Safety of nuclear power

• Autorzy: Strupczewski A.
• Konferencja: Proceedings of the Jubilee Symposium for the 50th anniversary of the foundation of the Institute of Nuclear Research "Atomic Science in the XXI Century" June 16, 2005, Warsaw, Poland
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The main questions related to nuclear power development concern effects of small radiation doses typical for the operation of nuclear power plants (NPPs) and hazards of NPP accidents. The last decade has brought many results of large scale epidemiological studies indicating that there are no detrimental effects of low radiation doses. On the contrary, many results indicate that among the people receiving increased radiation doses the frequency of cancer mortality is reduced. The review shows that such results are obtained in the studies of people living in high background radiation areas, of workers exposed to ionizing radiation and of patients exposed to radiation for diagnostic purposes. The latest studies in molecular biology suggest an explanation for possible beneficial effects of low radiation doses. This is reflected in the statements of several scientific bodies and international organizations, although the official regulations remain unchanged. The other important issue is the safety of NPPs in case of accidents. Reasons for the Chernobyl accident are shown not to be applicable to the reactors planned for Poland and the effects of Chernobyl are shown to be much smaller than feared in original estimates after the accident. Polish NPPs will satisfy the requirements of EU utilities and will provide safety for the population even in case of hypothetical severe accidents. Nevertheless, discussion with antinuclear organizations must be expected, although the recent examples of changing attitudes of leading ecological authorities show that nuclear power is gaining recognition as a clean and environmentally friendly source of energy.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

low radiation doses; LNT; hormesis; epidemiological studies; biological defense mechanism; Chernobyl effects

• Wydawca: Institute of Nuclear Chemistry and Technology
• Czasopismo: Nukleonika
• Rocznik: 2005
• Tom: Vol. 50,suppl.3
• Strony: 59--66
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 45 poz., rys.

Twórcy

autor

Strupczewski A.

• Institute of Atomic Energy, 05-400 Otwock-Świerk, Poland, Tel.: [phone], Fax: [phone],

