivocally link (scientifically speaking) to cancers. On the other hand some experts believe even much smaller doses — even doses as small as 10 mSv per hour, can cause DNA damage leading to cancer. Indeed, it has been widely documented that CT scans, which like X-rays and PET scans use ionizing radiation, can damage DNA and cause cancer (although the National Cancer Institute says those risks are relatively small).
However, debate has continued about this proportional risk — the so-called “linear no-threshold” model. “Some experts argue that the cancer risk drops off more quickly than estimated at lower doses, while others say that the risk at very low doses might actually be underestimated by the linear no-threshold model,” the BAS article states. “A small group of researchers insists that radiation has beneficial effects at low doses, with some claiming that conspiracies dating back to the 1950s held back the truth of this theory … .”
Should the new US bill fair better than its predecessors and be enacted into law, there is hope among the pro-nuclear sector that the subsequent research “will give the nuclear industry a boost, by reducing public fears of radiation-caused cancer,” the article states.
“I doubt that renewed radiation research would achieve that goal, but that’s not to say that it would be useless,” writes Jan Beyea, a nuclear physicist who has been involved in the low-dose radiation debate for over 40 years.
The article has triggered some interesting debate already — arguments such as those between Benusedobserver and Rod Adams in the comments below the article are well worth reading and will help to clarify why Beyea is not entirely optimistic that the stated goal being attainable.
The full BAS article can be found here