Hello everyone! Welcome back to our blog. In this post, we will be comparing and providing our opinions on radiation pollution and the Radiation Protection Act (“RPA”). We would also like to point out that there are a few organisations that focus on nuclear technology and radiation. If you would like to know more about radiation and its effects, you can refer to them here!
- International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP)
- United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
- International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
- Specific for Singapore on Radiation Safety – Radiation Protection and Nuclear Science Division (RPNSD)
Comparison
Once again, let us compare the definitions on radioactive pollutants
Our definition: “A substance or medium that releases ionising radiation at doses harmful to human health”.
RPA definition: “Radioactive Waste” means any waste which consists wholly or partly of –
- The substance or article which, if it were not waste, would be radioactive material; or
- A substance or an article which has been contaminated in the course of production, keeping or use of radioactive material or by contact with, or proximity to other waste falling within paragraph (1) (SSO, 2007)
Based on the definitions above, we can compare the definitions of radioactive pollutants.
Similarities
One obvious similarity between both definitions is the issue of potential harm of the radioactive pollutant, regardless of its source, article or medium. This ensures that it is aligned with the ALARA principle mentioned in our previous post (CDC, 2015), which prevents harm to human health and the environment. As seen from how RPA defines “radioactive material” as “any article containing radioactive substance giving it a specific or total radioactivity exceeding the prescribed level, and includes any article containing any nuclear material”, the aim of both definitions is to limit the levels of radiation to within what is considered safe.
Another similarity can be seen when comparing how we look at the radioactive substance itself. As we can infer from the RPA, radioactive materials are treated with extreme caution and contaminated materials are treated with the same level of caution. Much like how radionuclides found in our environment can further cause harm if inhaled, correctly understanding the dangers of radioactive contaminants is of utmost importance when handling radioactive wastes.
Differences
However, when comparing the differences, there is a stark contrast between the two definitions. The first difference can be seen when comparing the approach, where our definition looks at all types of anthropogenic sources of radiation while the RPA focuses solely on “radioactive waste”. This could be due to the controls of anthropogenic radiation sources in Singapore, whereby it is mainly limited to medical devices (NEA, 2020). While we agree that radioactive materials should be treated with utmost caution, it leads back to the issue of treating materials as “wastes” unless otherwise proven. This will fall in line with our argument on waste pollution two themes back. What we would like to ask is this:
Is there a way to find a balance between treating materials contaminated by radioactive pollutants and finding ways to reduce wastage of potentially useful materials?
Opinions
We applaud the legislative efforts to control radioactive materials from public in Singapore. Additionally, the fact that more than half of an average individual’s exposure to radiation stems from natural sources means that we are rather safe from radiation pollution at present. However, with a push towards cleaner energy alternatives globally, with nuclear energy being an alternative, it is important that the stigma towards radiation is quelled before the psychological effects of radiation pollution impedes us from progress (Ho, Looi, Chuah, Leong, & Pang, 2018). While radiation pollution is still seen to be confined to nuclear disasters such as Chernobyl and Fukushima, it is important that we look at how policies are formulated that fits into current societal norms. The only disagreement we have would stem from the RPA defining anything contaminated by radiation as waste, which can cause significant issues in the future, much like how waste is treated at present.
What are your thoughts about radiation pollution? Let us know down below and we will see you on Friday!
Signing out!
Lee Yang and Ryan
References
CDC. (2015). ALARA – As Low As Reasonably Achievable.
Ho, S. S., Looi, J., Chuah, A. S., Leong, A. D., & Pang, N. (2018). “I can live with nuclear energy if…”: Exploring public perceptions of nuclear energy in Singapore. Energy Policy, 120, 436-447.
NEA. (2020). Radiation Basics. Retrieved from https://www.nea.gov.sg/our-services/radiation-safety/understanding-radiation/radiation-basics
SSO. (2007). Radiation Protection Act. Retrieved from https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/RPA2007.