Radiation

• President Trump’s Executive Order 14300  https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-14300-ordering-the-reform-the-nuclear-regulatory-commission

• • Section 5(b) is on RADIATION STANDARDS

• • • “5(b) 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, and in doing so shall consult with the Department of Defense (DOD), the Department of Energy (DOE), and the Environmental Protection Agency.”

• Two journal articles that public health researcher MPH MBA Joe Mangano at Radiation and Public Health Project put together looked at childhood leukemia and all cancers near nuclear plants (below).

• • The 2003 article found incidence of all child cancers from 1988-1997 exceeded the U.S. rate in counties near 14 of 14 plants in the eastern part of the nation. It also showed that in Pennsylvania, leukemia incidence near five plants were higher than the state, while incidence in the rest of the state was lower (see Table 7).

• • • Archives of Environmental Health, 2003 https://radiation.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/AEH2003.pdf

• • The 2008 article found childhood leukemia deaths in counties near nuclear plants that were still operating (at that time) increased before and after 1984 – and declined for plants that had shut down.

• • • European Journal of Cancer Care, 2008 https://radiation.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/CANCARE2008.pdf

• Implications of Weakening Radiation Protection Standards – Dan Hirsch Presentation to US Nuclear Regulatory Commission https://www.committeetobridgethegap.org/2025/08/11/implications-of-weakening-radiation-protection-standards-dan-hirsch-presentation-to-nrc/
• President Trump’s radical attack on radiation safety (Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, October 2025) https://thebulletin.org/2025/10/president-trumps-radical-attack-on-radiation-safety/
• Trump’s new radiation exposure limits could be ‘catastrophic’ for women and girls (Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, November 2025) https://thebulletin.org/2025/11/trumps-new-radiation-exposure-limits-could-be-catastrophic-for-women-and-girls/
• Reevaluation of Radiation Protection Standards for Workers and the Public Based on Current Scientific Evidence, Idaho National Lab https://inl.gov/content/uploads/2023/07/INLRPT-25-85463_Reevaluation-of-Radiation-Protection-Standards-R0-Final.pdf
• In 1990 the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) recommended a dramatic reduction in the maximum allowable radiation dose for nuclear industry workers, medical personnel, and others exposed in their work and the public. The ICRP’s  1990 recommendation was that the annual limit be cut from 50 to 20 milliSieverts per-year. (See: Fairle & Resnikoff, “No dose too low,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Nov/Dec 1997, p. 50; Matthew Wald, “International Panel Urges Cut In Allowable Radiation Dose,” New York Times, June 23, 1990, p. A1. )

• • Allowable doses to the general public should likewise be cut to one (1) milliSievert per year from five (5). (See: Richard Stone, “Epidemiology: Russian Cancer Study Adds to the Indictment of Low-Dose Radiation,” Science, Vol. 310, No. 5750, Nov. 11, 2005; reference to Radiation Research, Nov. 2005.)

• The “Red Tape” review recently announced  for Canada’s regulator CNSC. This may be a copy of the USA version? https://l.cnsc-ccsn.canada.ca/T/OFC4/L2S/11764/B189/vwEo/269/2258/hYQs1u/1/349877/EgN1BseY/I/269/ijiKyw.html?h=VejUfzW2TWrnAZ6UDHWHIck_Pbxbm2LZNyOXQ_wGQ-o
• The push for nuclear development is happening but it’s an open question if many of these reactor designs will actually be built. https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/World-Nuclear-Industry-Status-Report-2025

“There is no safe level of exposure and there is no dose of (ionizing) radiation so low that the risk of a malignancy is zero”–Dr. Karl Morgan, the father of Health Physics

Radiation is energy that travels in waves. It includes visible light, ultraviolet light, radio waves and other forms, including particles. Each type of radiation has different properties. Non-ionizing radiation can shake or move molecules. Ionizing radiation can actually break molecular bonds, causing unpredictable chemical reactions. Our Radiation Basics () fact sheet walks the layperson through what radiation is, where it comes from, types of radiation, half-lives and how it can affect humans.

Radiation and Children: The Ignored Victims reveals how national radiation protection standards fall short of protecting those most vulnerable to the harmful effects of radiation. It discusses how “standard man”, the ubiquitous model for radiation damage, is not sufficient and why these standards are unenforceable and, therefore, unprotective.

Radiation: The Myth of the Millirem fact sheet discusses conventional ways of measuring radiation the units used, and their shortcomings. It also makes the argument that a “permissible” dose doesn’t mean the dose is safe.

The paper Conflicting Mandates, Co-Opted Studies: International Atomic Energy Agency and the World Health Organization outlines how the IAEA’s mandate to spread “peaceful” uses of nuclear technology conflicts with the WHO’s need to perform unbiased health studies, especially in the aftermath of Chernobyl.

We include a bibliography of studies presenting health effects connected with radiation and a graph illustrating the increase in various diseases.

The European Committee on Radiation Risk was formed in 1997 by the European Parliament as an entity independent from all other Radiation Committees. Parliament agreed there was enough available evidence showing that low-level exposure to man-made radiation caused ill health and that models used by ICRP failed to predict these effects. The resulting report, 2003 Recommendations of the European Committee on Radiation Risk (), addresses not only the science behind the low-dose debate, but also the ethical basis for allowable radiation exposures. If society is ever to have the badly-needed debate on effects of low-doses and dose rates of ionizing radiation, it must challenge the very basis of radiation dose and risk assessment. This report does. Not a moment too soon. For the Nuclear Monitor summary click here.