Former NRC counsel attacks quoted source used in “Radiation isn’t the Real Risk”

In a recent post titled Message is reaching the public – radiation risks have been greatly exaggerated I pointed to a New York Times piece by George Johnson describing how the evacuations ordered after the Fukushima reactor core melt events has already caused about 1600 early fatalities.

He also explained how the radioactive material that escaped from the plant, even using the admittedly conservative assumption that there is no threshold below which radiation is hazardous, might have caused as many as 160 early fatalities or as few as zero.

The computed radiation-induced casualties, based on the long-accepted LNT model, would have been spread over several decades after the event.

The article also mentioned that some scientists believe that the small doses of radiation, delivered in a very small, but steady rate, may be stimulative and produce more good than harm.

In response to the article, Peter Crane, identified as a retired person who once worked as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission counsel for special projects, wrote a critical letter to the editor of the New York Times. His letter, titled A Disputed Notion didn’t refer to the primary message that Johnson was trying to convey, that actions to avoid a trivial dose of radiation caused far more harm than simply accepting the exposure.

Instead, Mr. Crane berated the New York Times editor for publishing “a view of radiation risks that quotes only one source, Mohan Doss.” He then attempted to discredit Dr. Doss by implying he is some kind of heretic who is promoting hormeis and that “the National Academies of Science, along with the rest of mainstream scientific authority regard hormesis as wholly without merit.”

That characterization is false. There is no doubt that Dr. Mohan Doss, a medical physicist and associate professor at the Fox Chase Cancer Center, accepts the hypothesis that low doses of ionizing radiation stimulate the human immune system and result in an overall health benefit. He has published a number of peer-reviewed, heavily sourced papers explaining why. In other words, he accepts the evidence that supports hormesis and contradicts the 1950s vintage, no-threshold hypothesis.

The part of Mr. Crane’s statement that is demonstrably false is the assertion that the National Academies of Science “regard hormesis as wholly without merit.”

In 2006, the National Academy of Sciences committee on the Biological Effect of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) published its seventh report, which was titled Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII (Phase 2). Far from dismissing hormesis as being wholly without merit, Appendix D of the report is titled Hormesis.

It contains a lengthy discussion of a reasonably representative sample of the numerous studies that had been completed by about early 2004, allowing time for the study to be written up, peer-reviewed, published and included in the deliberations of the BEIR VII committee, which were completed in time to begin circulating the draft report in 2005. The summary of Appendix D is worded quite differently from the dismissive, rather insulting characterization from the former NRC attorney.

The committee concludes that the assumption that any stimulatory hormetic effects from low doses of ionizing radiation will have a significant health benefit to humans that exceeds potential detrimental effects from the radiation exposure is unwarranted at this time.
(Emphasis added.)

As a former counsel, Mr. Crane should be more careful with his words.

The NAS BEIR did not dismiss hormesis as a crackpot theory that was “without merit.” They reviewed the information available to them at the time of their deliberations and found it insufficiently convincing. A decade has passed since that statement was crafted. There have been numerous studies conducted in the intervening years, particularly those completed as part of the DOE Low Dose Radiation Research program.

The results of those studies were not available to the BEIR VII committee, so it is safe to say they have not been evaluated to determine if there is now enough evidence to change the committee’s collective judgement.

It is also safe to say that the National Academy of Sciences, which is the esteemed body whose 1956 committee on the Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation (BEAR) released and promoted the report that first asserted the no threshold hypothesis, has an inherited institutional reluctance to admit that its long standing position on the “no safe dose” assumption has been incorrect.

Additional Reading

Advanced understanding of low dose radiation health effects – LNT 999. October 2015 issue of Health Physics News pp 23-24

More financial motives for UBS’s effort to encourage nuclear plant retirements in Northeast

Yesterday, I wrote a quick post that linked a recently issued UBS report’s negative views about the economic viability of merchant nuclear power plants in the US to UBS’s large portfolio of troubled loans to companies involved in various aspects of the natural gas extraction technique known as “fracing” (alternatively spelled as fracking in many publications, including this one.)

