108 Comments

  1. It is not an assumption that there is no safe dose of radiation, that is a pathological lie.

    We observe radiation causes mutations and we observe mutations lead to cancer.

    That is reality.

    Since religious people can’t handle reality, I expect to be censored, which is how religious folks deal with those who criticize them.

    1. ‘ We observe radiation causes mutations and we observe mutations lead to cancer.’

      How can you keep saying this oversimplified nonsense? When it has been pointed out repeatedly that humans have response mechanisms. LNT is not rational.

      By the way, I have a PhD in Chemical Physics from UC San Diego, I was a Post-doc at MIT and worked for the Dean of Science there. I have 30 years experience in Academia and Industrial R&D. I am not a radiation protection expert, but I certainly think rationally.

      When you call someone ‘religious’ who disagrees with you, that is certainly the pot calling the kettle black. Everything about what you write is exactly the response of a ‘religious’ zealot … it seems that you are impervious to evidence or logical argument. You are completely dogmatic.

    2. @Bob Applebaum

      I believe the antidote for stubborn repetition of myth over observation of reality is debate, even if it becomes a little boring.

      You didn’t observe radiation causing mutation, Muller did. As we know from his own words, the lowest level at which he observed those mutations was 400 R and the creatures that he observed them in were Drosophila, (fruit flies), not humans or even mammals. As we know from Ed Calabrese’s research, Muller chose to ignore and then to obscure research results showing that the mutations did not occur when the same creatures were exposed to lower doses.

      No one has ever proven that “mutations lead to cancer.” That leap of faith occurred sometime between the initial BEAR genetics committee report and a couple of year later when it was assumed that somatic (unobservable) effects of radiation doses must also include cancer.

      An interesting thread that runs through the early efforts to impose the LNT as a replacement for the threshold dose response model that had been the scientific consensus for several decades and protected tens of thousands of radiation workers from harm already was that nearly every pusher of the new theory was funded by the same foundation and that the man from the foundation who wrote the checks for those pushers served as the Chairman of the BEAR 1 genetics committee.

      Hmmm.

    3. “Since religious people can’t handle reality, I expect to be censored, which is how religious folks deal with those who criticize them.”

      Most people here are NOT religious. However, that being the case, make your claim to Father Georges LeMaitre who came up with the Big Bang Theory, or Father Michał Kazimierz Heller, cosmologist and winner of the 2008 Templeton Prize.

      Bob Applebaum, you are the one incapable of handling reality, not religious people. And if it were not for these religious people whom you deride (see link below), we wouldn’t have the science that we do have today.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_scientists

      Take time to open up your mind for a change (or maybe it is open to such an extent that all the knowledge has fallen out), and google and read “Fides et Ratio” by JP II instead of off-gassing. It’s 63 pages long, and will require the exercise of some skull sweat to understand, but it is well worth the exercise.

    4. Sometimes, we observe that radiation does NOT cause mutations.

      And that’s the issue.

  2. When you EXTRAPOLATE high dose caused mutations to be the same in frequency and effect as at low doses WITHOUT having actual data, what do you call that?

    And

    1. I think extrapolate is still the right term. It’s just that we are not used to extrapolating to the left of the plot.

  3. And when you observe beneficial effects at low doses and ignore those, what do you call that?

    Who is religious now?

  4. I’d call that another lie. We don’t do that in the science of health physics. DeNiArs (LNT deniers who are similar to evolution deniers or climate change deniers) claim that is done in order to manufacture a false narrative to attract the gullible.

    But that’s not what is done. Stick with scientific consensus bodies. Not the morons who want you to doubt them.

      1. @Rod Adams

        You’re wrong. Health Physics is a science. Also, in addition to being a trade, Health Physics is a profession.

        There’s no reason to disparage a whole field because you’ve lost your temper with one individual who is a member of that field.

        MedicineNet.com, among many others, defines Health Physics as: “the science of human health and radiation exposure”.

        If you really believe in your own narrow definition of Health Physics, I’d like to hear what you think of Physics, Mathematics and Engineering. By your definition, these fields are also not science since each one requires that “people are taught formulas by rote”.

        1. @JMS

          I apologize. I did lose my temper at a man who keeps disparaging serious research scientists, especially since I am well aware of his limited educational background.

          1. Rod — that is one thing that clearly distinguishes you from so many who get into the fray (whatever “fray” that may be): you apologize when you lose your temper and you admit when you are wrong. So many “entrench” themselves — but the trench they dig is often a grave for their own objectivity.

    1. “I’d call that another lie.”

      Oddly enough, wasn’t Galileo called a liar and a heretic when he first released his discoveries?

      “Stick with scientific consensus bodies. Not the morons who want you to doubt them.”

      If had we always followed the ‘advice’ you just gave us, then we would probably still be burning witches and driving oxen.

      You know, the attitudes you show remind me of a group of aliens who featured in star trek, back in the late 90s. The Malon. A bunch of folks who turned down the offer of free clean up tech for their reactor waste just so they could protect the jobs of their “waste disposal*” agents.
      *Aka “guys who just dump the waste in someones back yard”

      1. As usual, people do not know the full story of what happened with regard to the Church and Galileo. Instead, they read information bites and propaganda from secularists who rewrite history with a preconceived and biased agenda. Please read here:

        http://www.ewtn.com/library/homelibr/galileo.txt

        And here:

        http://vaticanobservatory.org/research/history-of-astronomy/54-history-of-astronomy/the-galileo-affair/370-the-galileo-affair

        The truth is in the details. Furthermore, were it not for the Church, we would not have the science – including nuclear science – that we do have today. Additionally, Galileo himself remained a deeply religious man to his very death.

        1. I know that this has nothing to do with all things nuclear, but someone else did mention above the sad Galileo affair. Therefore, being a nuclear professional, I did more research. If anyone is curious as to the address given by Pope John Paul II on this issue to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on November 1, 1992, then please go here:

          http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1992/october/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19921031_accademia-scienze_it.html

          Unfortunately, I can find only the Italian, Spanish and French editions of the speech. There is no English translation that I could find, and I am at a loss as to where the Vatican has archived the original Latin, which I do know and could translate, but apparently the Church with its 2000 year history has a head start on all the nuclear document control databases in being uniquely user unfriendly. 😉 But maybe somebody here knows Italian, the text to which the link above provides.

          Suffice it to say what I said before: the problem isn’t religious people (as Bob Applebaum insinuates). It’s people with closed minds (or alternatively, minds so far open that all the knowledge has fallen out). And that applies to accepting a relatively new idea: a little radiation exposure can be beneficial for biological organisms. That idea, however, threatens the lust for money by those who profit from fear of radiation. This is NOT a technical issue. It is a moral issue, and as Rod Adams rightly pointed out, people are dying because of that unreasoning fear whose root lies firmly in the love for mammon. And I am certain that Popes John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis I would all agree with that (especially since Francis continues to hammer that point again and again and again).

    2. Bob, you sound like the lead lemming in a charge over the LNT cliff.
      Although I lean heavily toward the threshold model, I am open to evidence to the contrary. I assume you’re a smart guy so I don’t understand why you demonstrate a lack of wisdom in your replies…I hardly think this audience merits the description of moron. It would be more constructive to present evidence, documentation, and facts rather than a tiresome repetition of disparaging references to religion, et al.
      When “scientific consensus bodies” announce X is the truth, that may be the end of your curiosity, but others in the scientific community, perhaps non-members in the ivory tower club, may wish or push for a better explanation of the observed phenomenon. The “consensus bodies,” like a prize fighter, must fight and defend their position. Neither can afford to simply declare victory until they voluntarily retire.

