IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/envsyd/v32y2012i2d10.1007_s10669-012-9390-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The similar effects of low-dose ionizing radiation and non-ionizing radiation from background environmental levels of exposure

Author

Listed:
  • Cindy Sage

    (Sage Associates)

Abstract

The meltdown and release of radioactivity (ionizing radiation) from four damaged nuclear reactors at the Fukushima Nuclear Facility in Japan in March 2011 continues to contaminate air and ocean water even 1 year later. Chronic exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation will occur over large populations well into the future. This has caused grave concern among researchers and the public over the very long period of time expected for decommissioning alone (current estimate from official sources is 30–40 years based on TEPCO in Mid-and long-term roadmap towards the decommissioning of Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power units 1–4, 2011) and the presumed adverse effects of chronic, low-dose ionizing radiation on children, adults and the environment. Ultimately, radioactive materials from Fukushima will circulate for many years, making health impacts a predictable concern for many generations (Yasunari et al. in PNAS 108(49):19530–19534, 2011). There is long-standing scientific evidence to suggest that low-dose ionizing radiation (LD-IR) and low-intensity non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation (LI-NIER) in the form of extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields and radiofrequency radiation (RFR) share similar biological effects. Public health implications are significant for reconstruction efforts to rebuild in post-Fukushima Japan. It is relevant to identify and reduce exposure pathways for chronic, low-dose ionizing radiation in post-Fukushima Japan given current scientific knowledge. Intentional planning, rather than conventional planning, is needed to reduce concomitant chronic low-intensity exposure to non-ionizing radiation. These are reasonably well-established risks to health in the scientific literature, as evidenced by their classification by World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer as Possible Human Carcinogens. Reducing preventable, adverse health exposures in the newly rebuilt environment to both LD-IR and LI-NIER is an achievable goal for Japan. Recovery and reconstruction efforts in Japan to restore the communications and energy infrastructure, in particular, should pursue strategies for reduction and/or prevention of both kinds of exposures. The design life of buildings replaced today is probably 35–50 years into the future. Cumulative health risks may be somewhat mitigated if the double exposure (to both chronic low-dose IR from the Fukushima reactors and LI-NIER [EMF and RFR] in new buildings and infrastructure) can be dealt with effectively in early planning and design in Japan’s reconstruction.

Suggested Citation

  • Cindy Sage, 2012. "The similar effects of low-dose ionizing radiation and non-ionizing radiation from background environmental levels of exposure," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 144-156, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:envsyd:v:32:y:2012:i:2:d:10.1007_s10669-012-9390-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s10669-012-9390-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10669-012-9390-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10669-012-9390-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Marko S. Markov, 2012. "Cellular phone hazard for children," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 201-209, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:envsyd:v:32:y:2012:i:2:d:10.1007_s10669-012-9390-9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.