Should Californians have had iodine after Fukushima? In Radiation Robert Peter Gale and Eric Lax clear up the confusion over radiation and health
CIGARETTE okers have three times the amount of polonium-210 in their blood as non-okers. Some medical uses of radiation expose us to a higher dose in one go than okers get in a year, yet many are happy to accept these radiation risks.
Compare this with the global alarm following the Fukushima disaster in 2011. As Robert Peter Gale and Eric Lax tell us in Radiation, Californians reacted to the news by buying iodine tablets, which in the circumstances were "as useful as Californians buying raincoats to protect them from rain falling in Barcelona".
Humans are ill-equipped to deal with uncertainty, and we know too much about the uncertainties around data on health risks from radiation. Gale is a doctor specialising in treating patients exposed to high doses of radiation, and Lax is a scientific writer. Touring through various scenarios, from nuclear accidents to irradiated food, they show how our inability to put risk into context can have serious consequences.
They start with an account of an incident in Goiania, Brazil. In 1987, radiotherapy equipment was stolen and the thieves, tempted by the alluring blue glow inside, diantled it carelessly. Because they didn't know how to handle and contain radiation many people were exposed to variable doses of caesium-137, some with fatal consequences.
Mishandling is not the only danger that flows from a dearth of proper knowledge about radiation. Confusion over the risks to health, both on the part of the public and politicians, can lead to societal stress and stagnation in energy policy.
The book navigates this troublesome territory without bias. The authors summarise health risks associated with various non-nuclear options, suggesting that energy policy should take into account all the possible health risks of a given strategy. Surprisingly, one conclusion is that the fly ash from coal power stations actually generates more radiation than is emitted by a nuclear power plant.
Gale and Lax aim to fill in the gaps in public understanding of all things nuclear, and they are adept at doing so. Throughout the book they present a host of interesting facts and figures in humorous and accessible prose, and their explanation of the biological effect of internal radiation is excellent.
These days we can measure radiation incredibly accurately, but are not good at putting health risks from radiation into perspective with all of the other risks that threaten our health. This book does a good job at explaining radiation and what it does, both good and bad. Radiation is integral to our planet and its use will shape our future here. In Radiation, Gale and Lax help us understand how and why.