  5. When it came time to pursue a PhD topic, I was briefly thrilled by the prospect of working on molecular vehicles for boron neutron capture therapy. Though this therapy doesn’t require isotopes from reactors or accelerators, it does involve the the endogenous production of boron-11 from boron-10 and resulting alpha emission. When chemically targeted to tumour cells, this would nuke them from the inside. But funding was knocked back when reviewers deemed it too speculative. I enjoyed what I ended up working on, but it wasn’t potential targeted cancer treatment, and I’ll always be disappointed by that, and by the associated narrow vision of bureaucrats.

  6. So, the perks of working at a Nuclear Power Plant:

    1. Great pay
    2. Full benefits
    3. Great retirement
    4. Being Pro-Nuclear the feeling of making the world at better place
    5. Shift work, along with vacation time means a lot of time off for family life
    6. Extremely safe work environment

    And now….
    7. Radiation exposure

  7. “Where is the clear, unambiguous, convincing, chart of measured data showing many types of radiation, including uncertainty estimates, that illustrates these beneficial effects?”

    Where is the similar chart for LNT? It doesn’t exist. Indeed, all the charts “for” LNT always look contrived to me, like someone doesn’t realize that excel has switch that forces a regression thru zero and leaves that switch selected even though a simple viewing reveals a threshold in the real data.

    If you want such a graph regarding radon, check out Cohen’s work.

  8. Where is the clear, unambiguous, convincing, chart of measured data showing many types of radiation, including uncertainty estimates, that illustrates these beneficial effects?

    Here it is.  Start at the bottom of page 30, paragraph 15.  Read through to the table on page 31.  0.8 rad per day increased the lifespan of the test rodents by no less than 25%.

    Say “thank you”.

    1. Thank you!

      That’s a fabulous resource that I had not seen before. And it’s very, very interesting that the charted data of Mole 1957, and the uncharted data of Carlson et al. 1957 both indicate a hormesis effect peaking in the range of 1-2 rad per week (60-120 µSv/hr). Every single place in the Fukushima evacuation zone is at or under this radiation level.

      1. An increase of 25% is the equivalent of raising a lifespan of 70 years to nearly 90 years. Could this be an indication that low levels of Radon in your basement could actually be good for you? That is a huge increase.

    2. Thank you!

      This is great.

      It is unfortunate that the biological mechanism which causes this increase in lifespan is still not fully understood (AFAIK?), and that even if parts of it are understood, it is such complicated and specialised knowledge that it is practically impossible to bring it into a discussion on radiation health effects that is intuitively understandable by laypersons. (if there is a way to do this, I’d like to know about it!)

      People like Bob Applebaum have a huge advantage in discussions about radiation health, because it is readily understood by most people that ionising radiation causes damage to DNA and hence that it most probably contributes to cancer risk. Putting forward a readily understood case for likely beneficial effects of such damage is by comparison extremely difficult.

      On the other hand, there is perhaps a common analogy which is understood by people. It is the one I’m currently using at any rate. I describe the biological effects of going on a brisk 5 mile jog, which is understood to cause stress to muscle cells (commonly known as ‘muscle ache’ as a result of exercise) in combination with increased metabolism (due to the physical exertion), which surely increases the risk of DNA damage and hence cancer. But clearly, physical exercise is good for health, despite this damage and DNA stress. Physical exercise is recommended by the entire health profession. So clearly – up to a point – biological damage due to physical exercise can be discounted against the benefits of stresses the body, which benefits include increased fitness and resistance to disease. Similarly, the biological stress due to radiation can be discounted against the positive effects of the response of cells to stress, which is better fitness and disease resistance.

      Is this analogy a fitting one? Should I use a different one or should I present it differently?

      1. Is this analogy a fitting one? Should I use a different one or should I present it differently?

        @Joris van Dorp

        Leaving aside the issue of false equivalence, as with all things of this general nature “moderation” is a key variable (and appears to be somewhat quantifiable within a specific range of variability as it is with radiation dose exposures).

        http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/jogging-can-be-harmful-scientists-claim-9233877.html

        “Those do moderate exercise – amounting to two to three hours of running a week – live the longest, while people running a lot, and those who do none at all, both have shorter lifespans …”

    3. Thank you for the reference, but I am not persuaded that it supports the claim of beneficial effects of chronic low level radiation. Here is what it says:

      1. Paragraph 14: “Among other details, the report considers whether a threshold dose exists below which the life-span is unaffected. The report finds the evidence equivocal. A significant conclusion might be established for animals if very great numbers of them were used in such experiments. The report points out, however, that even if such a conclusion were established, its application to the human case would require a theoretical basis to justify such an extrapolation. Such justification is lacking at present.”

      A lot of subjunctives and counter-factuals here. The bottom line is that the authors of this piece are explicitly saying that it’s unclear (circa 1957) whether there is a threshold below which lifespan is unaffected. They are emphatically not claiming clear, compelling evidence for a threshold below which there are beneficial effects.

      2. Paragraph 15: As you note, the table shows an extremely large effect on the median lifespan of rats exposed to .8 r/day or ~5 r/week in the form of Co60 gamma rays. But this was a very small study (22 rats per group), and there are no confidence intervals so I don’t think one can draw firm conclusions from this. Has this study been reproduced in the 60 years since this work was done on a much larger number of animals? If so, it would be interesting to see the results. If not, I’d be very interested to know why, given the enormous (unbelievable?) size of the reported effect.

      I would also note that the weekly dose for this experiment is around 5 r which lines up pretty well with second Lorenz data point (open circle) in figure 1 which shows no difference from the control. This could have something to do with the one group measuring means and the other medians, but it does seem to cast some doubt on the claim of 25% increase in median lifespan.

      3. There were two groups in the review by Mole that were exposed to doses of less than 1 r/week (both groups were exposed to gamma radiation rather than fast neutrons). Both the man lifespan of both these groups were ~7 to 9% longer (judging by eye) than the control groups but the statistical significance is weak – the results are consistent with the null hypothesis of zero effect. (“It should be noted that there are eight experimental points at weekly does of less than 10 r or its equivalent in neutrons, and that the duration of life in none of these experimental groups was significantly different (P > .05) from its control”.)

      4. Mole notes that there are fairly significant differences (~5%) in mean survival time in control group rats, even when efforts are made to make the environment as similar as possible. He writes: “The apparent increase in survival-time at the lowest daily dose used by Lorenz et al. may well be due to the fact that the animals at this does-level were kept without air conditioning in different rooms from all the other groups, including the controls.” He goes on to write “Replication on a sufficiently large scale […] could overcome this particular difficulty [experimental noise]. In fact, however, replication is almost completely lacking from the experiments listed in table I […] no one concerned with duration of life irradiation experiments has ever repeated his experiments even once…”

      5. Finally, just looking at the data in figure 1 (the eye is an excellent filter), I the dashed and dotted lines 2 and 3 – which seems to asymptote to zero effect at low both look quite reasonable. By contrast, drawing a line that goes through the first two points, at dose ~= .8 r/w looks pretty hard without introducing an unnatural bump.

      So my overall take on this paper is that it doesn’t really lean strongly one way or the other on whether there are beneficial effects from low level radiation.

      I’m sure that in the last 60 years there have been many many additional experiments on this topic. Does anyone know of a good, peer reviewed, recent, and reasonably comprehensive review of the literature on this topic?

        1. Keith,

          Thank you for the reference. I can only see the abstract and so wasn’t able to read the whole paper. Do you have a link to the whole paper? Did these researchers confirm that the median lifespan of rats exposed to .8 r of radiation per day increased by 25% as they claimed in the first paper? Has this result been independently confirmed (or refuted) numerous times by other groups in the subsequent 55 years? What of the apparent discrepancy with the Lorenz result (second data point) in the paper quoted by Engineer Poet?

      1. I would not expect 0.8 rad/day to be beneficial long term for long lived humans and other creatures. The experiments with dogs clearly show reduction in life expectancy above 0.03 rad/day, though no increase in cancer, oddly.

