For nearly seven decades, nuclear regulators in the U.S. and worldwide have relied on the linear no-threshold model (LNT) when regulating nuclear safety. The LNT model makes assumptions about the dangerousness of low doses of radiation that cannot be proven or disproven. For the benefit of public safety, this model assumes no dose of radiation is completely safe. In accord with this, nuclear regulators have required that nuclear power plants keep radiation doses as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA). Now the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is poised to eliminate both of these rules.
The NRC is expected to propose these changes soon as well as the allowable radiation dose to the public to increase. Workers at nuclear power plants could also be allowed to receive more radiation.
Industry proponents argue the science has advanced and old rules impose unnecessary costs. Looser standards would make nuclear power competitive with cheaper forms of electricity. Critics, including the National Academies of Sciences, say weakening radiation protections puts communities and people at real risk of increased cancer.
This change is happening without the normal open scientific and public deliberation. Under a recent executive order, the NRC, which was created by Congress as an independent safety watchdog, must now submit all its rules for White House approval before the public even sees them. This includes rules about public health and safety.
Nuclear safety regulation works only when it is grounded in sound science and insulated from political pressure. Americans deserve both an independent regulator and radiation protections that NRC independence was designed to provide.
Thomas Webler
Shelburne Falls