The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is planning to amend its regulations governing federal health standards for radiation protection.
The NRC will accept public comments until August 31, 2026, identified by Docket ID NRC-2025-1140, using the Federal Registrar website.
Bending to political pressures resulting from the nuclear power, nuclear weapons, and related research industries, NRC is proposing the elimination of the ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) radiation protection standard requirement; this will result in higher overall radiation doses and increased cancer risks for both plant workers and nearby communities. This renewed push for reduced oversight and expansion of nuclear energy should be of great concern to us all. The inherent dangers of nuclear power to public safety and national security are significant.
Government functions to protect the public from general hazards, such as those posed by unregulated commerce. That protection should be absolute, not based on what someone thinks we should accept as a risk of illness or death in return for an illusory advantage or an increased bottom-line profit for nuclear industries.
Nuclear power costs are prohibitively expensive, costing twice as much as energy generated by fossil fuels and up to 12 times as much as electricity derived from efficiency improvements.
NRC’s efforts to resurrect the extremely hazardous nuclear power industry are uneconomical. The amount of federal money poured into nuclear energy tops billions of dollars each year. At the same time, research into clean, renewable energy sources and energy efficiency improvements is being starved of funds.
The NRC continues to fail to adequately address the serious problem of radioactive waste disposal and nuclear plant decommissioning.
During the past 80 years, both the federal government and nuclear industry have failed to develop a method to isolate and contain nuclear reactor waste for the duration of its radioactive life. The long-term economic, environmental, and health impacts of nuclear waste disposal have not been fully realized. No nuclear waste programs, from high-level to low-level radiation, are successful. Laws and policies governing nuclear waste disposal have not performed well.
The problem of nuclear waste management has been a burden on our country for decades now. The full cost of nuclear power will become apparent only after the job of dismantling an abandoned power plant and disposing of nuclear waste is complete. The United States will have to guard nuclear wastes for a full 500,000 years. This is more than 100 times the length of recorded history, a period during which several ice ages might be expected.
Increased oil prices, global warming, and additional taxpayer subsidies have revived interest in expanding nuclear energy production, but it is by no means certain that nuclear energy is needed; it is not the answer to global warming.
In the United States, electricity generation accounts for less than half of carbon dioxide emissions. Carbon dioxide is a major greenhouse gas and is produced mainly by burning fossil fuels. Most greenhouse gases come from transportation, industrial processes, agriculture, forestry, waste management, and other land uses.
The choice is not between the continued use of fossil fuels or the continued subsidizing of nuclear energy production by reducing radiation health standards. Another option, cheaper than any new energy supply and without increasing greenhouse gas emissions, is energy efficiency.
Glenn Compton is the Chairman of ManaSota 88, a non-profit organization that has spent over 30 years fighting to protect the environment of Manatee and Sarasota counties.
Comments
No comments on this item
Only paid subscribers can comment
Please log in to comment by clicking here.