      1. Rod – The point that EL is trying to make is that Dr. Cuttler was one of the many signatories of the petition to revisit and revise the American Physical Society’s 2007 Statement on “Climate Change.”

        To give you some background, basically after the petition, the APS assigned a committee to consider the matter. The committee rejected any changes without any more justification than “Well, the IPCC says that …” and the council rubber-stamped the committee’s recommendation (or “overwhelmingly rejected” the petition in EL’s parlance). There wasn’t any detailed analysis or anything. The APS simply deferred to the IPCC.

        I remember this, because I was a member of the APS at the time. (Unlike EL, I have a background in the hard sciences.) The only good thing to come out of the petition is that the APS published a clarification of their 2007 statement, which was much better written and much more sensible than their original statement, but which still did not replace the statement. Nevertheless, because of the poor way in which it was handled, I let my APS membership expire after that, and I haven’t given a dime to the organization since. Several prominent members of the society left in disgust after this.

        Anyhow, this was five years ago. It’s ancient history. Currently, the APS is again in the process of reviewing the its statement on climate change. Why EL thinks that the process of review is somehow strange or wrong just boggles my mind. Apparently, the APS doesn’t think so.

        Then again, his main link is to a professional propaganda site and to a Gestapo-like dossier on the petition signers that, quite frankly, is so strange that it borders on paranoia. So I guess we all know where EL’s head is.

    1. I seriously hope you are not equivocating climate change deniers with hormesis scientists but my experience with you suggests the worst…

        1. Aw, now I get it. You don’t have an argument to counter the many studies and references given to you on hormesis and thresholds, so now you’ve degenerated to playing the man who presented the data. Ignoring the fact that almost all of Cuttler’s presentation references were not his own research!

          Hey, don’t shoot the messenger. Its not Cuttler’s fault that you’re such a deconstructionist.

          1. @Cyril R.

            I’m not too bothered that Cuttler is a climate skeptic. If you’re bothered by it, maybe you have a good reason for being so. It’s not for me to say.

          2. “I’m not too bothered that Cuttler is a climate skeptic.”

            EL, you are bothered enough to bring up the subject as part of your argument. Which lacks any sort of content. And now you say that the irrelevant argument you brought up wasn’t even true.

            You are really weird to not see your own silly-ness and lack of arguments in the hormesis debate.

            You are not convincing anyone of the validity of LNT or falseness of hormesis. You’re just bringing up “facts” that have no bearing on the main arguments of the hormesis debate, and even that you can’t do without contradicting yourself.

          3. You are not convincing anyone of the validity of LNT or falseness of hormesis.

            @Cyril R.

            Who “claimed” I said hormesis was “false?”

            My views on LNT are similar to those discussed by ICRP and others who have looked closely at available science (uncertainty in the low dose range), and the ethical basis for a precautionary principle in radiation protection for the general public (including all possible exposed groups).

            Plainly stated … we don’t have an fully consistent picture of cancer etiology and health risk at cumulative dose levels below 100 mSv (acute dose levels below 50 mSv). LNT has been shown to “underestimate” risk in many cases in low dose range, and “overestimate” it in others. I would hazard to guess that a threshold dose response model would likely tighten current radiation protection standards and not loosen them (as would appear to be the preference of many folks on the site). Creating excessive doubt about current radiation protection standards, I believe, has much of the same effect.

          4. “My views on LNT are similar to those discussed by ICRP and others who have looked closely at available science”

            That’s where you’re going wrong. You’re clearly oblivious to the gist of the debate, so let me educate you with links.

            ICRP has not considered the available science. See here for much science ignored by ICRP:

            http://www.nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/pdfs/Presentations/Guest-Speakers/2013/20130625-Cuttler-CNSC-Fukushima-and-beneficial-effects-low-radiation.pdf

            See here for the political and non-scientific reasons why LNT was adopted:

            https://www.toxicology.org/isot/ss/riskassess/ArchToxicolHormesis_Threshold.pdf

            And here for more science and many reasons where LNT keep going wrong and showing no understanding of the basic biology and statistics:

            http://www.radpro.com/641luckey.pdf

          5. You’re clearly oblivious to the gist of the debate, so let me educate you with links.

            @Cyril R.

            Regarding Cuttler slide presentation, it’s hard to get past the very first bullet point, which is disproven by most available science on the topic.

            You appear to respond to such inconvenient facts by saying that epidemiology, case control studies, etc., are not science. You are incorrect.

            Making a series of incorrect statements doesn’t make them correct. Instead, it typically discredits the person making them.

            And what the heck is RSO magazine (defunct at the end of 2005).

          6. “Regarding Cuttler slide presentation, it’s hard to get past the very first bullet point”

            Don’t worry about that EL, that’s just you.

            “You appear to respond to such inconvenient facts by saying that epidemiology, case control studies, etc., are not science. You are incorrect. ”

            Statistics is not proper science, if the signal to noise ratio is low and spurious correlations are not controlled for. Statistics can be done using scientific methods, if the data set is appropriate, if the signal to nois is high enough, and if you can control for spurious correlations.

            “Making a series of incorrect statements doesn’t make them correct. Instead, it typically discredits the person making them. ”

            I have made correct statements on how to do statistics appropriately.

            Now its funny, once again I get a bunch of snide remarks but no argument of content. No indication that EL has even read a single page of my references – only an explicit remark that he hasn’t gotten past the first bullet point.

            You will have to do better than this EL. This is not a mud throwing contest. Come up with factual rebuttals and arguments.

          7. This is not a mud throwing contest.

            @Cyril R.

            I’ve looked through the slide show. Nobody is throwing mud.

            There is no support for Cuttler’s statement about beneficial effects in his first bullet point, you are incorrect about epidemiology (it is not the same as statistics) … many of your points require no rebuttal (just a statement of plain fact).

            How much more in depth do I need to get to state the obvious?

            You seem to be laboring under the false impression that you are helping your cause by repeating incorrect, disproven, and straightforwardly inconsistent claims. What makes you continue to think this is effective is really a mystery to me.

          8. El if you think my refs and facts are disproven then provide counter references or provide clear reasoning. I will not change my position because you say i am wrong without evidence. I have provided links.

          9. I will not change my position because you say i am wrong without evidence. I have provided links.

            @Cyril R.

            I have provided evidence, and links.

            See what I have said about making incorrect statements over and over again. They don’t add up to anything correct (or very informative).

          10. EL has provided the following reference to prove that Dr. Cuttler’s references are incorrect:

            http://www.columbia.edu/~djb3/papers/pnas4.pdf

            This reference does not quantifiably discuss any dose exposures below 2 mSv/day. It talks about “protracted exposure” even though it is clear that these are semi-chronic (eg bomb fallout where short lived radionuclides contribute to most of the dose).

            There is no quantified discussion or rebuttal of any of the references made by Cuttler in the following document:

            https://atomicinsights.com/wp-content/uploads/Cuttler-2013-Fukushima-and-beneficial-effects-low-radn-Apr9.pdf

            This is not a rebuttal. It is more fuzzy haze and aura polishing by EL.

          11. Another problem with EL’s reference is that it makes no mention or tries to clarify the issues with many studies, such as spurious correlations (confounding factors) that plagued for instance the nuclear worker study (e.g. pipe fitting of asbestos and working with other carcinogenic materials). It also does not explain or quantify the issue of high background double strand breaks.

            The EL reference can be downloaded here:

            http://www.columbia.edu/~djb3/papers/pnas4.pdf

            Not very convincing. It just makes fuzzy statements, like any meta-study does, and does not involve any new science or interesting work. There is no critical review of any of the problems of the studies quoted, especially relating to confounding (spurious) factors such as other carcinogens, lifestyle variance, etc.

            The only thing that is convincing is controlled lab experiments of long term chronic exposure such as the cobalt irradiated dogs.

