Search Results

By the late 1970s, the hazards of low-level radiation became a highly noticeable and a severely debated issue. There is a public debate about the low-level radiation which was triggered by complaints of “atomic soldiers” who had been exposed to radiation while witnessing nuclear weapons tests during 1950s and by a series of studies that lifted new apprehensions about the hazards of small dozes. In an atmosphere of continuing controversy and unavoidable uncertainty, both the Environmental Protection Agency and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission undertook major revisions of their regulations on radiation protection. Both incorporated new findings and approaches, but neither escaped criticism for policies that were in some minds overly lax and in others unduly stringent.

Chapter 4 covers two related sets of U.S. government controls on nuclear-related items that flow from the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978. One, administered by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), covers exports of nuclear hardware and nuclear materials. The other, called “Part 810” and administered by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) of the U.S. Department of Energy, covers assistance by U.S. persons (including transfers of nuclear-related technology) to foreign nuclear activities. The chapter explains: which items and activities are subject to the NRC and NNSA regulations; the basis and criteria for their restrictions; how to determine whether your commodity or activity is covered and, if so, whether you will need a license to export or reexport it; how to get a license if one is required; and the potential penalties for violating the rules. The chapter also explains how the NRC and NNSA rules relate to the regulatory regimes covered in other parts of the book.

This chapter reflects on the ‘half-life’ of radioisotopes in biology and medicine, stressing that their ubiquity in laboratories and clinics derived from the U.S. government’s policy of promoting atomic energy during the early Cold War. The consumption of radioisotopes is now waning, as many biologists have shifted to the use of non-radioactive tracers, although some radioisotopes (especially technetium-99m) remain important to medical diagnosis. The AEC’s radioisotope supply not only affected postwar research and clinical practice, but also involved the U.S. government in the regulation of scientists, an enduring legacy.

The past couple of decades have been a confusing, frustrating period for engineers. With their creations making the world an ever richer, healthier, more comfortable place, it should have been a time of triumph and congratulation for them. Instead, it has been an era of discontent. Even as people have come to rely on technology more and more, they have liked it less. They distrust the machines that are supposedly their servants. Sometimes they fear them. And they worry about the sort of world they are leaving to their children. Engineers, too, have begun to wonder if something is wrong. It is not simply that the public doesn’t love them. They can live with that. But some of the long-term costs of technology have been higher than anyone expected: air and water pollution, hazardous wastes, the threat to the Earth’s ozone layer, the possibility of global warming. And the drumbeat of sudden technological disaster over the past twenty years is enough to give anyone pause: Three Mile Island, Bhopal, the Challenger, Chernobyl, the Exxon Valdez, the downing of a commercial airliner by a missile from the U.S.S. Vincennes. Is it time to rethink our approach to technology? Some engineers believe that it is. In one specialty after another, a few prophets have emerged who argue for doing things in a fundamentally new way. And surprisingly, although these visionaries have focused on problems and concerns unique to their own particular areas of engineering, a single underlying theme appears in their messages again and again: Engineers should pay more attention to the larger world in which their devices will function, and they should consciously take that world into account in their designs. Although this may sound like a simple, even a self-evident, bit of advice, it is actually quite a revolutionary one for engineering. Traditionally, engineers have aimed at perfecting their machines as machines. This can be seen in the traditional measures of machines: how fast they are, how much they can produce, the quality of their output, how easy they are to use, how much they cost, how long they last.