Bibliografia

• 1. Académie des Sciences, Académie Nationale de Médecine (2005) Dose-effect relationships and estimation of the carcinogenic effects of low doses of ionizing radiation. Paris
• 2. Calabrese E (2005) Hormetic dose-response relationship in immunology: occurrence, quantitative features of the dose and response, mechanistic foundations, and clinical implications. Crit Rev Toxicol 35:89−293
• 3. Cardis E, Gilbert ES, Carpenter L et al. (1995) Combined analysis of cancer mortality among nuclear industry workers in Canada, UK and the USA. IARC Technical Report No. 25. IARC, Lyon
• 4. Cardis E, Kesminiene A, Ivanov V et al. (2005) Risk of thyroid cancer after exposure to I-131 in childhood. J Natl Cancer Inst 97:724−732
• 5. Clarke R (1999) Control of low-level radiation exposure: time for a change? J Radiol Prot 19:107–115
• 6. Cohen BL (1994) Answer to Drs Greenland and Robins. Am J Epidemiol 139:761
• 7. Cohen BL (1994) Invited commentary: in defense of ecologic studies for testing a linear no-threshold theory. Am J Epidemiol 139:765−771
• 8. Cohen BL (1995) Test of the linear no-threshold theory of radiation carcinogenesis for inhaled radon decay products. Health Phys 68:157–174
• 9. Cohen BL (1997) Problems in the radon vs. lung cancer test of the linear no-threshold theory and a procedure for resolving them. Health Phys 72:114−119
• 10. Cohen BL (1998) The cancer risk from low level radiation. Radiat Res 149:525
• 11. Cohen BL (2002) Response to ‘The potential for bias in Cohen’s ecological analysis of lung cancer and residential radon’. J Radiol Prot 22:305–307
• 12. COMARE (1994) The incidence of cancer and leukemia in young people in the vicinity of Sellafield site. Fourth report
• 13. COMARE (2005) The incidence of childhood cancer around nuclear installations in Great Britain. Tenth report, www.comare.org.uk
• 14. European Utility Requirements for LWR Nuclear Power Plants (2001) Revision C
• 15. Feinendegen LE (2005) Low doses of ionising radiation: relationship between biological benefit and damage induction. World J Nucl Med 4:21–34
• 16. Frigerio NA, Stowe RS (1976) Carcinogenic and genetic hazards from background radiation. In: Proc of a Symp on Biological Effects of Low-Level Radiation Pertinent to Protection of Man and his Environment, 3−7 November 1975, Chicago, USA. IAEA, Vienna, pp 385−393
• 17. Greenland S, Robins J (1994) Accepting the limits of ecologic studies. Am J Epidemiol 139:769−771
• 18. Greenland S, Robins J (1994) Ecologic studies − biases, misconceptions, and counter examples. Am J Epidemiol 139:747−760
• 19. Groupe Radioecologie Nord Contentin (1999) Estimation des niveaux d’exposition aux rayonnements ionisants et des risques de leucemies associes de populations du Nord-Contentin, Synthese
• 20. Hickey RJ, Bowers EJ, Spence DE et al. (1981) Low level ionizing radiation and human mortality: multi-regional epidemiological studies. Health Phys 40:625−641
• 21. Hirschberg S, Spiekerman G, Dones R (1998) Severe accidents in the energy sector. PSI Report No 98-16. Paul Scherrer Institute, Switzerland
• 22. Hirschberg S, Strupczewski A (1999) How acceptable? –Comparison of accident risks in different energy systems. IAEA Bull 41;1:25−30
• 23. Jablon S, Hrubec Z, Boice JD (1990) Cancer in populations living near nuclear facilities. NIH Publication No 90-874. National Cancer Institute, US Dept of Health and Human Services
• 24. Jaworowski Z (1998) All Chernobyl’s victims: a realistic assessment of Chernobyl’s health effects. 21st Century Science & Technology 11;1:14−25
• 25. Jaworowski Z (2004) Lessons of Chernobyl: nuclear power is safe, science and technology. EIR, May 7
• 26. Lubin JH (2002) The potential for bias in Cohen’s ecological analysis of lung cancer and residential radon. J Radiol Prot 22:141–148
• 27. Matanoski GM (1991) Health effects of low-level radiation in shipyard workers − final report. DOE DEAC02-79 EV 10095. US Dept of Energy
• 28. Mifune M, Sobue T, Arimoto H et al. (1992) Cancer mortality survey in a Spa area (Misasa, Japan) with a high radon background. Jpn J Cancer Res 83:1−5
• 29. Nair MK, Nambi KSV, Sreedevi Amma N et al. (1999) Population study in the high natural background radiation area of Kerala, India. Radiat Res 152:145S−148S
• 30. NRPB (1997) Cancer in the offspring of radiation workers: a record linkage study. National Radiological Protection Board, NRPB-R298
• 31. Pollycove M, Feinendegen LE (2003) Radiation-induced versus endogenous DNA damage: possible effects of inducible protective responses in mitigating endogenous damage. Human Exp Toxicol 22:290−306
• 32. Polskie Towarzystwo Fizyki Medycznej (Polish Society of Medical Physics) (1990) Declaration of the Board of the Polish Society of Medical Physics, 24 April 1990 (in Polish)
• 33. Quanfu Sun, Akiba S, Tao Z et al. (2000) Excess relative risk of solid cancer mortality after prolonged exposure to naturally occurring high-background radiation in Yangjiang, China. Radiat Res (Tokyo) 41;Suppl:433−452
• 34. Sandquist GM, Kunze JF, Rogers VC (1997) Assessing latent health effects from US background radiation. Proc of ANS Meeting, November 1997
• 35. Shihab-Eldin A, Shlyakhter A, Wilson R (1992) Is there a large risk of radiation? A critical review of pessimistic claims. Environ Int 18:117−151
• 36. Stidley CA, Samet JM (1993) A review of ecologic studies of lung cancer and indoor radon. Health Phys 65;3:234−251
• 37. Strom DJ (2000) Is a linear extrapolation of cancer risks to very low doses justified? Radiation Research Society, Albuquerque, New Mexico
• 38. Study of Chernobyl-affected areas supports benefits of extra iodine. Nucleonics Week, June 16, 2005, pp 1−2
• 39. STUK (2005) Safety assessment of the Olkiluoto 3 NPP Unit for the Issuance of Construction License. Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority
• 40. UNDP, UNICEF, UN-OCHA, WHO (2002) The human consequences of the Chernobyl nuclear accident, a strategy for recovery
• 41. UNSCEAR (1994) Sources and effects of ionizing radiation. Report to the General Assembly. UN, New York
• 42. UNSCEAR (2000) Sources and effects of ionizing radiation. Report to the General Assembly. UN, New York
• 44. Wei L (1995) Health effects on populations exposed to low level radiation in China. In: Radiation and public perception, benefits and risks. Advances in Chemistry Series 243. American Chemical Society, Washington DC, pp 219−238
• 43. Wei L, Sugahara T (2000) High background radiation area in China. J Radiat Res (Tokyo) 41;Suppl:1−76
• 45. Wyższa Szkoła Ekologii i Zarządzania w Warszawie (High School of Ecology and Management, Warsaw) (2004) Attitudes of ecologists and ecology as science towards nuclear power, http://nuclear.pl/2004/index.php?dzial= publikacje&plik=index&id=5 (in Polish)