The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is the agency tasked with protecting the U.S. public in all ways regarding nuclear energy. It does so through many mechanisms, including determining nuclear radiation safety levels and providing rules on how to store and dispose of nuclear waste. I was reading their fact sheet on the biological effects of radiation when I came across something that alarmed me.
But first, some quick background on radiation. I thought the fact sheet's introduction to radiation was great, so I'll let them start:
Radiation is all around us. It is in our environment and has been since the Earth was formed. As a result, life has evolved in the presence of significant levels of ionizing radiation. It comes from outer space (cosmic), the ground (terrestrial) and even from within our own bodies. It is in the air we breathe, the food we eat, the water we drink and the materials used to build our homes.
The trouble with radiation, however, is that high levels of it can cause cancer. This is why the NRC sets a limit to how much radiation the general public can be exposed to. The fact sheet goes on to explain:
The data show high doses of radiation may cause cancers. But there are no data to establish a firm link between cancer and doses below about 10,000 mrem (100 mSv – 100 times the NRC limit).
Did you catch that? The NRC limits radiation exposure to 100 times less than there's any evidence for. This is crazy. Would the car industry have taken off if we had set limits at 1/100th of what is safe? If cars had a 1 mile per hour maximum speed, we'd all still be cleaning horse shit off our boots before going inside. Elevators move at what, 2 mph? What if they were restricted to move at 1/100th of that? They can lift ... 500 pounds? What if the maximum they were allowed to lift was 5 pounds? No technology can survive with these regulations.
This notion of “what you want to do is safe, but we’re EXTRA safe, so we're going to stop you" is such a bullshit justification. No one would support this justification for something that they weren't already opposed to. For people who do think this is a good thing, my question to you is: Is it possible that you think it's a good thing because you don't like the idea of nuclear energy in the first place? Would you think it's a good idea for something that you do like to be regulated at 100 times higher than the safe level?
How are they getting away with this? Why is there not more outrage about this? Among other things, I'm, as usual, pointing to the status quo bias. If we suddenly overregulated the car industry at 100 times a reasonable limit, there would be outrage. But it's the status quo, so they get away with it. Also, I think it's because, in part, nuclear power has become a bit of a boogeyman on the left. Just mentioning opposition to it garners applause while supporting it can sink a candidate's chances in a primary.
A study on “Are passive smoking, air pollution and obesity a greater mortality risk than major radiation incidents?” looked into nuclear risk in great detail.
Here was their conclusion:
Population-averaged risks from exposures following major radiation incidents are clearly significant, but may be no greater than those from other much more common environmental and lifestyle factors.
The increased risk from being a Chernobyl emergency worker was lower than that of living in a megacity (e.g. NYC, London, etc.).
While we are decommissioning nuclear power plants, people are dying. Not from nuclear but from coal, which we’re building more of. The WHO estimates that there are “7 million premature deaths per year due to indoor and outdoor air pollution from anthropogenic and natural sources”. Forbes puts the number at 8.3 million.
All sources of energy are going to come with some risk. Fortunately, a study on Electricity generation and health was conducted. The results are in the image below.
This has been studied so many times. Here’s another one:
By the way, the left loves to talk about "Big Oil" and how the right likes to give handouts to them. Well, I can’t think of a much better hand-out than regulating their most promising competitor out of existence.
It doesn’t much research to see how overwhelming the data is in favor of more nuclear power. Even some anti-nuclear members, when confronted with the data, have reversed their position. And credit to them, because that’s not an easy thing to do. But it’s also because the weight of the evidence is so strong. Here’s the first paragraph from an article by writer and political activist George Monbiot shortly after being confronted with the data:
Over the last fortnight I've made a deeply troubling discovery. The anti-nuclear movement to which I once belonged has misled the world about the impacts of radiation on human health. The claims we have made are ungrounded in science, unsupportable when challenged, and wildly wrong. We have done other people, and ourselves, a terrible disservice.
Scientists are far more in favor of expanding nuclear energy than the general population (see graphic at the bottom), but in a democracy, the general population has a lot of influence, and this regulation kills the industry.