    2. It appears you are suggesting that in addition to doubting LNT, Dr. Cutter is also a “climate denier” and thus we can ignore what he has to say because he is just a “contrarian.” And the evidence he presents against LNT we can just dismiss, is that right? Is this what you are saying?

      1. @david davison

        It’s just an observation. You can make of it anything you want. But what is hard to do is deny that he has taken the position, and that it flies in the face of a great deal of the available science on a topic.

        1. So EL you admit that you made an off-topic observation with no argument in it.

          Will you also admit that you did that just to divert our attention from the main thing, which is that you have no evidence to support LNT or disprove hormesis?

          1. @Cyril R.

            I made a point about our good friend taking contrarian positions (which seems to be something of a trademark it could be said). Despite any evidence presented in this context, this still appears to be true.

          2. Is it me or is anyone else also amazed that EL – of all people – is accusing researchers of being *contrarian*?

  9. Interesting that Jerry Cutler was first introduced to flaws of LNT after attending a lecture by Dr. Pollycove because that exactly what happened to me.

    Along with several others, I also stayed after the talk and peppered Dr. Pollycove with a list of questions I prepared while taking notes during his talk. Dr. Pollycove was very patient with us and stayed long after his talk to answer each question. I took my notes back and carefully researched the topic over the next several months and came away convinced of the validity of his criticism of LNT.

    Dr. Pollycove must have given talks all over the country on his findings about the flaws in LNT. I wonder how many other scientists, engineers and health physicists he affected with the challenge to not assume LNT is correct just because it was drilled into us as the basis for all radiation protection regulations. He showed us the research, patiently explained it’s implications and appealed to our critical thinking to come to our own conclusions. Thank you Dr. Pollycove wherever you may be today!

  10. I was, frankly, taken aback by Sponsler & Cameron’s paper on the Nuclear Shipyard Workers Study. It’s one of the strongest statistical studies I’ve ever seen, not only because of the large study cohort, but because of the astonishingly good control. And the only conclusion possible from the data appears to be that low-dose-rate gamma irradiation reduces both cancer incidence & Standardized Mortality Ratio, meaning a longer, healthier life.

    There have been all manner of reasons to suggest that such a result would not be strange, but to have it in black & white — I can’t actually express surprise that the original investigators chose not to publish their results, although it’s a terrible lapse on their part.

    1. I was, frankly, taken aback by Sponsler & Cameron’s paper on the Nuclear Shipyard Workers Study …

      @publius

      The 1991 study has been updated.

      http://dx.doi.org/10.1269/jrr.06082

      I’m curious if you still feel the same way?

      The consistency of the finding of an increased risk with increasing dose for each cancer in the dose-dependent analysis is highly suggestive that radiation is associated with the risk of these cancers. In addition, the LHC cancers, which include leukemias and multiple myelomas as well as non-Hodgkin lymphomas … show a significant and very high five to six-fold excess risk in 50 mSv or more radiation-exposed workers compared to those in the low dose reference group. Therefore, these data on increasing risks from radiation exposure for LHC support the findings from similar studies in the literature. The consistency of the increase in risk with dose for each cancer and the significantly high risk of LHC associated with radiation doses of 10 mSv or more indicate that the shipyard population, which was still very early in follow up at the time of termination of the study, needs to have additional follow up to determine the risks of leukemia, LHC and solid tumors.

      1. 50 mSv of ionizing radiation causes less than 1/1000th the carcinogenic effect of all other causes (food, lifestyle) combined in a lifetime.

        Why would one believe that increasing carginogens by 0.1% has a multiple fold increase of cancers?

        Why would one use 5 mSv, a trivial dose, as a crossover point?

        The study mentions confounding factors such as pipe fitting with asbestos. Generally you’d expect enormous confounding factors since the signal to noise ratio in this bit of statistics is below 0.001.

        Statistical studies like this one are only interesting with high signal to noise ratio. Otherwise confounding factors will dominate.

        1. @Cyril R.

          So you’re now acknowledging a documented health risk from 50 mSv …

          Could you please make up your mind … not only are you incorrect most of the time (but also inconsistent).

          Do you take any of this seriously?

          Why would one believe that increasing carginogens by 0.1% has a multiple fold increase of cancers?

          You don’t appear to understand excess relative risk, or what is being documented in the study.

          1. “So you’re now acknowledging a documented health risk from 50 mSv … ”

            No, I am working with the linear no threshold model and ignoring hormetic effects for now, to demonstrate that even LNT would not claim any real increase in cancer. That LNT is wrong is a second matter which is not even necessary for the argument I am making.

            Naturally occuring double strand breaks (DSBs) occur at a rate of 1000x the rate of 1 mSv of ionizing radiation per year. So 50 years of naturally occuring DSB is equivalent to 50 mSv.

            ‘Do you take any of this seriously?”

            Yes, and you are not. You are arguing from a position of arrogance and authority.

            “You don’t appear to understand excess relative risk, or what is being documented in the study.”

            I understand it very well. You however do not appear to understand the rate of endogenous double strand breaks, or even how to convince people, using your arguments of authority and arrogance, deliberately dartling around the arguments and not answering a single question correctly nor providing detailed rebuttal of Cuttler’s claims.

          2. No, I am working with the linear no threshold model and ignoring hormetic effects for now, to demonstrate that even LNT would not claim any real increase in cancer.

            @Cyril R.

            So LNT assumptions underestimate cancer risk as documented in the study. Thanks for that useful and constructive addition to the debate.

          3. “So LNT assumptions underestimate cancer risk as documented in the study. ”

            Nope. LNT is false, even on its own grounds.

            That’s the main gist of things. Of course a wizard such as EL can always turn the argument upside-down and inside-out.

            You could probably sell sand to people in the Sahara desert.

  11. In this thread i have repeatedly asked EL for a ref or point by point rebuttal of cuttlers claims. He has provided none.

    1. He has provided none.

      Cyril R.

      I have provided both evidence and links.

      See what I have said about making incorrect statements over and over again. They don’t add up to anything correct (or very informative).

      This is getting childish Cyril. Are you getting anything out of this?

        1. Where is your reference rebutting all refs that cuttler uses?

          @Cyril r.

          Were you sleeping or something?

          I posted a widely cited and highly regarded review article from Brenner titled: “Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: assessing what we really know.” Article references 64 peer reviewed studies of a high caliber that explore questions raised by Cuttler on radiation dose and health impacts, and finds no support for the statements at (or near) the specified dose limit for beneficial effects made by Cuttler in his slide materials. Article concludes: “Little question exists that intermediate and high doses of ionizing radiation, say >100 mSv, given acutely or during a prolonged period, produce deleterious consequences in humans, including, but not exclusively, cancer” (p. 13761).

          Most studies show this, and none of this is rather hard to understand or follow (in the broad sense that you have mentioned). So I am rather amazed why you are so confused about this (and why you keep on raising the same incorrect and unsupported claims over and over again with no revision of your views). I referenced the followup to the nuclear shipworkers study which shows the same, and which you specifically acknowledge the same! Even the study on “unequivocal” threshold dose response in atomic bomb victims is a challenge to Cuttler. And yet none of this gets through to you.

          You seem to me to be zealously adhering to contrarian positions that are unsubstantiated by a majority of research and presents it’s case largely outside of the established fields of science (predominantly in non-peer reviewed settings). If you don’t understand how any of this works, in a framework that is sufficient enough to move science (much less public policy on radiation protection), I’m not sure continuing to discuss these more obvious and straightforward points is going to get through to you?

          1. @EL

            You are not making an effective argument by insisting that your “highly regarded” review article with its 64 references answers the questions you have been asked. Point to the specific documents, pages and figures that show something besides statistical correlations. I’m interested in cause and effect that explains the mechanism of damage with something more credible than a “target theory” that assumes that genes are stable and unchanging unless hit by ionizing radiation, which then causes a mutation that is inevitably harmful.

