The upcoming March 8 marks both International Women’s Day and the closing negotiations for the United Nations’ Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons Third Meeting of States Parties. To date, surprisingly little research has been conducted on the effects of ionizing radiation on people other than adult males. Debates about the future of nuclear weapons would benefit from being informed by a more thorough understanding of radiation’s harmful impacts, and how the harm varies by age and gender.
Two individuals who have contributed research to this debate are Amanda M. Nichols and Mary Olson, who recently published a 2024 report titled Gender and Ionizing Radiation: Towards a New Research Agenda Addressing Disproportionate Harm at the request of the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR).
The report focuses on the mid- and long-term consequences of radiation exposure, especially on women and girls, shedding light on the disproportionate harm females face compared to males. Nichols and Olson found that girls aged 0-5 years are most at risk for developing cancer and non-cancer-related health consequences due to ionizing radiation exposure. The report also highlights the systemic inequities in health research, care, and ionizing radiation exposure that contribute to disproportionate health risks for women and marginalized groups.
Furthermore, the report calls for gender-sensitive policies in radiation protection and emphasizes the need for inclusive studies and equitable practices. It outlines an agenda for future age- and gender-inclusive research, urging radiation researchers and scholars worldwide to address these critical questions in their work.
Mary Olson and Amanda Nichols raise important questions about the biological factors that make women more susceptible to radiation harm than men, especially during childhood. They emphasize the need for further research to understand why females suffer more cardiovascular harm than males and the impact of gendered factors on radiation impacts.
In terms of policy frameworks, Olson suggests moving away from using Reference Man as the standard for safety regulations and instead centering radiation protection on those most harmed, such as women and children. Nichols highlights the need for alternative models that consider the most vulnerable populations, particularly little girls between the ages of 0 and 5, in setting radiological protections.
Overall, the report by Nichols and Olson underscores the importance of addressing gender and age disparities in radiation research and policy frameworks. It calls for a more comprehensive and inclusive approach to understanding the impact of ionizing radiation on different populations and emphasizes the need for gender-sensitive policies to protect the most vulnerable individuals.
