Bill Sacks – Radon abatement contractor giving poor advice in syndicated column

By Bill Sacks

This is in response to Rosie Romero’s article in the January 27 issue of the GV News (p. B8), What you need to know about radon.

It is wrong, just plain wrong. In the low concentrations encountered in homes, radon is not a cause of lung cancer, let alone “the second leading cause,” as claimed by the EPA. On the contrary, in this setting radon acts like a vaccination and is actually protective against lung cancer, even though in a few uranium mines, where the concentration of radon in the air can be hundreds and thousands of times higher than that found in homes, it can indeed contribute to causing lung cancer.

Any attempt to mitigate the concentration in homes lowers that protective feature, and leads to a greater, not lesser, probability of developing lung cancer.

Sounds absurd? Perhaps an analogy will help. To claim that the low concentration of radon found in homes causes lung cancer, based on the fact that it has been found to contribute to lung cancer at very much higher concentrations, is like claiming that taking one aspirin a day (for cardiovascular protection) is deadly, based on the fact that swallowing an entire bottle will kill you. Or worse, that one aspirin a day is possibly “the second leading cause” of heart attacks. The fact is that small doses of radon and aspirin are beneficial to most people, while large doses can kill. This is true of most agents, from oxygen to water, from vitamins to sunshine.

In the early 1990s, University of Pittsburgh physics professor Bernard Cohen did a study of radon, examining homes in over 1,700 counties containing over 90% of the US population. He had hoped to measure how quickly lung cancer rates increase with higher home radon levels.

Much to his surprise and consternation, he found that the higher the average county radon levels the lower the lung cancer rates and, reciprocally, the lower the radon the higher the lung cancer rates. He enlisted the aid of a statistician to find possible confounding influences, such as smoking or other carcinogens, that might explain this unexpected and very strong inverse relationship. Together they examined hundreds of possible combinations of confounders but were unable to explain the result in that fashion.

At first Cohen was reluctant to conclude that it was the radon that was tending to protect, even smokers, from lung cancer, since it was so counterintuitive at the time. But eventually he grew to accept that explanation, since there was none other that arose. A number of scientists have repeatedly tried to refute Cohen’s conclusion, but the best that their arguments could do was explain half the discrepancy between the expected positive correlation and the observed negative one, and even that required them to invoke an implausible and highly improbable coincidence of high smoking rates with low radon levels, and vice versa.

Furthermore, Cohen’s discovery of radon’s protective effect at low levels of exposure has been corroborated by dozens of studies since then. Still regulatory agencies like the EPA and the Arizona Radiation Regulation Agency, whose administrators have a stake in maintaining the status quo – as well as companies who profit from home foundation repairs – refuse to credit the science.

Indeed exemplifying the pragmatic, rather than scientific, basis of radiation regulations, one of my colleagues at the Center for Devices and Radiological Health at the FDA told me that he is well aware that low levels of radiation are beneficial but that it would be a nightmare to change the regulations. Furthermore, many scientists continue to seek, and obtain, funding to attempt to refute the science.

Two other researchers and I have just submitted to a scientific journal a paper– one of hundreds of ongoing attempts to inject reality into the field of radiation science – showing that all studies concluding that low doses of radiation are harmful either ignore biological reality (experimentally and observationally confirmed in countless studies) or distort and/or dismiss it.

Furthermore, we show that all such studies contain hidden circular reasoning, in which the authors start by assuming that which is to be proven. The “all radiation is harmful” paradigm, along with its extra-scientific reward system, is a powerful hindrance to scientific objectivity. It has justifiably been called “the greatest scientific scandal of the 20th century” by the former director of the Swedish Radiobiology Society, Gunnar Walinder.

As we said in our September 30 opinion piece (p. 7), Why low-dose radiation exposure is not to be feared – published also as a letter in the January 2016 issue of Physics Today – Low dose radiation exposure should not be feared.

In conclusion, contrary to Rosie’s advice, spending money to test for, much less lower, the radon concentration in your home will not lower your probability of developing lung cancer, but rather will increase it. If you want to lessen your chances of developing lung cancer, quit smoking, which will also save you money.

I hasten to add that I do not attribute Rosie’s assertions to any dishonesty on his part, but rather to the official paradigm that has us all trapped in its clutches – until we find an escape route. Escape ultimately requires our own investigation, for which there is no substitute.