Low oil and gas prices have hammered revenues at the companies that borrowed the money, threatening their ability to remain current on the loans. Because of the high risk of default, UBS is having a hard time selling the loans. The pool of uninformed buyers has shrunk as more and more people realize the deeply troubled nature of the portfolio.

Recent sales of fracing-related loans have netted just 65 cents or less on the dollar.

This morning I read another article, this one from Power Engineering, titled UBS Warns More Nuclear Retirements on the Way covering the UBS report that the Boston Globe article discussed yesterday. It included another clue about the extent of the at-risk loans UBS made in recent years on the basis of high oil prices.

The article mentioned the expected drop in average Northeast regional natural gas prices that should come when the “Constitution Pipeline” project is completed. A drop in prices, which benefits consumers, is not really the goal of companies that build and own pipelines. Their interest is in the revenue they receive from selling capacity on the pipeline. In this case, however, the pipeline owners have additional financial interests.

The Constitution Pipeline is a 121 mile connector between gas-producing regions in the Marcellus shale region of Pennsylvania and natural gas consuming areas in the Northeast. Its capacity is well booked in advance because of the current transportation constraints that limit the total amount of gas that can flow between the regions, often resulting in market price spikes when there are periods of high demand.

The project, announced in April 2012, is owned by a partnership between Williams Partners L.P. (75%) and Cabot Oil and Gas Corporation (25%). Just a month before announcing the Constitution Pipeline project, Williams Partners L.P. announced the $2.5 billion purchase of Caiman Eastern Midstream LLC, a relatively small oil and gas gathering and processing company with significant capacity to extract oil and gas from the Marcellus, but little or no capability to move that gas to market.

In 2012, there was a rather large price differential between wellhead prices in the Marcellus shale region and consumer prices in the Northeast. Williams Partners L.P., which has a large pipeline business, saw the opportunity to profit from both the extraction and delivery of gas. There is a rosy description of the project’s attractiveness and expected returns for investors on the Williams Partners investor web site titled Williams Partners Announces $2.5 Billion Acquisition to Establish Major Footprint in Liquids-Rich Area of Marcellus Shale; Plans Joint Venture to Pursue Utica Shale Opportunities.

UBS Investment Bank and Jefferies provided financial advice to Williams Partners for the Caiman acquisition. UBS Investment Bank also provided a $1.78 billion interim liquidity facility to help fund the cash portion of the transaction. The expected profitability of the acquisition and the subsequent Constitution Pipeline construction project is closely tied to having an increasing demand for natural gas in the Northeast.

The executives and managers at UBS Investment Bank and its client companies have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize shareholder value, an outcome that is driven by a number of variables. Executives often simplify the action prioritization process for employees by focusing them on maximizing relatively short term profits. It is beyond my current capabilities for forensic accounting to determine the current extent of loans from UBS to Williams Partners, but there is a decent probability that the strong relationship between the bank and the company still exists.

Permanently getting rid of a few large nuclear power stations, which each produce between five and eight billion kilowatt hours of electricity each year, would help increase the demand for natural gas and most likely increase the average realized sales price. That would help improve the value of a troubled loan portfolio.

Issuing a strongly negative report about the future financial performance of competitive plants is a pretty inexpensive way to call in the usual suspects in the antinuclear movement to serve as unpaid and perhaps unsuspecting tools. Many lifelong antinukes eagerly participate in an energy supply constraining action to kill off productive nuclear power plants while not realizing who will reap the almost inevitable rewards. The tactic, like grabbing the shirt of a receiver streaking down the sidelines, works well as long as none of the referees throw a flag.

My goal is calling attention to actions and motives that might otherwise go unobserved. It’s probably not illegal, but it sure isn’t in the best interests of the common defense, security, environmental cleanliness and prosperity of the United States to replace reliable, emission free nuclear power plants with fracked natural gas.

It’s also not in the best long term interests of companies that own well-run nuclear plants to listen to financially motivated analysts that want them to destroy long-term value because of short term commodity prices in historically dynamic market.

