A precautionary public health protection strategy for the possible risk of childhood leukaemia from exposure to power frequency magnetic fields

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Epidemiological evidence showing a consistent association between the risk of childhood leukaemia and exposure to power frequency magnetic fields has been accumulating. This debate considers the additional precautionary intervention needed to manage this risk, when it exceeds the protection afforded by the exposure guidelines as recommended by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The Bradford-Hill Criteria are guidelines for evaluating the scientific evidence that low frequency magnetic fields cause childhood leukaemia. The criteria are used for assessing the strength of scientific evidence and here have been applied to considering the strength of evidence that exposures to extremely low frequency magnetic fields may increase the risk of childhood leukaemia. The applicability of precaution is considered using the risk management framework outlined in a European Commission (EC) communication on the Precautionary Principle. That communication advises that measures should be proportionate, non-discriminatory, consistent with similar measures already taken, based on an examination of the benefits and costs of action and inaction, and subject to review in the light of new scientific findings.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The main evidence for a risk is an epidemiological association observed in several studies and meta-analyses; however, the number of highly exposed children is small and the association could be due to a combination of selection bias, confounding and chance. Corroborating experimental evidence is limited insofar as there is no clear indication of harm at the field levels implicated; however, the aetiology of childhood leukaemia is poorly understood. Taking a precautionary approach suggests that low-cost intervention to reduce exposure is appropriate. This assumes that if the risk is real, its impact is likely to be small. It also recognises the consequential cost of any major intervention. The recommendation is controversial in that other interpretations of the data are possible, and low-cost intervention may not fully alleviate the risk.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The debate shows how the EC risk management framework can be used to apply the Precautionary Principle to small and uncertain public health risks. However, despite the need for evidence-based policy making, many of the decisions remain value driven and therefore subjective.</p

Chapter 20 Assessment of radiation pollution from nuclear power plants

Nuclear power plants split uranium atoms in a process called fission. In a nuclear power plant, heat is generated to produce steam that spins a turbine to generate electricity. Nuclear energy has been proposed in response to the need for a clean energy source compared to CO2 production plants. However, nuclear energy is not necessarily a source of clean energy as nuclear power plants release small amounts of greenhouse emissions in activities related to building and running the plant. Moreover, even if all safety measures are followed, there is no guarantee that an accident will not occur in a nuclear power plant. In the case of an accident involving a nuclear power plant, the environment and the people around it may be exposed to high levels of radiation. Another important environmental problem related to nuclear energy is the generation of radioactive waste that can remain radioactive and dangerous to human health for thousands of years. There are also several issues with burying the radioactive waste. Here, we describe different types of radioactive waste pollution from nuclear power plants, their environmental effects, nuclear regulations, and nuclear power plant incidents. Moreover, two case studies on nuclear power plant accidents and their consequences are discussed

The risks of exposure to internal emitters

The risks to health from internally deposited radionuclides have received considerable attention in recent years. There are significant issues concerned with exposure to internal emitters beyond those associated with the risks posed by external sources of penetrating ionizing radiations, and these issues lead to additional uncertainty in risk estimates pertaining to internal emitters. There is, however, no firm evidence that the risks from internally deposited radioactive material have been seriously underestimated by scientific review groups, but the uncertainties associated with the risks of exposure to internal emitters need to be taken into account in radiological protection