Can nuclear power ever comply with the human right to health? Part II

THEIR MONEY OR YOUR HEALTH: RADIATION RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS

RECAP

In the continuing wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, the Human Rights Council of the United Nations sent Special Rapporteur on the right to health (a position created in 2002) Anand Grover to assess Japan’s compliance with human rights principles; specifically “the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health”. His visit took place between November 15 and 26, 2012 with permission of the Government of Japan.

This is the second part of a Beyond Nuclear exploration into how the Special Rapporteur’s (SR’s) recommendations and conclusions may apply to nuclear power and human rights compliance beyond the Fukushima catastrophe. Part I examined the dangers of relying on previous radiation health impacts to inform current and future studies and precautionary aspects of the SR's report.

Many aspects of the SR’s report are groundbreaking and speak directly to the shortcomings of our current assumptions on radiation and health not only in regard to events in Japan, but also in the context of radiation protection worldwide; leading ultimately to an extremely important question:

Is it possible for the nuclear power industry and government proponents to comply with the UN definition of the right to health, or must they always exist in violation of these principles?

In this part we examine how risk-benefit analysis is antithetical to human rights.

RADIATION PROTECTION SHOULD BE BASED ON CURRENT SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AND HUMAN RIGHTS, NOT RISK-BENEFIT ANALYSIS

“…risk-benefit analysis is not in consonance with the right to health framework, as it gives precedence to collective interests over individual rights. Under the right to health, the right of every individual has to be protected. Moreover, such decisions, which have a long-term impact on the physical and mental health of people, should be taken with their active, direct and effective participation.” (p. 16)

The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) recommendations for such a high level of radiation exposure (up to 20 mSv per year for existing contamination and between 20 mSv and 100 mSv for “emergency circumstances”) are based on principles for deciding how much risk the public should be forced to endure. These principles are called justification and optimization.

Those officially responsible for radiation protection, such as governments of the European Union, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), rely on these recommendations from ICRP to inform their decisions; and although the ICRP claims no responsibility for how these officials enact the recommendations, the ICRP is a responsible party. The quotes below are European Commission (EC) interpretations of ICRP recommendations; but any government can use the principles of justification and optimization to remove nuclear industry responsibility for most exposures. Supporting the SR’s point above, the EC recognizes that overall benefits may not be for the individual: “Responsibility for judging the justification of new or existing practices usually falls on national radiation protection authorities to ensure an overall benefit in the broadest sense to society although not necessarily to the individual.” (European Commission)

“The principle of justification requires that any decision that alters the radiation exposure situation should do more good than harm; in other words, the introduction of a radiation source should result in sufficient individual or societal benefit to offset the detriment it causes. The principle of optimisation requires that the likelihood of incurring exposures, the number of people exposed and the magnitude of their individual exposure should all be kept as low as reasonably achievable, taking into account economic and societal factors.” (emphasis mine)  (European Commission)

“Benefit to whom” and “harm to whom” are not defined, meaning that “benefit” can shift to those with the most political and monetary resources (nuclear industry) at the expense of those that are less well resourced such as members of the public, including farmers and those of lower socio-economic status, etc. So through the concepts of “optimization” and “justification”, the nuclear industry could be allowed to prey on those who are unable to defend themselves.

Additionally, because these concepts are based as much on economics as they are on health, radiation exposure standards based on them should in no way be assumed to represent the most valid or protective science of the day. “As low as reasonably achievable” does not mean protective enough. “Sometimes the radiation detriment will be a small part of all factors considered and it is important that other types of detriment are considered. Similarly, benefit must be determined. Justification therefore goes far beyond the scope of radiological protection.” (European Commission)

Concepts such as these allow, for instance, the ICRP to recommend that feeding contaminated food to people may be preferable to not doing so: “There may be situations where a sustainable agricultural economy is not possible without placing contaminated food on the market. As such foods will be subject to market forces, this will necessitate an effective communication strategy to overcome the negative reactions from consumers outside the contaminated areas.” (emphasis added) In this instance, these principles set up a regime that seeks to downplay the health impact of eating contaminated food instead of informing people that the food is contaminated in the first place. Ultimately this takes away a person’s right to know how contaminated their food is, thereby removing their right to decide whether or not they want to eat contaminated food. Obliterating a person’s choice in this manner is counter to the “active, direct and effective participation” required by the right to health. For more on efforts to address man-made radiation in our food, click here and here.

NEXT TIME-- RADIOPHOBIA: ACTUAL DISEASE AND BULLYING TACTIC ?