Natural background risks

Instead of an OEL, then, a target risk level will be identified by governmental bodies, feasibility will be discussed, and a discussion will be repeated every 4 years where necessary [10]. The target risk level states the extent to which exposure must be minimised in order to ensure that the extra risk of harm is negligible or will be reduced to a natural background risk. The feasibility discussirm focuses not only on technical feasibility, but also on operational and economic feasibility. 

On the other hand, the estimated risk for occupants of residential structures cleaned up to the EPA guideline values was about a factor of 3 higher than for residents exposed to natural background levels. 

Exposure to elements such as As, U and Rn may represent an increased human health risk, particularly in areas where the natural background concentrations are elevated. 

The country-wide dataset of stream sediment analyses in Austria consists of 36,136 samples analyzed for 34 chemical elements (Fig. 1), (Thalmann et al. 1989). Complemented by local surveys of hydrochemistry, whole rock geochemistry, soil chemistry and mineralogical phase analyses, these data are used to derive natural background levels of different rock units, investigate chemical fluxes between soil, rock and groundwater, and evaluate the emission risks of historical mine waste. 

Tb a considerable extent, these risk estimates and risk comparisons are merely exposure comparisons. Their interpretation is aided by comparing them with natural background radiation exposure and its variations or comparison to the other risks of a particular activity or to the risks associated with safe industry . 

Acceptable risks or doses for radionuclides and chemical carcinogens also could be established based on considerations of unavoidable risks from natural background as noted previously, these lifetime risks are about 10 2. For example, an acceptable risk could be set at a value corresponding approximately to the geographical variability in the background risk, because people normally do not consider this variability in deciding where to live. 

The acceptable risks for substances that induce stochastic responses discussed in this Section are values in excess of unavoidable risks from exposure to the undisturbed background of naturally occurring agents that cause stochastic responses, such as many sources of natural background radiation and carcinogenic compounds produced by plants that are consumed by humans. This distinction is based on the assumption of a linear, nonthreshold dose-response relationship for substances that cause stochastic responses and the inability to control many sources of exposure. Risk management can address exposures to naturally occurring substances that induce stochastic responses, but only when exposures are enhanced by human activities or can be reduced by reasonable means. 

In contrast, risk management for substances that cause deterministic effects must consider unavoidable exposures to the background of naturally occurring substances that cause such effects. Based on the assumption of a threshold dose-response relationship, the risk from man-made sources is not independent of the risk from undisturbed natural sources, and the total dose from all sources must be considered in evaluating deterministic risks. In the case of ionizing radiation, thresholds for deterministic responses are well above average doses from natural background radiation (see Section 3.2.2.1)... 

NCRP has recommended that annual effective doses to individuals from any practice or source of 10 p.Sv or less are negligible (see Section 4.1.2.5.3). This dose is one percent of the dose limit for continuous exposure to all man-made sources combined discussed in the previous section, and it also is about one percent of the dose from natural background radiation, excluding radon (NCRP, 1987b). The recommended negligible individual dose corresponds to an estimated lifetime fatal cancer risk of about 4 X 10 5. 

The total risk approach accounts for the total dissolved metal in a water body, implying that no distinction is made between the ambient fraction of a metal in a water body and the added fraction (Lepper 2005). This approach can result in a standard below the natural background. Hence, a suggestion in the European Union to account for background is the added risk approach. It allows interpretation of the outcome of exposure and effects analysis or risk characterization in terms of the different fractions (i.e., the natural background [total metal]) and the anthropogenic fraction. 

Accurate and precise identifications and measurements of specific chemical substances are fundamental to environmental studies and protection programs. Determinations are required to understand natural background concentrations of chemicals in the environment, the nature and extent of environmental pollution by anthropogenic chemicals, trends in concentrations of these substances, the transport and fate of chemical substances, and the causes of variations of concentrations intime and space. Accurate and precise determinations are also required to assess human health and ecological risks caused by exposure to natural and anthropogenic substances, establish air and water quality standards, develop pollution control strategies, evaluate the effectiveness of pollution prevention and treatment technologies, and monitor compliance with and the effectiveness... 

The National Coimcil for Radiation Protection (NCRP) has identified a negligible individual risk level (NIRL) as a level of annual excess risk of health effects attributable to irradiation below which further effort to reduce radiation to the individual is unwarranted. The NCRP emphasized that this level should not be confused with an acceptable risk level, a level of significance or a standard. The NCRP recommended a level around half the natural background radiation level the final recommended NIRL level is 1 mrem this level is now called negligible individual dose (NID) level (Harley, 2001, 2008). 

The NCRP recommends an annual effective dose for continuous members of the public in some circumstances of 1 mSV (100 mrem). This value is in addition to natural background level of irradiation approximately twice that (2mSv 200 mrem). In this context, the NIRL was taken to be 1/100 of this level, or 0.01 mSv/year (1 mrem/year). This level of exposure was low enough to have a risk of <1 cancer/1,000,000 and the risk for lung cancer <1/10,000,000. The notation is negligible individual dose (NID) (Harley 2001, 2008). 

A significant increase in the weight of evidence for risks to downstream target areas could be expected from the precision of the term indications that resuspension occurred (Westrich and Forstner, 2005). Under favourable conditions - e.g. in areas exhibiting continuous sedimentation - the study of dated sediment cores has proven particularly useful, as it provides a historical record of the various influences on the aquatic system by indicating both the natural background levels and the anthropogenic accumulation of substances over an extended period of time (Alderton, 1985). 

Current opinion is that there is a small risk to human health from even low levels of exposure to ionizing radiation, but there is also a known quantity of natural background radiation that the human species has always encountered. In 1984, an employee at a nuclear power plant began to set off radiation alarms while walking into the plant. An investigation found that his home contained high levels of radon gas from natural minerals. Radon tests are now routinely performed in many homes. 

---