Read
Changes for worse or better protection for workers and the public are on the international and national political agenda in a number of countries. Trade Union, environment and public health groups around the world are concerned that the USA is considering proposals that would weaken radiation protection standards at a time when the scientific evidence suggests these need to be significantly tightened. These need to be resisted with pressure to provide better not worse protection for workers and the public.
In May 2025 US President Donald Trump issued a Directive (EO 14300) [i] requiring the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to review nuclear safety regulations with particular reference to radiation protection of workers and the public. The Directive instructs the NRC to abandon fundamental principles that have formed the basis for radiation protection for much of the past century. These include: the internationally accepted position that there is no threshold or safe level of exposure to ionising radiation; that, as a consequence, all exposures should be kept as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA); and all exposures to workers and the public be kept below strict annual limits in line with the best evidence of radiation-induced health risks.
The evidence used to set current standards is drawn mainly from the studies of cancer rates among the Japanese A-bomb survivors who were exposed to relatively high doses over short time periods. Since then studies of workers in nuclear power facilities exposed to lower doses over long time periods show higher rates of cancer than predicted by the Japanese studies. Rather than indicating any threshold these studies suggest that at low doses the cancer rates are proportionately higher than expected from the model used to set current standards.[ii] Worker studies also show elevated rates of cardio-vascular diseases[iii], and increased rates of dementia[iv]. In addition, studies on populations around nuclear power plants are now showing higher cancer rates affecting the population generally[v] but particularly children[vi] and the elderly[vii] - all correlated to how close they lived to these facilities. Despite this mounting evidence that exposure limits should be tightened, the likely result of changes in line with the Presidential directive would be to increase the permissible exposure limit for workers and the public to five times the current internationally recommended level.
The US NRC is clearly faced with a dilemma. Adopting the changes demanded by the President would require reversing its 2021 decision that specifically rejected these same proposals[viii]. The initial date for publication of the NRC’s draft response for public consultation was 23 February 2026. This was deferred to 30 April and again at short notice to 24 June. Despite large scale resignations and lay-offs among NRC staff perhaps there remain some with scientific integrity opposing changes they believe are unjustifiable. However the final revision of standards is required by end of November 2026. Given the President’s record for seeking retribution on government representatives or officials who oppose his plans it is hard to see any outcome from the NRC other than a change to weaken the US standards.
If they go through there will also likely be pressure on international and national standards agencies to align with changes in the USA. There is already some push-back. In June 2025 the heads of European standards agencies issued a statement supporting the LNT and ALARA principles and insisting that exposure standards be set on the basis of the scientific evidence without undue influence. [ix]
In Australia there are a number of joint ventures in uranium and radioactive rare earths and mineral sands mining, and the government has already established a separate Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulator (ANNPSR) to oversee all aspects of construction, operation, maintenance, decommissioning and nuclear waste management under the Australia-UK-US (AUKUS) nuclear submarine program. While these nuclear submarine standards are expected to be consistent with those of the current Australian Radiation and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) it is unclear whether US or Australian standards will apply to US military assets based here. Pressure for change is inevitable. Hopefully it will be politically independent science-based pressure not merely to oppose the direction prompted by the US President’s directive but to seek better standards to protect the health of workers and the public where they are routinely exposed to ionising radiation.
Tony Webb,
May 2026
Dr Tony Webb is a Fabian and a long-time community and environmental activist. He has worked on housing, unemployment, worker cooperatives, anti-nuclear, radiation and health, food policy, and energy/climate issues in the UK, USA, Canada and Australia. Along the way he picked up an MSc in Energy Resources Management and a PhD in Humanities.
References and Further Reading
[i] Directive EO14300 Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 23 May 2025. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-14300-ordering-the-reform-the-nuclear-regulatory-commission
[ii] Richardson et al. 2023. Cancer mortality after low dose exposure to ionising radiation in workers in France, the United Kingdom, and the United States (INWORKS): cohort study. British Medical Journal 16 August 2023. See https://www.bmj.com/content/382/bmj-2022-074520 The study concludes:
This major update to INWORKS provides a direct estimate of the association between protracted low-dose exposure to ionizing radiation and solid cancer mortality based on some of the world's most informative cohorts of radiation workers. The summary estimate of excess relative rate solid cancer mortality per Gy is larger than estimates currently informing radiation protection, and some evidence suggests a steeper slope for the dose-response association in the low dose range than over the full dose range. These results can help to strengthen radiation protection, especially for low dose exposures that are of primary interest in contemporary medical, occupational and environmental settings.
[iii] Little et al, 2023. Ionising radiation and cardiovascular disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ March 2023. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2022-072924
[iv] Frangione et al. Exposure to ionizing radiation and dementia mortality among nuclear power plant workers in the Canadian national dose registry. Occupational and Environmental Medicine. November 5, Oral session: Specific exposures: pesticides & Ionizing radiation. https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2024-EPICOHabstracts.61
[v] Alwadi Y, et al (2026). A national analysis of the impact of proximity to nuclear power plants on lung, breast and colon cancer moralities in the U.S., 2000-2020, Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-026-00922-2
[vi] Fairlie, I. 2021. Radiation and Cancer in Children. Report for the UK Charity Children with Cancer. See https://www.ianfairlie.org/news/a-report-on-radiation-risks-and-on-cancer-in-children/
[vii] Alwasi Y. et al. 2026. National analysis of cancer mortality and proximity to nuclear power plants in the United States. Nature Communications 17, 1560, 13 April 2026. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-026-69285-4
[viii] Petition for Rulemaking; Denial: Linear No-Threshold Model and Standards for Protection Against Radiation. Posted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Aug 16, 2021 https://www.regulations.gov/document/NRC-2015-0057-0671
[ix] HERCA statement on the importance of maintaining trust in the international radiological protection system and regulatory independence. June 2025. See: https://www.herca.org/herca-statement-on-the-importance-of-maintaining-trust-in-the-international-radiological-protection-system-and-regulatory-independence/
Showing 1 thought
Sign in with
FacebookTwitter