About the author:

Bill Sacks is a physicist turned radiologist who is now retired. He has spent the past few years studying global warming, nuclear energy, and the beneficial biological responses to low level ionizing radiation. He has coauthored a number of articles including Nuclear Energy: The Only Solution to the Energy Problem and Global Warming. His following pieces have appeared on Atomic Insights: Why does conventional wisdom ignore hormesis? , The Left Needs to Reconsider its Automatic Position Against Nuclear Energy and Physics Today Reader’s Forum: Low-dose radiation exposure should not be feared

Dr. Rachel Slaybaugh “It’s an exciting time to be in nuclear engineering.”

During the Advanced Nuclear Summit and Showcase, there was a terrific conversation about a growing level of excitement among university students who are studying nuclear engineering, among more established members of the nuclear community and among other people who are passionate about helping to save the world.

Some of that enthusiasm stems from the fact that nuclear energy is a well-proven [virtually] zero carbon power source.

The now gray and increasingly wrinkled children of the 50s who came of age in the 60s, were taught to “duck and cover” as part of their indoctrination that civilization was going to end in a dramatic exchange of nuclear weapons. In contrast, Millennials and the children following them have been taught to believe that climate change is the existential threat to civilization as we know it.

Aside: I am working on some explanations about why I chose to frame the generational attitudes in that manner, but those theories are not the subject for this post. End Aside.

The conversation about the way that the rising generations view nuclear energy began when Mark Peters, Director of INL National Laboratory, asked Dr. Rachel Slaybaugh, assistant professor, University of California, Berkeley to talk about innovation from the perspective of her own research and work as a university professor.

Here are some of Dr. Slaybaugh’s memorable statements.

“As a professor, now is a very exciting time to be in nuclear engineering. The students in the program haven’t been around long enough to know that everything moves slowly in nuclear. They don’t know that yet. Nobody told them.”

“You have people who chose nuclear because they want to help save the world. They’re excited and giving them a way to both develop new technologies themselves so that we can have many ideas that can help us solve the economics problem is one of the ways to do it. But also getting them involved in such a way that the current knowledge is not lost. Plugging into the GAIN initiative, making sure they can understand what’s going on with the current fleet, how do we transition… They’re very excited; there are a lot of ideas.”

“It’s no longer the case that we have to stay with LWRs. There’s an opportunity and a fresh perspective that are combined in an environment where people are really serious about nuclear because people are finally getting serious about the environment.”

“They’re finding out about things like establishing these national innovation centers, maybe nuclear incubators, using existing mechanisms like the NEUP program to really ensure that there is support for that innovation.”

“There’s a lot of excitement. The more you see companies across the range of size and scale, I think it inspires people. So they know that there are really innovative projects happening at GE, but they also see Transatomic and UPower [just renamed as Oklo, but that announcement came at about the time Dr. Slaybaugh was speaking] and in the middle they see NuScale. There are places across all of the stages of development, so for anybody’s interest in personal [financial] risk there’re really exciting places to go at all stages.

Dr. Slaybaugh’s commentary stimulated an interesting discussion among others on the panel [three of whom are roughly my age – that is children of the 60s who came of age in the 1970s — and Simon Irish who is about 10 years younger] that is worth highlighting.

A full transcript of that conversation is below the embedded video.


Steve Kuczynski: Just a follow on comment. We’re seeing the same thing within the existing fleet of operators. There isn’t a day that goes by when I’m not having folks from our organization just wanting to know more, wanting to get involved, say how can I get involved with that. So we’re going to see more of the existing nuclear community that’s operating the existing fleet reaching out even further to the universities, developing further partnerships and promoting this future that we can potentially have. So it’s just not in the academic world. It’s also in the existing fleet of operators that’s really picked up here in the last year.”

Simon Irish: I’d like to comment on the demographic character of support these days for nuclear energy. I think it’s got quite a clear character to it. The younger generation is much more inclined to support nuclear energy, existing nuclear energy and also advanced nuclear than the older generation. And this is, I think pertinent. So when a trend is established with that type of profile associated with it, that the generations coming through have a much much stronger support and advocate for a certain technology, a certain policy position, you don’t really want to get on the wrong side of it because it will be an inexorable increase in pressure.

Dan Reicher: I think that’s an important point. Carol talked about bringing all of the stakeholders to the table, John talked about how to be a true partner and Rachel just mentioned not having the same old habits. And another part of innovation is trying to get ahead of the concerns that folks, in a sense, on the other side, are going to raise. Trying to be innovative in that process. You know, safety, waste, proliferation.

I think we’ve got to think about… We’ve got to anticipate that a lot of that is going to be raised and take a smarter approach to addressing those things in the US. That’s in the regulatory context, that’s in the investment context, that’s when it comes to government spending there’s going to be a big debate. We do have a new generation of folks who are interested. We have a new generation of technologies. I think we have to take a more innovative approach to dealing with what are going to be the inevitable concerns that people are going to raise.