            Homo sapiens are some of the most evolved creatures on the planet. They have well developed immune systems and respond well to a host of physical influences of heat, chemicals, and common sources of radiation like sunlight. In all cases there are intensities that are helpful and intensities that are harmful. The line is fuzzy with some people being more sensitive than others. However, that is no excuse for establishing an ALARA regime for everyone. Moderate exercise is generally good for people, but there are some for whom bed rest is the right prescription. Diets that include a wide variety of grains contribute to good health and digestion for most; the existence of celiacs disease should not result in a society agreeing to keep bread doses ALARA.

            Throughout our discussions about the health effects of low level radiation, you neglect the extremely positive aspects of using radioactive materials in medicine, industry, agriculture, and energy production. You advocate extremely tight and expensive controls on the use of those materials; which leads society to often choose more dangerous ways to accomplish its goals or satisfy its needs.

            Yes, I am a contrarian on this topic. Many “widely cited and highly regarded” works about radiation health effects are wrong because they were produced by people who never thought to question the accuracy or legitimacy of the LNT model. They may have no idea that the model was established as part of a well-funded propaganda campaign during the period between 1925-1962 by scientists affiliated with an organization with an enormous money and power motive for teaching the world to fear radiation.

            The only way I know of to overcome that injustice is to be contrary to it.

            One more thing – I reject the validity of the “precautionary principle” when it is applied to something as well understood as ionizing radiation.

          2. However, that is no excuse for establishing an ALARA regime for everyone. Moderate exercise is generally good for people, but there are some for whom bed rest is the right prescription. Diets that include a wide variety of grains contribute to good health and digestion for most; the existence of celiacs disease should not result in a society agreeing to keep bread doses ALARA.

            @Rod Adams

            You appear to have given a pretty good argument in favor of ALARA … the variability of the dose response at low levels.

            http://www.columbia.edu/~djb3/papers/pnas4.pdf

            “In light of the evidence for downwardly curving dose response (see Figs. 2 and 4), this linear assumption is not necessarily the most conservative approach, as sometimes has been suggested, and it is likely that it will result in an underestimate of some radiation risks and an overestimate of others” (p. 13765).

            Yes … that makes LNT a blunt instrument that imperfectly matches actual risk (and tends to underestimate it as Cyril has highlighted in his review of these papers [and the authors stating the same]).

            On this basis … I’m curious what makes you think a threshold or a hormetic dose response curve (which is likely to be equally imperfect and matched to the variability of results at low doses) will result in a less restrictive health standard in your view. Given that LNT in many cases underestimates the documented risks, it seems that there is a pretty good chance that a threshold and hormetic dose response curve will result in a more restrictive standard than a less restrictive one. This appears to be what the evidence suggests.

            Point to the specific documents, pages and figures that show something besides statistical correlations.

            You seem to have a blind spot for review papers that summarize fields of scientific study based on available research and hard data. Is there some reason why you are incapable of assessing scientific findings on the basis of review summaries that look at very large sets of empirical research and data?

            You claim that you don’t have any information in front of you to assess these questions raised by the paper I have cited. Have you had any interest in looking (as a good place to start)?

          3. “You seem to have a blind spot for review papers ”

            It took me about 10 minutes to shoot giant holes in your “review paper”. Which by the way doesn’t actually review the data sources provided by Cuttler in his Fukushima presentation, so its not even a relevant reference, even if its conclusions were supported by its raw data it links to and its methods are appropriate (neither is the case).

          4. “Article references 64 peer reviewed studies of a high caliber ”

            Nope. The 64 studies were cherry picked and conclusions were selected from it that are not supported by the discussion in those papers. More importantly almost all of the Cuttler references are not discussed or disqualified.

            There are hundreds of studies indicating hormesis and/or large thresholds of the order of 2 mSv/day. But in stead the review paper choose to not review these studies and not discuss any of the caveats and spurious correlations/confounding factors in the low total dose range studies it referenced. Your review paper preferred to use “protracted dose” rather than chronic dose which isn’t the same at all, the protracted dose studies were all semi prompt except for the nuclear shipyard study, which has too low doses to be of use in proving anything (ie its just statistical artifacts in the huge background noise of naturally occurring double strand breaks).

            I suspect you do not critically review or check references that you post here.

          5. It took me about 10 minutes to shoot giant holes in your “review paper”.

            @cyril r.

            I don’t see the holes as you have clearly demonstrated them … unless it is to suggest that LNT underestimates the risk based on the studies considered in the paper (and provides a clear refutation of Cuttler for the dose range claimed to have beneficial effects)?

      1. “This is getting childish Cyril. Are you getting anything out of this?”

        Absolutely. The merits of an idea can be judged by its detractors; since you, Sanne and Bob Applebaum have provided either only mud throwing or false statistical data, my ideas on hormesis are further strengthened.

        This is in line with debates I have had on other websites. Each time, either people called me names or provided incorrect references to prove LNT.

        The debates can be tedious, and make my neck hurt from shaking my head so much at so much ignorance and contriving, but in the end they are worth my time.

        1. This is in line with debates I have had on other websites.

          @Cyril R.

          So the problem isn’t with with us then.

          Not to be impolite, but is it possible you have drawn the wrong conclusion from your statement?

          1. What wrong conclusion? That the references provided to me by LNT supporters are statistically bogus? Scientifically inaccurate and non reproducible? That LNT is not interested in science such as biology and controlled lab studies, and prefers statistical correlations over controlled experiments? That LNT prefers curve fitting over organic and mechanistic understanding of dose response, and subsequently blames others for not having a biological model, thus reaching the summit of hypocrisy?

            So far all those conclusions are reinforced with each debate. So, no, it is unlikely that my conclusions are wrong. I do not mind if you are impolite with me. If you have a good reference that thrashes Cuttler’s claims then I deserve to have it and be called wrong. So far you haven’t provided such rebuttals, in fact the meta review you gave does not disqualify or even mention any of the Cuttler references.

          2. What wrong conclusion?

            @Cyril R.

            That everyone else providing rebuttals are incorrect (based on the available evidence that is compelling if not conclusive on these matters), and that you are correct (zealously adhering to contrarian positions, unsupported by most available science, and published in non-peer reviewed settings that are unlikely to make an impact on science or regulatory guidance on radiation protection).

  12. EL’s reference has more odd stuff in it.

    http://www.columbia.edu/~djb3/papers/pnas4.pdf

    Check out figure 4. Notice two odd things:

    1. Each point after around 200 mSv is *lower* cancer risk than the point of around 200 mSv.
    2. Each point before the point between 50 and 100 mSv is *higher* cancer risk.

    This proves that the relationship isn’t linear.

    It also suggests that:

    1. There is a level of radiation that is too low – a deficit.
    2. Higher prompt doses than 200 mSv have higher net health benefit than 200 mSv?

    Odd… this is supposed to be EL’s authoritative reference. It is full of holes.

    Its odd, you don’t see this discussed in the text at all; there is much fuzzy wording in stead, , and suggestions and words like “probably”. This is rather silly since the title of the article is ambitously called “Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing
    radiation: Assessing what we really know”. It seems that the authors of the paper don’t even know what their own graphs are telling them. In stead they fit imaginary curves which clearly don’t help to explain the above criticism I provided.

    1. This proves that the relationship isn’t linear …

      @Cyril r.

      What is it then (in your view)?

      Four other choices are given: downwardly curving, upwardly curving, threshold, hormetic? In low dose range, the risk appears to be underestimated (which is consistent with your conclusion about the nuclear shipyard workers study). According to Figure 4, the low dose range has no hormetic curve. Does this mean hormesis only takes place in intermediate and high doses (this question isn’t one that is examined in the paper)?

      Are you aware of studies that show a hormetic dose response curve at intermediate and high doses (but not at low doses)? Based on current knowledge, is this a question that merits further attention (in your view).