Gas prices are volatile

Gas prices are volatile

Aside: When I searched for related posts to add depth to this story, I was a little surprised to find an Atomic Insights post about B&W’s decision to dramatically reduce its investments in the mPower reactor development project in the search results. That story included a mention of the fact that UBS analysts were encouraged by the decision; they upgraded their recommendation on B&W’s stock. Hmm End Aside.

Why would UBS root for Entergy’s Merchant Nukes to Close?

UBS Investment Bank holds a large portfolio of loans to companies involved in extracting natural gas using the combination of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing. Because of the healthy fees associated with generating those loans initially, UBS, along with several other large investment banks, supported drilling programs for production that was not justified by the […]

Read more »

Meredith Angwin with Pat McDonald on Vote for Vermont

Meredith Angwin, who blogs at Yes Vermont Yankee and Northwest Clean Energy, was recently invited to talk with Pat McDonald on her television show called Vote for Vermont: Listening Beyond the Sound Bites. Angwin and McDonald covered a number of topics during the conversation. Meredith explained how we safely store used nuclear fuel, why some […]

Read more »

Message is reaching the public – radiation risks have been greatly exaggerated

An important message that has been discussed often by web publications like Hiroshima Syndrome, Yes Vermont Yankee, Canadian Energy Issues, Nuke Power Talk, Neutron Bytes, Atomic Power Review, and ANS Nuclear Cafe has jumped to the mainstream press in the form of a New York Times article by George Johnson titled When Radiation Isn’t the […]

Read more »

Energy for Humanity vision explained by co-founder Kirsty Gogan

Nuclear4Climate posted the below video on their YouTube channel yesterday. It features Kirsty Gogan, the Executive Director and one of three cofounders of the U.K. based civil society group Energy for Humanity. Though there is a small issue with sound quality, I think you’ll agree that Kirsty makes a strong case for nuclear energy as […]

Read more »

Speaking in favor of nuclear at DEQ clean power plan listening session

"Tehachapi wind farm 3" by Stan Shebs. 
Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Commons -

Yesterday evening, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) hosted one of several clean power plan listening sessions in Roanoke. I attended the meeting. It was a true listening session; the DEQ representatives did very little talking and a lot of note taking. Each person who signed up to make a comment was given five […]

Read more »

Why did Richard Nixon so strongly endorse nuclear energy in April 1973?


On April 18, 1973, President Richard Nixon gave a special message to the congress of the United States on energy policy. Unlike more recent offerings by presidents regarding energy, that document placed a huge emphasis on making regulatory and legislative changes that would enable the rapid expansion of nuclear power; the ‘N’ word appears in […]

Read more »

Atomic Show #244 – September 2015 atomic update

For the first time in several months, I gathered a group of nuclear energy experts to chat about recent events and announcements in nuclear energy. Participants in this episode include: Meredith Angwin who blogs at Yes Vermont Yankee and Northwest Clean Energy Steve Aplin who blogs at Canadian Energy Issues Les Corrice who blogs at […]

Read more »

Saving the environment from Environmentalism Part II

by Paul Lorenzini Part II: Rethinking Environmentalism Today’s environmentalism is premised on two fundamental ideologies: first, solutions must “harmonize with nature” and second, nuclear power must be opposed at all costs. In the first part of this discussion I addressed the conflicts raised by constraining environmentalism in this way and how those constraints are working […]

Read more »

How would a Rockefeller crony react to Eddington’s vision of subatomic energy?

Recently an Atomic Insights reader shared a document that inspired a new line of thinking about the chronology of atomic energy development. The inspirational document was a PDF copy of a chapter titled Little Red Schoolhouse from Freeman Dyson‘s memoir, Disturbing the Universe. It was a brief tale about a memorable burst of creativity in […]

Read more »

Saving the Environment from Environmentalism

By Paul Lorenzini Part I. Must we destroy the environment to save it? When Jonathan Franzen wrote a provocative piece in The New Yorker earlier this year, “Climate Capture”, Chris Clarke, an influential environmental blogger in California, described it as having “walked up to a hornet’s nest and hit it with a baseball bat.”[1] Franzen […]

Read more »