To readers who struggled through these 206 pages of complex, sometimes dense text referencing controversial and unresolved viewpoints, our admiration and gratitude. For those who, understandably, gave up en route, and especially those who headed directly to this chapter (perhaps a wise decision) we understand: life is short and linear quadratic equations long. To all, and to the casual reader, we owe a summary of what we discussed heretofore. We also want to add some reflections and opinions of what are, admittedly, complicated and often controversial issues.
We wrote our book for several reasons. First and most important is that most people, even the best educated, know very little about radiation. Their prior exposure (excuse the pun), if any, may have been a high school or college course, now long forgotten. Second, most of us are unaccustomed to carefully weighing competing risks and benefits in making a choice between alternatives. This is not a shortcoming but rather because the human mind is imperfectly designed. There are two fundamental problems. First, our brain is designed to process quickly large amounts of data, often held in cache, without conscious processes. This is a bit like what Watson (the IBM supercomputer) has to do when competing with human contestants on Jeopardy! Second, our brain is designed to weigh emotional before rational variables. (We do not imply emotions like love are always irrational, just usually.)
This first process, the rapid subconscious processing of large amounts of data, is referred to in psychology as thin-slicing. We arrive at conclusions quickly based mostly on impressions, which are often colored by prior experience. Thin-slicing is a consequence of evolution: not much time to evaluate a saber-tooth tiger’s dinner plans when he appears outside your cave. Interestingly, these quick conclusions often prove as valid as more detailed, time-consuming analyses. Sometimes, however, they do not. When thin-slicing fails to reach the correct conclusion, results can be unfortunate or even disastrous. This is termed a Warren Harding–type error, referring to the twenty-ninth president of the United States, who gave an excellent immediate appearance but was less than effective in office. Consideration of complex data, like those related to radiation, sometimes displaces this quick conclusion process, but only rarely. Moreover, once we have reached a conclusion, we have difficulty changing our opinion. We selectively seek additional supporting data of whatever quality; discordances are often avoided or conveniently downgraded. If you doubt this process, consider the current debate over evolution.
Our second limitation is weighing emotional before rational considerations. Humans subconsciously weigh risks and benefits between alternatives, such as the use of fossil fuels versus nuclear energy to generate electricity. If choosing one option over another seems to offer little or no benefit, the risk of the latter is automatically perceived to be bigger. Subconsciously we think: nuclear energy has large risks, whereas fossil fuels have few, if any. Part of this subconscious appraisal has to do with the notion of what is “natural.” Fossil fuels seem natural, organic (they are), much like drinking wheatgrass juice or eating crunchy granola, while nuclear energy seems unnatural, man-made. (It is! Although the fuel is not.)
Another aspect of our appraisal of benefit versus risk has to do with whether the risk is voluntary. Most people feel using nuclear energy is an involuntary risk imposed on them by government and/or industry. Curiously, they lack similar feeling about using fossil fuels. This makes the risk of nuclear energy seem scarier. Considerable data indicate societies are willing to accept 100- to 1000-fold greater risk if the risk is voluntary versus involuntary—riding a motorcycle, for instance, versus riding a bus. Finally, risk perception also depends on trust. A risk imposed by a distrusted source feels more threatening than a risk imposed by a trusted source. Again, the nuclear establishment (government, industry, etc.) is considered less trustworthy than the coal or oil industries and regulatory bodies. Why this is so is unclear; consider the Deepwater Horizon accident in the Gulf of Mexico or the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska.
Still, shouldn’t our powers of reason be able to overcome these instinctive impediments to clear thinking? No. In the complex interplay of slower, conscious reason and quicker, subconscious emotion and instinct, the basic architecture of the brain ensures we give more weight to emotion. The amygdala, where emotion is sited, receives incoming stimuli before the cortex, where we think things out. As the neuroscientist Joseph E. LeDoux of New York University puts it in The Emotional Brain, “The wiring of the brain … is such that connections from the emotional systems to the cognitive systems are stronger than connections from the cognitive systems to the emotional systems.”
You may rightly ask: what has this to do with our book? A lot. When asked questions such as: Is exposure to radiation good? Is nuclear power safe? Should we abolish nuclear weapons?, most people resort to thin-slicing. Only later, and probably reluctantly, might they consider data supporting or contravening their first impression. We hope to help with this reprocessing of opinion by providing an unbiased analysis of data, albeit simplified, to help the reader through this more complex analytical process. We accept the dangers of simplification and have duly prepared ourselves for criticism from our scientific colleagues and persons who have far greater expertise in these complex subjects than we do. We also expect criticism from people with strong preformed opinions on issues such as nuclear energy and nuclear wastes. If we are attacked equally from both sides, we will judge ourselves to have hit the mark.
Because radiation touches every aspect of our lives—it is, in fact, responsible for our lives—it is essential to know what radiation is, how it works and what it can and cannot do.