      Observations at very low doses are uncertain. I’m not aware of too many serious people who don’t acknowledge this.

      1. None of those, or perhaps a little of all of them. Total dose response curve for lethality is always S-shaped. The fact that LNT exists at all is a statistical artifact: is based on high dose rate, high dose data, basically the mid shape of the S which is a fairly linear slope upwards. There’s clear indication that even within the bomb survivors, there’s nil or even negative slope in the low dose area, but with that much noise to background signal its impossible to do statistical analysis to confirm anything.

        There is much static in the low dose range for high dose rate exposure, such as the atomic bomb survivors, because it is such a tiny oxidative force compared to background mutation rate from food and other sources…

        Its toxicology 101. First there’s nil or even negative slope (hormesis) as strain causes positive response. Life responds well to environmental signals, it must, to survive efficiently. Then there’s a dose range where the slope goes upward as the organism can’t keep up with the strain. Then there’s a stable linearly curving upward area, where increasing lethality is seen. Then the slope curves off asymptotically (top of the S) because the most robust individuals resist being killed much more (these are the tough guys). Then it reaches 1 asymptotically as organically no one can survive a huge dose of toxin no matter what it is.

        The exact shape of the S can vary. Some chemicals have no apparent hormetic effect, just nil or zero slope. Others have a very mild upward slope of the mid section of the S.

        “In low dose range, the risk appears to be underestimated ”

        No. This is another statistical artifact. The authors of the paper you quote have selected a small number of studies which suited their conclusions, and have ignored almost all studies of <2 mSv/day exposure. Even the chronic exposure they mention isn't actually chronic. The authors also have made no attempt to disentangle the "noise" in the data such as spurious effects – especially with the nuclear shipyard workers, there are other carcinogens involved such as asbestos pipe fitting, that confound the data. The authors of the paper you quoted do not mention this at all. They have been shopping for data. They do not mention the many caveats and problems with any of the studies they quote, and hand-wave at laboratory tests. They mention almost no studies mentioned by Ted Lucky, Jerry Cuttler and many others that show hormetic effects. Very convenient. Don't mention they exist so you don't have to discuss them, or hand wave at them without new quantifiable analysis.

        "Observations at very low doses are uncertain. I’m not aware of too many serious people who don’t acknowledge this."

        The key is dose rate not dose. People that are exposed to large total doses but low dose rates (<2 mSv/day) are very interesting to study since this is in the area that hormesis is supposed to operate.

        "Are you aware of studies that show a hormetic dose response curve at intermediate and high doses (but not at low doses)? Based on current knowledge, is this a question that merits further attention (in your view"

        I'm not aware of any that are valid, because of the high noise to signal ratio. But this is absolutely an important question. Some believe that it takes a threshold of dose to kick start certain immune resonses, if that is true then having a dose once a day or so would be more beneficial than chronic exposure. This is definately worth more study, and not of the epidemiological type, but controlled lab tests on various animals. Its too bad the beagle dogs had a lowest dose exposure group of 1100 mSv/year before the control group (that was at or below background dose, <3 mSv/year). They cut off the data groups just where it gets interesting for hormesis…

        1. They mention almost no studies mentioned by Ted Lucky, Jerry Cuttler and many others that show hormetic effects. Very convenient.

          @Cyril R.

          Where is the epidemiology on human populations that shows hormetic dose response curve at low doses?

          You can’t cite what doesn’t exist!

          You are deeply confused what this study sets out to do, and what evidence is provided to answer it’s questions.

          Paper sets out to: 1) “… review difficulties involved in quantifying the risks of low-dose radiation,” 2) “… what is the lowest dose of x- or γ- radiation for which good evidence exists of increased cancer risk in humans,” and 3) “… what is the most appropriate way to extrapolate such cancer risk estimates to still lower doses.” (p. 13761)

          If you want to comment on a study that was never written, I suppose that is your prerogative. But it doesn’t mean you’re providing a particularly informative rebuttal, or identified in a meaningful way why some studies are examined and others (having to do with very high doses, or very preliminary and prospective lab based studies with no clear end points in human populations) are left out and for other review papers, scientists, radiation experts, and health professionals to summarize and explore.

          You’ve implied this isn’t the paper that you would write (and that you would use different studies to attempt to answer questions that were never defined or asked by the paper). I understand that. But you haven’t really rebutted any of the major findings in the paper (you appear to have actually reinforced them and made them more clear as the authors have characterized them). Are you aware you have done this? It seems like you aren’t aware of this (which is why I find some of your comments unclear and contradictory, particularly when they support the basic conclusions of the paper and refute claims by Cuttler about dose levels which are well established as causing harm and being detrimental to the health of humans, i.e., “not” beneficial).

          1. @EL

            As I understand your reply of 11/05/2014 at 7:29 PM, you state that the review paper whose 64 references you want me to invest time reading focuses solely on epidemiology and statistical risk, with an emphasis on trying to combine results from numerous “independent” studies in order to accumulate a large enough sample size to extrapolate risk calculations to a dose range where none of the individual studies can provide results.

            If that interpretation is correct, it demonstrates that you are still failing to understand and respond to the questions you are being asked. Epidemiology has its uses, but it also has its limitations. A research effort that attempts to understand a complex topic like the response of homo sapiens to ionizing radiation that uses ONLY epidemiology is like a construction crew trying to build a house with only a set of various sized screw drivers. All of the papers your review references seem to approach the question using similar tools when what is needed for understanding is a more comprehensive tool set.

            Statistics, especially when the underlying numbers are derived from surveys, memory, and assumptions, are not capable of providing a true understanding of how ionizing radiation affects people when the doses are too low to see any deterministic effects. They cannot show what level “causes harm” no matter how well “established” the studies are because not one of the studies actually detects any harm. All they do is attempt to count from a very fuzzy data set.

          2. Rod, we’re wasting our time with EL. The issues have been laid out to him many times, EL has made a concious choice to ignore the main arguments. EL does not understand statistical analysis or he understands it but deliberately sows confusion. He keeps living in this error world where he demands we go down into the rabbit hole to show evidence that can’t exist in the first place. EL is stacking the deck in his favor by staying in the rabbit hole.

            1. @Cyril R.

              I gave up on changing EL’s position years ago. My main motivation for continued engagement with him is to use him as a foil to demonstrate the difference between someone who approaches our current state of acceptance of nuclear energy with a questioning attitude enlightened with personal technical experience and someone who approaches it from the conventional “consensus” point of view of “the left.”

              If you look back through some of our discussions, you will find out why I used quotes around the phrase “the left.” I consider myself a real liberal of the FDR/LBJ persuasion who cares far more about lifting people up than about adhering to a catechism (pro-renewables and antinuclear) created by elites who are interested in continuing the domination of fossil fuels. That nearly religious view of our energy supply options comes disguised in green lingo, but it is, at its root, a carefully devised mythology that has effectively prolonged coal, oil and gas dominance for decades longer than it should have lasted based on objective selection criteria.

          3. As I understand your reply …

            @Rod Adams

            The broad question we are considering is whether the published scientific literature (and basic radiobiology) finds an observed harmful effect (elevated risk) in humans from radiation exposures below 700 mSv/year (the claim made by Cuttler). The clear and consistent answer is yes, basic radiology and most published scientific research in this area does find clear and consistent evidence for harm at this level. We have experimental studies that help us answer this question and observational studies (case studies, case control studies, occupational epidemiological studies, and cross-sectional studies).

