The focus during the development of radiation protection philosophy has naturally been on ensuring the protection of humans from the hazards of ionizing radiation. It was assumed that this would also ensure that other species were protected. However, the assumption was never rigorously tested. The assumption has been addressed by national and international groups over the last ten years and methodologies have been developed for assessing the radiation doses to various species of plants and animals (Howard et al., 2010; IAEA, 2011d; ICRP, 2008).

In the most recent International Basic Safety Standards on Radiation Protection (BSS) (IAEA, 2012a) the topic of environmental protection is explicitly addressed for the first time. In previous versions of the BSS it was assumed that by providing protection to humans from the hazards of ionizing radiation the environment would also be protected. The new BSS reiterates the belief that, in general, such protection will be provided but identifies the protection of the environment as an issue necessitating assessment to ensure the sustainability, now and in the future, of agriculture, forestry, fisheries and tourism, and of the use of natural resources.

Although the need to consider protection of the environment explicitly is now formally identified, the available evidence is that, in situations of normal operation of the nuclear fuel cycle, there will be no adverse effects on the environment. Radiation doses to humans living in the vicinity of nuclear facilities are almost invariably low (UNSCEAR, 2010) and this also applies to plants and animals living in the same environment. It has been recognised, however, that in environments where humans are not present, for example, in the vicinity of some uranium mining and milling enterprises in remote territories, that the main environmental concern is the protection of natural ecosystems (IAEA, 2005b).