This July, we need your help, and this page will show you how.
An executive order from May 2025 urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to abandon the well-established radiation science in favor of weakening radiation protection standards. Specifically, EO 14300 asked the NRC to reconsider the linear no-threshold (LNT) model, which maintains that risk from radiation exposure is proportional to the dose: Even a tiny amount of radiation causes some small but real increased risk of cancer, and that risk goes up linearly as the dose increases.
The current U.S. radiation standards are already outdated and fail to offer adequate public health protection; now, under EO 14300, the NRC will likely weaken those standards further. NRC's radiation protection standards are referenced and utilized widely, so any weakening of these standards would result in system-wide increases in radiation because the standards used in the United States are referenced globally.
How can I help?
The NRC will be taking public written comments this July. Please share your thoughts on the weakening of radiation protection standards.
We will post the instructions on how and where to comment when the Federal Register Notice becomes available.
Effects of Weakening Radiation Protection Standards:
- More radioactive pollution in our air, food, and water. NRC's specific proposal will not be known until it publishes its draft rule, but the agency is expected to raise the allowable public radiation dose 5 to 100 times (and possibly as high as 10 to 1000 times). (President Trump’s radical attack on radiation safety) (Implications of Weakening Radiation Protection Standards)
- Increased allowable radiation in the consumer goods supply, radioactive materials being made into everyday items like cookware, dental fillings, zippers, and glasses. (Radioactive Waste "Recycling" Into the Free Market)
- More radiation emissions and pollution allowed across nuclear facilities, including toxic waste sites, power plants, uranium mines, etc. (EO 14300)
- Radioactively contaminated sites that already exist in the U.S. would not get cleaned up. (EO 14300)
- Worse health impacts for women, children, and marginalized communities. (Disproportionate impact of radiation and radiation regulation)
How to Write a Public Comment
Each comment should be unique to give the biggest impact. You don’t need to be an “expert;” it is important for the NRC to see lots of comments from many different people with different backgrounds.
1. You can start by introducing yourself and and explaining why this issue is important to you, your family, and your community.
2. Then, state your position on radiation protection standards.
3. Next, explain the reasoning behind your position. You can use any of the information that we have provided on this page. You can give as many reasons as you would like.
4. Conclude by restating your position
Here are the Facts
- Radioactive exposure causes cellular damage. Radioactive exposure can lead to cancer, heart disease, infertility, loss of pregnancy, birth defects, cardiovascular disease, and auto-immune diseases. (Beir VII)
- Increasing the permitted radiation exposure standards allows the nuclear industry to generate more radioactive pollution —and more profit. This blatant attempt to make industry money by allowing more harmful radiation pollution exposure to the public is outrageous. (EO 14300)
- All radioactive exposure is harmful, exposure adds up over your lifetime and across generations. (Disproportionate Impacts of Radiation Exposure on Women, Children, and Pregnancy: Taking Back our Narrative)
- The current standards are based on an adult male body—not women, not children, not girls. Girls face higher lifetime cancer risks. Pregnancy exposures can affect three generations at once. (Disproportionate impact of radiation and radiation regulation)
- President Trump signing an EO does not change the science or the risks to the public. The NRC should follow the science, not a political agenda.