{"id":27967,"date":"2015-11-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2015-11-11T05:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ashleydev.com\/2015\/11\/11\/a-sunny-view-of-risk\/"},"modified":"2020-08-27T11:38:45","modified_gmt":"2020-08-27T15:38:45","slug":"a-sunny-view-of-risk","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cna.ca\/fr\/2015\/11\/11\/a-sunny-view-of-risk\/","title":{"rendered":"A Sunny View of Risk"},"content":{"rendered":"

By John Stewart<\/strong>
\nDirector, Policy and Research<\/em>
\nCanadian Nuclear Association<\/em><\/p>\n

\"Blue-eyed

Blue-eyed John Stewart<\/p><\/div>\n

Like many blue-eyed, middle-aged men who\u2019ve been hiking, cycling, canoeing and kayaking since childhood, I have basal cell carcinoma, in the form of little low-grade cancerous spots on my skin.<\/p>\n

Exposure to non-sun radiation is one of the main risk factors. It\u2019s apparently #2 after too much sunshine \u2013\u00a0and not counting being blue-eyed, middle-aged, and male, none of which I can be expected to avoid, at least not at this point.<\/p>\n

So how come the medical advice I get doesn\u2019t say anything about avoiding licensed nuclear facilities? My doctors know what I do for a living, but none of them tell me to stay clear of Chalk River, Blind River, Kincardine, Port Hope, Darlington or Pickering.<\/p>\n

Instead, the advice<\/a>\u00a0I get from them is 90% about hats, shirts, glasses and sunscreen (fair enough). About 5% is about avoiding tanning beds and sun lamps (no problem). About 3% is about staying in the shade (ha!). And the remaining 2% is about taking vitamin D so I won\u2019t mind sitting in the shade for the rest of my life.<\/p>\n

Why nothing about the nuclear industry? Because emissions from nuclear facilities are so low, they don\u2019t matter.<\/p>\n

The non-sun radiation sources that health care organizations talk about include anything other than<\/a> nuclear power plants, including:<\/p>\n