            I provided a link to a review paper (among the many other links I have also provided on the site which could be used to answer this question) that considers observation and experimental studies (which themselves are models) and attempt to answer the question of the lowest dose in which we have “good evidence” of harm in humans. Study is very clear about defining the limits of quantifying risk in low-dose range (since this is one of the central aims of the paper). Many of the limits you and Cyril highlight are also highlighted in the study: limits of statistical precision, confounding factors, and also limits “extrapolating data from cells or laboratory animals to humans,” and others. Study focuses primarily on observational data with enough precision to answer the central question, and at very low doses where precision is insufficient relies on “inferences with regard to risk … based on understanding underlying mechanisms.” Study concludes: “Little question exists that intermediate and high doses of ionizing radiation, say <100 mSv, given acutely or during a prolonged period, produce deleterious consequences in humans, including, but not exclusively, cancer." This is consistent with most published literature on the topic, and in addition, study finds good evidence that LNT is not the most conservative dose response model that can be assumed, and underestimates risks at low doses (i.e., that the shape of the dose response curve a low doses is highly variable, and that the best fit remains a linear curve that underestimates dose response in some instances and overestimates it in others).

            There is no good or consistent support for beneficial effects in humans from low dose exposures up to 700 mSv/year (as you and Cyril are claiming). It’s just not there (anywhere)! Animal and lab studies are not enough. They are also highly variable, and have uncertainty regarding extrapolation of data “from cells or laboratory animals to humans.” You can’t make these studies any more reliable and consistent by excluding an entire field of study (i.e., observational studies) on radiation dose effects. And certainly not at a levels that are already very well established as causing “deleterious consequences in humans, including, but not exclusively, cancer.”

            Cyril appears to wish to go a step further: exclude an entire field of science, and also feature presentations outside of the setting of peer review (and unlikely to move science or the public policy on radiation protection). If people here are convinced by such arguments, there is not much I can do about it. All I can do is highlight that such views are contrary to most established science on the topic, and lacking any evidence of beneficial effects in humans at a level below 700 mSv/year are unlikely to have an impact on future studies or public policy on radiation protection. We’ll learn a great deal more about the cellular and intercellular mechanisms of ocogenesis and the human immune system (I have no doubt). But the notion that this will somehow result in a less restrictive radiation protection standard is a guess on your part. In fact, given available evidence that LNT underestimates cancer risk at low doses, I think it’s more likely that an alternative (a downward sloping curve as suggested by the evidence) could result in a more restrictive radiation protection standard (at least in some settings where current standards are very broad and unrestrictive).

            1. @EL

              You wrote:

              In fact, given available evidence that LNT underestimates cancer risk at low doses, I think it’s more likely that an alternative (a downward sloping curve as suggested by the evidence) could result in a more restrictive radiation protection standard (at least in some settings where current standards are very broad and unrestrictive).

              You are getting tiresome in your repetition of an assumption as a proven fact supported by evidence. I say again, where is the evidence that shows that the LNT underestimates cancer risk at low doses? Who cares that an anonymous internet commenter thinks “it’s more likely that…”

              Please don’t give me a quote from a “review paper” whose authors are staunch defenders of the myth that was purposely created to increase people’s fear of radiation. That purposeful campaign had at least two understandable, but not equally admirable bases.
              1. Numerous scientists and other concerned citizens wanted to force governments to stop testing nuclear weapons, especially in the open atmosphere. They determined that telling everyone they were at risk from “fallout” was the only way to capture enough attention to produce the necessary political pressure.
              2. People associated with the Rockefeller Foundation asked the National Academy of Sciences to weigh in with its prestige and issue a report aimed at the general public that explained the risk of radiation from the then nascent Atomic Age. After making that request, the Rockefeller Foundation then stacked the genetics committee with a Chairman who directly represented the interests of the foundation as he mediated the deliberations of the genetics committee – more than half of whose members were direct recipients of Rockefeller Foundation grants through most of their careers.

              For now, I’ll leave it to readers to figure out why that particular foundation was interested in purposely instilling fear of radiation into a population that coveted radium dial watches, used x-ray machines to help get a better fit for their shoes, were enthusiastic about the promise that atomic power stations could reduce dependence on coal, oil and natural gas, and considered radioactive tonics and springs heated by radioactive material decay to be healthy.

          4. @JohnGalt

            Actually, 1995 was nearly 20 years ago.

            Also, the sidebar list you quoted does not say anything about doses. If cigarette smoke at every possible dose down to zero is strongly linked to cancer, then every single person I know over the age of 10 is doomed since we were all exposed to cigarette smoke in detectable doses from simply walking around and entering into buildings like restaurants up until the very recent past.

            The same is true of asbestos for anyone over the age of about 25. Heck, my grandmother’s house had asbestos tiles on the floor and every school that I attended as a child had pipes that were insulated with asbestos. That says nothing about every steam pipe on every ship that I visited or served on prior to about 1995.

            At high doses, ionizing radiation has a moderately detectable probability of causing cancer. At low doses and dose rates — about 2 mSv/day — there is no detectable increase in the probability of causing cancer. Similarly, catching occasional whiffs of cigarette smoke or visiting buildings with some asbestos building materials does not cause a detectable increase in the probability of causing cancer.

          5. At low doses and dose rates — about 2 mSv/day — there is no detectable increase in the probability of causing cancer.

            @Rod Adams.

            Most available science contradicts this statement.

            This places such an unsupported and non-evidence based claim plainly in the category of a lie (especially when repeated over and over again irrespective of clear and consistent evidence to the contrary)!

          6. I say again, where is the evidence that shows that the LNT underestimates cancer risk at low doses?

            @Rod Adams

            Um … the studies that we have already discussed (and numerous others that we have not).

            If conspiracy is the best you have to refute independent peer reviewed science, I guess we have your answer. Too bad it can’t be tested or proven (which is the very condition of possibility for conspiracy theories in the first place) … no less for an entire domain of human enterprise and inquiry (including the checks and balances of independent peer review). I feel a little sorry that you are stuck with such lame explanations for something that is very important to you (and will never be a sufficient basis to advance science or re-conceive policy on these issues).

            I guess lying is a bit much … “true believer” sounds a bit more correct.

            1. @EL

              Too bad it can’t be tested or proven (which is the very condition of possibility for conspiracy theories in the first place)

              Who says that I cannot prove that the Rockefeller Foundation requested the NAS to form a committee to study the Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation, funded the committee from 1955-1962, employed Warren Weaver as director of the genetics and biology research program from 1932-1959, selected Warren Weaver to be the Chairman of the Genetics Committee of BEAR 1, and helped to place at least six of its long time grantees onto the committee.

              Who says I cannot prove that Weaver was given accolades for his work in mediating strong disagreements between members of the committee and devising language that would satisfy dissenters while maintaining Muller’s assertions that his Rockefeller Foundation-funded experiments on fruit flies at the University of Texas — which Muller himself stated did not use doses less than 400 r — proved that radiation at all doses down to zero has a negative genetic effect?

              My references are quite reliable and include history/biography documents produced by the NAS and copies of correspondence among BEAR committee members.

          7. Who says I cannot prove that Weaver was given accolades for his work in mediating strong disagreements between members of the committee and devising language that would satisfy dissenters …

            @Rod Adams

            Language that satisfies dissenters … that sounds absolutely horrible!

            So one person is to blame for it (Warren Weaver) and the whole world has succumbed to a mass hysteria and delusion that radiation causes genetic mutations (when it does not), and all doses are safe below levels that cause mild skin irritation?

            Ok, Rod, you’ve clearly proven why all of available science on the issue is incorrect, and why most of the world’s researchers on this issue are fabricating testable and independently verifiable studies, and why institutions accountable to public governments and the burden of scientific scrutiny (in the US and on a global basis) are simply pushing paper and cashing checks from big oil.

            Your references are “quite reliable,” I am sure (since they ARE references per se), and any further debate would likely only serve to lend credence to scientific conceit, or delusion, as you have characterized it. Is there any room for argument here? It seems you have nice hermetic seal around your own beliefs, and characterize everything else as self-interested delusion and beholden to special interests (which includes most of the world’s scientists on this issue, expert bodies and public institutions on a global basis, and even the very endeavor of scientific inquiry itself).

