Tell the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission To Keep Radiation Standards
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering weakening radiation protection standards in response to Executive Order 14300 issued on May 23, 2025. This move could lead to public radiation exposures 100 to 1000 times higher than current limits. The existing standards, based on decades of scientific research, are already outdated, with public limits dating back 35 years and worker limits dating back two-thirds of a century.
Weakening these standards would disproportionately affect the public's health, increasing the risk of cancer. The current public dose limit of 100 millirem/year already carries a cancer risk of 1 in 100, which is outside the acceptable risk range for carcinogens. Background radiation, which is not harmless, contributes to an estimated 10 million cancer cases in the U.S., further emphasizing the need for tighter regulations.
The proposed changes are likely driven by the nuclear industry's desire to reduce costs by releasing more radiation into the environment and easing cleanup standards. This would have devastating consequences, as nuclear facilities routinely release radioactivity into the air, water, soil, ecosystems, and DNA, and improperly dispose of deadly radioactive waste.
The result of overturning these regulations would be a significant increase in permissible public doses, leading to an excess cancer risk in over 80% of exposed individuals. The NRC must prioritize public health and safety over the interests of the nuclear industry.
Craft a personal message to the NRC Staff or use our template and send by Friday, July 25. Email ed.miller@nrc.gov and david.garmon@nrc.gov. (To keep track, Bcc or Cc dianed@nirs.org.)
Email Template
(Copy/Paste & modify as needed)
I urge the NRC to maintain or strengthen current radiation protection standards, rather than weakening them. Weakening these standards would put public health at risk and increase the likelihood of cancer. I request that the NRC prioritize the health and safety of the public and the environment.
A Few Key Talking Points
Do NOT weaken radiation standards
Maintain the Linear No-Threshold (LNT) Model, which posits that every amount of radiation causes some level of cancer.
Do NOT legalize a Threshold below which radiation can be released in air, soil, water, sewage, unregulated disposal, and recycling to make consumer products, building supplies, and more. There is NO SAFE LEVEL.
Even the pronuclear National Academy of Sciences’ reports on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) indicate NO SAFE LEVEL, NO THRESHOLD. Every subsequent report shows that radiation is MORE DANGEROUS/CAUSED MORE CANCER per unit dose than the previous report.
The latest report, BEIR VII, revealed that women and youth get more cancer than men from the same amount of exposure. Women get 50% more cancer and little girls 7 times more cancer than men. If standards are changed, they should be designed to protect the most vulnerable people in the most vulnerable parts of our life cycle, such as during reproduction.
Radiation causes MORE THAN CANCER, but that is all the regs are based on. Science-based regulations must account for reduced immunity (and increased susceptibility to many other ailments), heart disease, DNA damage, and other health concerns.
Consider that long-lasting radioactive waste will be in the environment for millennia, increasing background, continuing to expose us and future generations who might already be injured from the original exposure.
Radiation exposures are MULTIPLE, ADDITIVE, CUMULATIVE, and SYNERGISTIC (with other radiation, toxics, and other stressors)
If the linear-no-threshold model is changed—it should be to one that is SUPRALINEAR in the low dose range—not reduced by DREFs or cut off with a threshold.
It is immoral to use background exposures to radiation (which do harm) to justify deliberate, avoidable additions to unconsenting individuals and populations
Want to learn more? Check out this presentation by Committee to Bridge the Gap!
