Reevaluation of Radiation-Protection Standards for Workers and the Public Based on Current Scientific Evidence
President Trump’s recent executive orders to “Usher in a Nuclear Renaissance,” coupled with the global pledge to triple nuclear energy capacity by 2050, underscore nuclear energy’s importance to national security and economic prosperity. This renewed interest has prompted efforts to spur nuclear-energy deployment, including assessing factors impeding it. One issue that has previously been identified as adding to the cost of nuclear energy is excessively conservative requirements, including those related to radiation protection. This technical review, therefore, examines current radiation-protection standards that were established decades ago when more limited data were available and nuclear-energy expansion was not a national priority. The review focuses on scientific evidence regarding the health effects of ionizing radiation at annual doses of 10,000 mrem or less. The review evaluates epidemiological studies, radiobiological research, and positions of relevant professional organizations to assess whether such doses result in discernable or observable increases in negative health outcomes. The review also surveys the literature related to economic and practical implications of current radiation-protection standards and practices. Based on this assessment, we propose maintaining an annual occupational whole-body dose limit of 5,000 mrem/yr and eliminating all “as low as reasonably achievable” requirements and limits below this threshold. This change could potentially reduce radiation-protection costs by millions of dollars annually for each reactor, as well as decrease the overall costs and correct misconceptions about the risks associated with all nuclear technologies. The evidence further supports future consideration of a 10,000 mrem/yr limit that would maintain appropriate safety margins while further reducing protection costs. Similarly, given the data and that the average annual radiation dose per person in the U.S. is 620 mrem, we believe the public dose limits of 100 mrem/yr are unnecessarily restrictive; increasing to 500 mrem/yr would maintain substantial safety margins—a factor of 10 below the occupational limit—while reducing regulatory burdens and associated bureaucracy. While we acknowledge ongoing scientific debate and encourage continued research on the health effects of ionizing radiation, our review indicates current frameworks are overly conservative. These overly stringent limits not only impose unnecessary economic burdens without corresponding health benefits but also divert safety focus and resources from more important considerations. Although this study was motivated by nuclear-power considerations, reforms to radiation-protection requirements have significant positive implications for other areas, such as nuclear medical applications, environmental remediation, nuclear-waste management and disposal, and industrial applications of nuclear technologies.