At the start of the twentieth century it became clear that
standards would have to be set in order to protect workers and patients from
the negative effects of exposure to radiation. First attempts at protecting
people created the concept of tolerable
doses. Tolerable doses are those below which no immediate effects occur.
Though at first it seemed to do enough, in 1948 the National Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP) introduced permissible
doses. These doses differed from tolerable doses in that they were not
expected to cause harm during a person’s lifetime and not just the days
following initial exposure.
Today, we understand that low-level radiation exposure can
lead to stochastic effects, or effects that though they may be predicted
statistically, occur spontaneously. Due to these stochastic effects, modern
radiation standards are based on probabilistic assessments of radiation
effects.
These modern standards are based on the idea that a high
standard of safety for a work environment means that no more that 100 per
million workers die in a year. To put it in perspective, in a workforce of 100
people, 1 person would die every 100 years. But, this was not considered safe
enough so an acceptable risk of 50 deaths per million workers per year. This
translates to 1 person every 200 years in a 100-person workforce.
After this definition of “safe” was set, statisticians did a whole bunch of math (that was overly safe and assumed people worked in the industry
for 40 years and radiation effects built up and 10 percent of people would
reach maximum dosage and blah blah blah) ultimately deciding that a “safe”
whole-body dose-equivalent limit for stochastic effects was set for workers was
set at 5 rem per year. Then, they released this limit to the industry, and the
industry more or less uniformly decided that in order to stay super safe, they
would use a limit far below that, and most companies set their own limit at 1
rem per year. The NCRP also calculated the dose limit to the individual members
of the public, 0.5 rem per year. Once again, the industry set a standard below
this to prevent crossing that line.
Again, these limits were set for stochastic effects so what
they’re preventing is lifetime risk not just immediate harm. I guess what I’m
saying is, the exposure limits are there to keep people super safe.
It's interesting to see how the standards have changed from "tolerable" to "permissible" over the years. Now we know that radiation can cause effects down the line, even if it doesn't result in immediate effects. This has got me wondering: what do we currently do that has no immediate effects, but in the future—unbeknownst to us now—actually causes harm?
ReplyDeleteNice inclusion of terms and ideas from our risk assessment class! I hadn't realized just how low the "acceptable" death rate was in nuclear.
ReplyDeleteGoing along with Mr. Yap's comment, namely the portion 'but in the future- unbeknownst to us now'
ReplyDeleteI remember when one of my professor used to tell us about when he and his colleagues at Los Alamos used the term "unknown unknowns" when communicating to each other. Somehow google led me to this wikipedia page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_known_knowns, where it talks of Rumsfeld responding to questions at a US DoD news briefing and gives a brief disjoint history of the term's origins.