by Dave Lochbaum, Board member and Secretary of the Gender and Radiation Impact Project

November, 2023

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Agency, 13,384 people died from alcohol-impaired driving accidents in 2021.[1] States laws seek to manage this very real hazard. Motorists determined to have been driving under the influence (DUI) can be ticketed, have their driver’s licenses suspended, or even be incarcerated.

Jimmy Bodine was driving home with a friend after watching a sporting event at a local tavern when a police officer who had observed the vehicle weaving pulled him over. At the officer’s request, Jimmy took a breathalyzer test that showed his blood alcohol concentration exceeded the legal limit. The officer wrote Jimmy a ticket for DUI.

Elrod Franklin was driving home from friend’s bachelor party when a police officer who had observed the vehicle weaving pulled him over. The officer obtained Elrod’s birth year from his driver’s license and consulted a book updated annually by that community’s District Attorney. The total volume of beer, wine, and spirits sold in the community in the prior year was divided by the number of individuals above the legal drinking age of 21 licensed to drive in the community to derive the annual per capita alcohol consumption. The officer then age-adjusted this consumption value by Elrod’s age and then divided by 365 to convert the annual consumption rate to a daily rate and found that Elrod’s blood alcohol concentration was far below the legal limit. The officer helped Elrod, who had tripped over a shadow on the pavement, back into his vehicle. The officer even helped Elrod put his car key into the ignition after Elrod failed the start the engine turning the car key in the cigarette lighter slot. The officer waved goodbye as Elrod drove away, apparently electing to take a shortcut weaving across a soccer field having to dodge all the youngsters.

Comparing a breathalyzer result to the legal limit may not precisely determine whether someone is impaired by alcohol. Some individuals, such as those purportedly having a “hollow leg,” can tolerate higher levels of alcohol consumption than other persons. But breathalyzer tests are less imprecise than mathematical magic in evaluating how much alcohol an individual consumed and judge whether that individual poses undue risk to others when operating a motor vehicle. It matters little how much alcohol the average adult driver in a community consumes in a year — what matters is how much alcohol this driver consumed before taking a vehicle out onto the road.

There are legal limits on the amount of radiation exposure that nuclear power plant workers and the public can receive each year. Nuclear workers wear personal dosimetry that allow them to instantly check their radiation dose from external sources. And nuclear workers may also receive periodic whole body counting to gauge their internal radiation exposure (i.e., emissions from radionuclides they inhaled or ingested.) Workers’ measured radiation doses are checked against the legal limits.

The radiation dose to members of the public are determined by taking the total amount of radioactivity released to the air and water from a nuclear power plant, assuming how that radioactivity will wind up in drinking water, foodstuffs, aquatic wildlife, etc. and then assuming how much radioactivity an infant, a teen, and an adult breathes and ingests during a year.[2] The public’s modeled radiation doses are checked against the legal limits.

Nuclear power plant workers’ measured radiation doses occasionally exceed the legal limit. I’m unware of any member of the public’s modeled radiation dose ever exceeding the legal limit.

If modeling, as is used to assess the radiation to the public from a licensed activity or facility is an acceptable and adequate method of determining radiation doses, why must plant owners incur the unnecessary cost of providing personnel dosimeters to nuclear workers?

If measuring is the only acceptable and adequate method of determining radiation doses, why must members of the public incur the unnecessary burden of unmeasured radiation doses?

Modeling is not used to judge whether motorists were DUI. Modeling is not used to judge whether nuclear plant workers received excessive radiation doses. Modeling is used to judge whether millions of Americans have received excessive radiation doses.

The foibles of using modeling in lieu of more precise measuring was graphically illustrated in the lawsuit filed on behalf of 1,192 individuals downwind of the Nevada Test Site for deaths or injuries caused by radiation released in atomic bomb testing between 1951 and 1963.[3] In his decision dated May 10, 1984, awarding compensation to some of the plaintiffs, Judge Jenkins pointed out the disparities between the modeling results provided by Dr. John Gofman for the plaintiffs and the U.S. Department of Energy’s Off-Site Radiation Exposure Review Program (ORERP) for the defense:

 In only one case was ORERP’s estimated dose higher than Dr. Gofman’s estimation. On average, Dr. Gofman’s estimates were more than 42 times larger than ORERP’s. In Ms. Berry’s case, Dr. Gofman’s estimate was “only” 146.8 times higher than ORERP’s. Ms. Berry was diagnosed in March 1977 with abdominal carcinoma originating in her ovaries and uterus. She died on November 24, 1978. The difference is not just academic; it could literally be the difference between life and death.

I have not reviewed the raw data or the calculations performed with that data so cannot vote on which estimate is right, or less wrong. But any model that permits such wide-ranging outcomes is little better than tossing darts at a dartboard, pulling slips of paper from a hat, or crystal-ball gazing using a bowling ball. Dose under imprecision is unacceptable public health policy.

The Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) was enacted to provide compensation to victims or their survivors for harm likely caused due to radiation exposure from atomic bomb testing. RECA didn’t rely on measuring or modeling – it relied on the federal government’s knowledge that radiation caused harm and that atomic bomb testing resulted in radioactivity blowing towards communities with doses neither measured nor modeled. There’s a push to amend RECA to increase the maximum compensation paid and extend the coverage period for an additional 19 years.[4] A recent paper examining the fallout from 101 atmospheric atomic bomb tests conducted between 1945 and 1962 identified areas where radionuclide depositions significantly exceeded levels covered under RECA.[5]

RECA and any amendments strive to lessen the burden of those harmed by radiation releases in the past. We also must strive to lessen the number of persons harmed by future radiation releases; not just to save compensation payments but to save lives and the quality of those lives. Modeling alone simply isn’t sufficient. Modeling must be backed by some measurements that hopefully will confirm that the numbers spit out by the computers are valid, or point to the reforms needed to modify the models to better match reality.

[1] Source: https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving#:~:text=Every%20day%2C%20about%2037%20people,a%2014%25%20increase%20from%202020 accessed November 1, 2023.

[2] Source: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1, “Calculation of Annual Doses to Man From Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I,” October 1977. (ADAMS ML003740384)

[3] U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, “Irene Allen et al v. United States of America,” Civ. No. C-79-0515J, 588 F. Supp. 247, May 10, 1984.

[4] https://westgov.org/news/article/western-governors-support-the-radiation-exposure-compensation-act-amendments-of-2023

[5] Sebastien Philippe, Susan Alzner, Gilbert P. Compo, Mason Grimshaw and Megan Smith, “Fallout from U.S. atmospheric nuclear tests in New Mexico and Nevada (1945-1962).”