|
Campaigning organisation Net Zero Watch has welcomed the US government’s decision to re-examine the risks of nuclear radiation, describing it as being potentially of historic significance. The new regulatory direction was announced in a Trump administration executive order released last week.[1] Since the 1950s, nuclear regulation has been based around two twin foundational principles: the controversial hypothesis that there is no safe level of exposure to nuclear radiation (the so-called linear no-threshold or LNT hypothesis) the requirement that human exposures should be ‘as low as reasonably achievable’ (ALARA).
Together these principles have led to the extraordinary regulatory burden and thus high costs that have made civil nuclear energy uncompetitive. However, there is a growing body of evidence that the key post-war scientific studies that led to the adoption of LNT and ALARA were flawed.[2] If further investigation finds that low level exposures to nuclear radiation are harmless[3] – or even beneficial[4] – much of the regulatory burden that has been holding back nuclear power around the world can be swept away. Net Zero Watch director Andrew Montford said: “The US Government has taken a bold but necessary step. If it turns out that the science we have relied on for nearly a century is incorrect, Trump’s decision will be of historic significance. The world will run on cheap nuclear power rather than ruinous renewables.”
And Mr Montford has called on the UK government to follow the US administration’s lead: “Nuclear power in the UK is being held back by the heavy regulatory burden. If there’s even a chance that some of this is unnecessary, it is irrational not to take a close look at the underlying science.”
Notes for editors[1] The Trump EO tells the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to: “…Adopt science-based radiation limits. In particular, the NRC shall reconsider reliance on the linear no-threshold (LNT) model for radiation exposure and the “as low as reasonably achievable” standard, which is predicated on LNT. Those models are flawed, as discussed in section 1 of this order. In reconsidering those limits, the NRC shall specifically consider adopting determinate radiation limits…”
See: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/05/ordering-the-reform-of-the-nuclear-regulatory-commission/ [2] https://www.netzerowatch.com/all-papers/a-bombs-bears-and-corrupted-science [3] It has long been noted that human health is not discernably worse in areas where prevalence of granite leads to high levels of natural background radiation. Examples include Cornwall and Aberdeenshire. [4] There is growing consideration among scientists of ‘hormesis’: the idea that low-level exposure to nuclear radiation is beneficial to human health.
|
