The optimisation approach of ALARA in nuclear practice: An early application of the precautionary principle. Scientific uncertainty versus legal uncertainty

The late health effects of exposure to low doses of ionising radiation are subject to scientific controversy: one view finds threats of high cancer incidence exaggerated, while the other view thinks the effects are underestimated. Both views have good scientific arguments in favour of them. Since the nuclear field, both industry and medicine have had to deal with this controversy for many decades. One can argue that the optimisation approach to keep the effective doses as low as reasonably achievable, taking economic and social factors into account (ALARA), is a precautionary approach. However, because of these stochastic effects, no scientific proof can be provided. This paper explores how ALARA and the Precautionary Principle are influential in the legal field and in particular in tort law, because liability should be a strong incentive for safer behaviour. This so-called "deterrence effect" of liability seems to evaporate in today's technical and highly complex society, in particular when dealing with the late health effects of low doses of ionising radiation. Two main issues will be dealt with in the paper: 1. How are the health risks attributable to "low doses" of radiation regulated in nuclear law and what lessons can be learned from the field of radiation protection? 2. What does ALARA have to inform the discussion of the Precautionary Principle and vice-versa, in particular, as far as legal sanctions and liability are concerned? It will be shown that the Precautionary Principle has not yet been sufficiently implemented into nuclear law.