Introducing Reference Girl

Current radiation exposure standards are based on an outdated model known as Reference Man, defined as “… a nuclear industry worker 20-30 years of age, weighs 70 kg (154 pounds), is 170 cm (67 inches) tall…is a Caucasian and is a Western European or North American in habitat and custom.” But with current global exposures to ionizing radiation increasing, Reference Man no longer represents the most protective model, leaving out women, children and pregnancy, which are less resistant to radiation exposure.

That is why Beyond Nuclear and Gender and Radiation Impact Project are collaborating on details for a Reference Girl to replace Reference Man.

Update on May 17, 2021 by admin

REFERENCE GIRL ROLLOUT: read our press release here.

Reference Girl: Questions worth asking

What are common sources of ionizing radiation? Why do radiation regulators create and use a Reference Individual? What reference individual does our (US) government use now? How is the Reference Individual used? Why change the Reference?

Reference Girl is a project to improve protection for everyone (our species) from ionizing radiation. Please see this short fact sheet at Gender and Radiation Impact Project (GRIP) for answers to these questions about Reference Girl.

Reference Girl: She is needed for now

As a health protection model, Reference Girl will afford more protection to our entire population fairly easily under the current regulatory regime. However, she cannot represent the totality of the exposure damage to our entire lifecycle.

For that, we would need a Reference Fetus, a more complicated standard and one that would better account for past radiation exposure and future impact. Nonetheless, Reference Girl is needed and can be deployed in the rapid fashion our health requires. More

Our history of nuclear sacrifice

The historical through line of the nuclear industry is one of sacrifice — sacrifice of lives and lands; and reliable, robust science. Throughout our nuclear history, research institutions and regulatory authorities have devalued the health of women, children and pregnancy, in service of maintaining and expanding nuclear technology. This practice continues and is documented in Cindy Folkers' most recent paper, summaraized here: “Disproportionate Impacts of Radiation Exposure on Women, Children, and Pregnancy: Taking Back our Narrative” published online in the Journal of the History of Biology.

This matters because society is now making crucial and long-lasting decisions about the energy sources we might use to address the climate crisis. The serious consideration of nuclear power as one of these sources needs to be informed by a research and policy focus on radiation’s disproportionate impacts.