Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 518–520 | Cite as

Mortgaging the future: Dumping ethics with nuclear waste

Abstract

On August 22, 2005 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued proposed new regulations for radiation releases from the planned permanent U.S. nuclear-waste repository in Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The goal of the new standards is to provide public-health protection for the next million years — even though everyone admits that the radioactive wastes will leak. Regulations now guarantee individual and equal protection against all radiation exposures above the legal limit. Instead E.P.A. recommended different radiation exposure-limits for different time periods. It also recommended using only the arithmetic mean of the dose distribution, to assess regulatory compliance during one time period, but using only the median dose to assess compliance during another period. This piece argues that these two changes — in exposure-limits and in methods of assessing regulatory compliance — have at least four disturbing consequences. The changes would threaten equal protection, ignore the needs of the most vulnerable, allow many fatal exposures, and sanction scientifically flawed dose calculations.

Keywords

atomic dose energy nuclear public health radiation regulation waste Yucca Mountain 

References

  1. 1.
    Environmental Protection Agency (2005) Public Health and Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Yucca Mountain, Nevada, 40 CFR Part 197, OAR-2005-0083;FRL, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    E.P.A., pp. 98–109.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    See, for instance, United Nations Scientific Committee on Effects of Atomic Radiation, U.N.S.C.E.A.R. (1994) Sources, Effects, and Risks of Ionizing Radiation, U.N., New York.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    U.S. National Research Council (2005) Health Effects from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    All national ALARA standards are based on International Commission on Radiological Protection, I.C.R.P. (1991) Recommendations of the ICRP, I.C.R.P., Stockholm.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Federal Bureau of Investigation, F.B.I. (2004) Crime In the United States, F.B.I., Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    International Atomic Energy Agency, I.A.E.A. (2001) An International Peer Review of the ... Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project, I.A.E.A., Vienna.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    U.N.S.C.E.A.R., I.C.R.P.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Opragen Publications 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy and Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of Notre DameNotre DameUSA

Personalised recommendations