Our belief in democracy is another reason we wrote this book. For democracy to function we need to be intelligently informed about issues we are asked to decide on. Quite often we vote for or against people or policies that touch on radiation-related issues. Examples include energy policy (Arctic drilling and licensing nuclear power facilities) and foreign policy, such as what to do about nuclear weapons development in North Korea and Iran. There are many more examples.
So, a few concluding thoughts and opinions. First, most peoples’ fear of radiation is disproportionate to the real risk. We are all normally exposed to very different doses of background radiation depending on where we live and work. Within this range, however, few data suggest adverse health effects. This means most of us should not worry about radiation from microwave ovens, TVs, computer screens, or cell phones. We should also not worry, as individuals, about backscatter X-ray screening at airports and other very low level radiation exposures. You will receive much more radiation during your flight than in the airport. (This does not mean that society should disregard the potential risks of exposing millions of people to even very small doses of radiation.)
What you should pay attention to is something most of us ignore: exposure to radiation from medical procedures. One-half of our annual average radiation exposure comes from medical procedures of which one-third or one-half may be unnecessary. Ask your physician why he/she is recommending a test and about the balance of risk and benefit and the dose of radiation you will receive. (This caution applies to all medical tests and procedures, not just radiation.) And if you live in certain areas of the United States and Europe you should also think about your possible exposure to radiation from radon gas. Measure levels in your home, if appropriate. Needless to say, if you are worried about cancer, don’t smoke. Smoking not only exposes you (and your family members and friends) to substantial radiation, it works with radiation to cause cancer.
What about nuclear energy? We are neither proponents nor opponents. What we urge is a careful and critical evaluation of risks and benefits of each energy generating source, such as nuclear, fossil fuels, hydroelectric, solar, and others. We discuss, albeit briefly, the up- and downside of each. And remember, there are “nuclear risks” associated with non-nuclear energy sources, such as dependence on foreign oil, which could lead us to a military confrontation where tactical or strategic nuclear weapons are used. For example, is it wise for Japan, an island nation with few natural energy resources, to depend on external supplies given its long-term tense relations with China? Might this not trigger a political confrontation more dangerous than the risk of another Fukushima Daiichi accident? We, of course, don’t know, but this type of complex scenario warrants careful consideration.
But if we promote the diffusion of peaceful nuclear technology, there will likely be an increase in the spread of nuclear weapons technology and capability. This confounding is unavoidable but probably unstoppable. Developing countries need cheap, efficient energy sources. India, with one in every five people on earth and an unreliable electrical grid is but one example. Then there is the issue of nuclear wastes. We believe this is a soluble problem scientifically but one that is stuck in a political morass. Definitive leadership is needed to progress. Politicians today need to take the “heat” to benefit future generations by tackling this issue. The payoff for an intelligent energy policy is fifty years down the road. Most of us will not reap the benefit of the tough decisions we need to make today. The question is whether politicians and energy company CEOs have the discipline and fortitude. The track record is not encouraging.
Nuclear accidents are certainly on many people’s minds, especially in light of Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi. These accidents can have dreadful consequences. Fortunately, they are rare. But in considering these tragic events, we should also recall the relentless loss of life from practices such as the mining, transport, and burning of coal, not the least of which are air pollution and global warming. Increased radiation exposure from thinning of the ozone layer of the atmosphere could result in far more cancers than from a large nuclear accident. There is no easy solution to our insatiable energy appetite, and the best answer will likely lie in some combination of energy sources.
There is little to say in favor of nuclear weapons. We can debate whether they were an effective deterrent of war between the United States and the Soviet Union, but there is no certain answer. Some people believe nuclear weapons should be completely eliminated. This concept has the advantage of disarming the argument that our friends but not our enemies should have them. A goal noble but naïve. What is more likely to happen is that our enemies will have nuclear weapons but not us. One has only to consider recent events in North Korea and Iran. Is it a higher moral ground to bomb the living daylights out of Pyongyang or Tehran with conventional weapons to prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons? But we certainly don’t need sixty-five thousand nuclear warheads when just a few will do. Also, neither of us would like to be the American president or Israeli prime minister on duty when a country like Iran develops a nuclear weapon. Definitive action is needed now. What that action should be is complex. Some have argued an attack will accelerate rather than retard rogue states from developing nuclear weapons. We disagree. Don’t expect rational behavior from madmen, desperate people, or dictators.
There remain many important radiation-related issues we covered superficially or not at all. This was, in part, deliberate: most of us can take only so much science in one sitting. We wanted to give our readers an overview of many related topics rather than a drill-down on one or two. The interested reader will find more detailed information on our website and in the many in-depth books that focus on the topics of our chapters.
Again, thank you for staying with us until the end. The section that follows answers some frequently asked questions. More questions and answers are available on our website: www.radiationbook.com.