            One can’t argue with such a view. One just has to dismiss it!

            1. @EL

              No. I did not say one man was responsible. I said that a foundation that has been influential in world affairs and funding scientific research — especially in genetics and molecular biology — for more than 100 years played a large role. I provided specific names (Weaver, Muller, etc) as part of my effort to illuminate exactly how the propaganda campaign developed and how the ball started rolling.

              My specific comment about Weaver’s acclaimed skill as a mediator was perhaps too subtle. How difficult do you think it is to achieve at least grudging agreement for a chairman who controls millions of dollars worth of grants each year in the specific research areas of interest to his committee? What is the purpose of award programs if not to elevate and publicize selected people and their accomplishments?

              Fighting against a charge of being a conspiracy theorist is difficult. So be it. I freely admit that I still have some work to do.

              I will ask readers to remember that people in high places do plan and cooperate to further their aims. They are successful partly because they recognize the importance of seemingly unimportant events, figure out ways to shape the future, and sometimes find ways to alter history.

          8. @JohnGalt

            Your personal exposures to low levels of other known carcinogens, cigarette smoke and asbestos, are hardly relevant, but your statements do demonstrate a general lack of concern for exposures to low levels of any harmful substances. That you are lucky and have apparently escaped having cancer, so far, is great for you, but it does not mean continued exposures are well advised for everyone.

            You misunderstood my point. I was not referring to my personal exposures but to exposures that were so common they affected a very large portion of the population.

            I do have a general lack of concern to low level exposures to any substance. I am always irritated when exposed cigarette smoke because I have some allergies and because it smells bad, but I am not afraid that my exposures to it over the past 55 years is going to cause cancer. I’ve never overdosed on the substance so I expect that my body’s immune system has worked to repair any short term damage.

            I’ll bite. What is the irony you want to point out about the use of Sv to state a claimed threshold? I’d be happy to use Gy instead.

  13. “Language that satisfies dissenters … that sounds absolutely horrible!”

    EL — You are being dishonest. You accused Rod of inventing a conspiracy theory. He proved you wrong by supplying facts, reason, and logic. You respond with a snarky remark which ignored his reasoned argument.

    “So one person is to blame for it (Warren Weaver)”

    No. He is one prominent example.

    “…and the whole world has succumbed to a mass hysteria and delusion that radiation causes genetic mutations (when it does not)…”

    No. High doses of radiation can cause cancer just like high doses of a million other things.

    Ok, Rod, you’ve clearly proven why all of available science on the issue is incorrect,…”

    No. There is much science that proves that LNT is false.

    “… and why most of the world’s researchers on this issue are fabricating testable and independently verifiable studies…”

    No. Many scientists who get funding from anti-nuke organizations tend to cherry pick their numbers. Scientists are human beings who want to please their employers just like non-scientists. And many “scientists” are perfectly willing to lie in order to push personal agendas such as the climate-gate clowns.

    “Your references are “quite reliable,” I am sure (since they ARE references per se)..”

    More nonsense. I notice that you do not name a specific reference and provide any reasons why it is not reliable.

    1. EL — You are being dishonest. You accused Rod of inventing a conspiracy theory. He proved you wrong by supplying facts, reason, and logic. You respond with a snarky remark which ignored his reasoned argument.

      @Freedom_First

      “Language that satisfies dissenters” is not a sign of collusion or abuse of power … it’s actually a pretty good indication that all sides are being heard, and participants are being reasonable in coming to agreement and consensus about very difficult and very challenging issues.

      Accusing someone of being “funded” is not a dirty word in science (and accusing scientists of being funded in no way implies that their work is tainted). Conflicts of interest are disclosed at many levels and contexts in science. Peer review (and reproducibility of work) is another way to test the independence of findings. The paper I did cite indicates study was “supported in part by the US Department of Energy Low-Dose Radiation Research Program (a program looked at favorably by Rod and others) … as well as the institutional affiliations of the authors (radiation and health science labs at Columbia, Oxford, National Cancer Institute, Harvard, EPA, UC Berkeley, two japanese agencies, Sloan-Kettering, Johns Hopkins, and Brookhaven).

      Are these the “anti-nuke organizations” you are referring to in your comment? If they aren’t, which anti-nuke organization are you specifically referring to?

      Yes … there is a lot of nonsense in your comment. It will take a lot more work to make “connections” of the sort claimed by Rod (especially when evidence provided suggests the opposite … a skilled chair who weighs conflicting evidence and comes up with language that is acceptable to wide diversity of perspectives, and is also inclusive of dissenters). Perhaps you don’t know much about academia, but that’s a tall order. Funding is not a relevant issue (unless it is shown and disclosed to be relevant).

      “Climate-gate clowns” … ok, I’m now thoroughly convinced 🙂

      1. “Accusing someone of being “funded” is not a dirty word in science…”

        I never said that it was.

        “(and accusing scientists of being funded in no way implies that their work is tainted)”

        Sometimes it is tainted. Rod made a strong case against some scientists who were funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. It is no secret that the oil and gas industries are opposed to nuke power. And I provided another example (climate-gate) which no one can deny. And that was not just a few scientists. The fact that the guilty scientists were not fired is proof that the whole organization is corrupt.

        “Are these the “anti-nuke organizations” ”

        No. The only corrupt one that I know is the Rockefeller Foundation which I learned about at this site. I don’t know anything about the other organizations. As you know, there is such a thing as self-interest. For example, recently in the news, some cab companies and drivers were demonstrating against some new transportation services that compete directly against cabs. The demonstrators say that they want to outlaw these new services in order to protect passengers form unsafe vehicles and drivers. Do you believe them? If yes, I have a great deal on a bridge for you. 🙂

        “Perhaps you don’t know much about academia,”

        I have a BA degree in mathematics with a minor in physics from Boston University and did some graduate work in math. I know that scientists gather data and then formulate a theory to explain the data. Unlike climate-gate, they don’t form the theory and then cherry-pick data to fit their theory.

        I was against nuclear power up until about ten years ago because of the radiation and waste issues. Learning more about those issues changed my mind. I am now enthusiastic about MSR’s and view pressurized reactors as out-dated technology but still much better than coal.

  14. “Could you list several thousand proven examples…”

    Sure, right after you list several thousand examples of whatever you want.

    By parsing words and trying to be scientific, you missed my point which is that millions of things are far more dangerous or deadly than a few mSv of ionizing radiation that are probably 100% safe.

    1. “If one does not state their point, others will not see their point.”

      You are playing a silly game. My statement that millions of things are far more dangerous or deadly than a few mSv of ionizing radiation is clear to anyone with more than three neurons between their ears. And, it is obviously true. In fact, I am willing to bet that EL would agree. Why? Because it is obvious that he has more than three neurons between his ears.

      “…that does not mean we are 100% safe to inhale the water.”

      No one said that it was. By the way, every person on this planet, including yourself, has inhaled radon gas but there are millions of things that are far more likely to kill or harm you. These are proven facts that are obvious to any honest person.

      1. The probability that you will die from man-made radiation is much less than one out of a million. You are millions of times more likely to die from something else. These are proven facts that are obvious to any honest person.

      2. @JohnGalt : We have a limited budget of time, money and energy to spend at reducing risk. Using so much of it to fight radiation with so small an effect means that at the end the number of death is increased compared with preserving it for more effective actions.

        Also sometimes fighting nuclear directly increase the number of death when it means that nuclear will be replaced by something that is much more deadly, just like is happening right now both in Japan and in Germany.
        Even just requesting more security can have that effect when it makes nuclear so much more costly that the deployment is very limited and other, more deadly solution are used instead most of the time.

Comments are closed.

Recent Comments from our Readers

  1. Avatar
  2. Avatar
  3. Avatar
  4. Avatar
  5. Avatar

Similar Posts