Radiation and risk

The debate over low-level radiation is of great relevance to broader assessments of the relative hazards of different energy options. If the fringe scientists are right, we needn't be much concerned about exploding reactors (unless we took Switkowski's advice to head for the nearest nuclear reactor in the event of an emergency), or long-term radiation exposure from uranium tailings dumps. And for that matter we needn't worry about the radioactivity emitted from coal plants or radiation exposure from the use of coal ash as a construction material.

But radiation scientists aren't leaning towards Wade Allison's view. In fact the science is galloping off in the opposite direction. The International Commission on Radiological Protection has recently acknowledged that exposure to radon gas is twice as carcinogenic as was previously thought − a significant issue for Australia in light of the uranium mines operating in SA and the NT.

A recent paper by the Australian 'Choose Nuclear Free' partner groups reached three main conclusions concerning the relative hazards of different energy sources.

First, when comparing the hazards of different energy sources, the aim is to quantify the risks − as deaths per gigawatt-year of electricity − to allow for a simple comparison. However the greatest hazards − the link between fossil fuels and global warming, and the link between nuclear power and nuclear weapons − cannot be meaningfully quantified.

Second, it is difficult to accurately quantify hazards such as those from particulate emissions from coal plants, or routine radiation emissions across the nuclear fuel cycle (which are probably responsible for far more radiation exposure than the Chernobyl accident).

Third, notwithstanding the above, coal and nuclear power are clearly far more hazardous than renewables − even without considering global warming and nuclear weapons proliferation. Factor in global warming and nuclear proliferation, and coal and nuclear are extremely hazardous indeed.