Disproportionate Impacts of Radiation on the Human Body

Not only do the Radiation Standards for the Nuclear Industry need to be totally reassessed, but also the model needs to be revised.  When the standards were set in the 1950s, they used an assumption that they were only needed for men working in the uranium mines, milling operations, refineries, and nuclear reactor sites.  They used what is known as the "Reference Man" for calculations - a young male (25-30 years), 5 ft. 7 in., 154 lbs, environment of 50-68 deg. F., Caucasian from Western Europe or North America.  There was no consideration given for females, prenant women, or children; no thought about health and welfare of people of all ages, i.e. the whole lifespan.

I was fortunate to have the opportunity to participate in a course regarding Radiation Biology and Society led by Mary Olson, founder of Generational Radiation Impact Project (GRIP), Cindy Folkers (Beyond Nuclear), and Ian Fairlie (was head of CERRIE Committee, U.K).  These organizations are doing extensive research regarding radioactivity and biological effects.  They are informing the world including UN and IAEA, WHO, and others including the public on the grave harmful effects of the poor and disproportionate regulations set and abided by since the beginning.

Their research, first using the results of the only longitudinal study of 60 years, of Hiroshima survivors (starting 5 years after the bombing), led Mary Olson to realize the major problem reflected in the results of her study.  The findings are clear.  Based on reports of cancer, females of all ages are almost twice as affected by the same radiation exposures as men; children are five times as vulnerable, i.e. the number of girls developing cancer is double that for boys.  Infants are at the highest risk for radiation harm.  Again, it is well known by scientific studies, that even a low-riosk amount of radiation can, and may even cause higher rates of cancer in humans.  Later reports are now showing a trajectory (e.g. 2021 study) for future generations - that they may ahve even more extensive damaging effects from radiation exposure, a generational effect.  Increased risks of childhood leukemia were found in children living 5 km from nuclear reactors (KiKK study, Germany).

The opportunity for these most poisonous radioactive emissions to be released during the DGR proposed project could cost our country more than the billions of dollars already estimated.  It could cost our men,  women,and children their health and well-being, somethingthat cannot be mitigated by the nuclear industry.  

Studies have, for the most part, been in relation to cancer.  However other diseases and health problems have also been seen to risein areas of nuclear facilities, and from accidents.  In the DGR case, we need to consider the many instances where workers would be exposed to radiation - every time the waste is transferredfrom one container to another - at the nuclear plant, to the transport vehicle, along the transportation route, whenever the transport stops for gas, delays, accidents, inspections, at the DGR site, unloading truck to repackaging plant, during the processing to pack in the burial copper container, from the plant to the emplacdement area, from releases from filters, or settling ponds, etc.  The public could receive radiological exposure within  half a mile of the transport truck or train on route.  Gamma rays will e released from the transport container.  Workers may expose their familiesto radiation they carry home from the site,  as has been reported.  Should there be an accident at the DGR site, it cold be catastrophic, for the entire  region, even further afield.

I refer to the Comments on the IA Registry, \Project DGR#88774, No. 412, "Scientific Evidence for the Failure of the current exposure limits," Author European Committee on Radiation Risks (ECRR).  Excellent report, encourage you to study it.

In conclusion, the DGR IPD is vague without any details to make a proper assessment.  The Deep Geological Repository project is much too dangerous with an unlimited number of unknowns and inconsistencies to even think about going ahead with it.  I firmy oppose the DGR project at every level.  A full and complete independent review should be held, with much public participation.  The high-level nuclear waste should be kept as near to the generation locales as possible without endangering millions of people along the transportation route, and deep underground where it cannot be retrieved.  

The health and safety standards are sorely outdated and do not encompass the total human existence, nor the disporportionate harm radiation exposure has on women and children.  For this reason alone, the DGR project should NOT go forward.