Carol Browner: I think that is very encouraging to hear what Rachel and what Simon have to say about the new generation. When I talk to younger people, if they watch The Simpsons or played Sim City, they may have a preconceived notion. People who’ve watched it are laughing because there was a very specific message being delivered there [Emphasis added.]

What I find, to make this super simple, is this is a carbon-free source of energy. And we have to begin there. Because — Rachel, I see you nodding your head — I do think younger people care deeply about the climate change issue. And so that speaks both to the existing fleet and why we need to maintain it and also need to build on top of that.

To Dan’s point, we all probably have children of varying ages. My children get their news in a radically different way than I do, even today, and than I ever did. And I think engaging in a stakeholder conversation — taking advantage of social media — will be hugely, hugely important to bringing those people — er younger people — into this and keeping them in the debate. Again, I think it’s not impossible because they care so deeply about climate change.

My view might not be universally held, but I believe that people who were small children in the 1960s and came of age in the 1970s or early 1980s have always been a bit confused about energy issues. We lived through two impressive leaps in the cost of oil and gasoline where prices increased by a factor of two or more in the space of just a few months. Some of us noticed the negative impact those leaps had on the economy and employment prospects.

We saw that nuclear energy was growing rapidly. In most school systems, “duck and cover” drills were a thing of the past because civil defense spending had dropped to nearly zero. There was a sense of resignation brought on by the successful propagation of the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD); if governments decided to use the bomb, we were all going to die anyway.

Then we watched nuclear energy development stop. We were told it was because of “the environmentalists”, or because of Three Mile Island/Chernobyl, or because the costs were out of control, or because projects lasted far longer than expected. We learned that everything moves slowly in nuclear energy. Many who entered the profession in the optimistic times before 1979 left to seek opportunities elsewhere.

Those of us who remained positive about the technology are happy to learn about the excitement in the universities and among the more flexible thinkers in the operating fleet. Those like Carol Browner and Dan Reicher, who have been converted from a position of opposition, are also pleased to find that there are good people to befriend “on the other side.” They are not lonely or isolated because their former “friends” who remain opposed will no longer talk to them.

As Simon Irish noted, “So when a trend is established with that type of profile associated with it, that the generations coming through have a much much stronger support and advocate for a certain technology, a certain policy position, you don’t really want to get on the wrong side of it because it will be an inexorable increase in pressure.”

One more important concept to remember – innovation is not just about inventing new physical technologies. As inventions begin to save the world, they need innovative thinkers in financing, business model creation, product development, marketing, project management, regulations, and competitive strategies. We will truly have a nuclear renaissance when the excitement at the universities leaks out of the nuclear engineering labs and spreads throughout the campus.

Bipartisan support for advanced nuclear energy development

Third Way bills itself as a centrist think tank that is not satisfied with just thinking; they take action that gets results. Wednesday’s (Jan 27, 2016) Advanced Nuclear Summit and Showcase provided an excellent example of Third Way’s ability to seek common ground among people from both major political parties in the United States. The […]

Read more »

Rachel Pritzker kicks off Third Way’s Advanced Nuclear Summit and Showcase

In August 2015, I had the distinct pleasure of introducing Rachel Pritzker to Atomic Insights readers and Atomic Show listeners with Atomic Show #241 – Rachel Pritzker, philanthropic problem solver. Since that show, Rachel and I have met face to face, exchanged several emails, participated on the same conference calls, and interacted via Twitter. I […]

Read more »

Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) supports nuclear because it reduces air pollution

One of the highlights of the recent Advanced Nuclear Summit hosted in Washington, DC by Third Way was an inspirational talk by Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ). Here is a partial transcript, starting after Booker’s folksy story to set the talk’s tone. Here in this realm, we in government have to start acting boldly and let […]

Read more »

Another day, another model “proving” capabilities of weather-dependent power

On January 25, 2016 the NOAAnews (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency news) web site published a brief article with the following alluring headline: Rapid, affordable energy transformation possible NOAA, CIRES study: Wind, sun could eclipse fossil fuels for electric power by 2030 As the headline creator hoped, I couldn’t resist reading more. I was shocked, […]

Read more »

Atomic Show #250 – Being nice nukes

On Sunday January 24, I invited some of my pronuclear colleagues to chat about the building phenomenon of people outside of the nuclear industry becoming more interested in its advantages and advocating for its increased use. We discussed Meredith’s book project, Gwyneth’s recent speaking engagement at NC State, organized events at COP21, the increasing interest […]

Read more »

Vermonters say they want industrial wind to go the way of the billboard

As a native of South Florida, I’ve probably logged at least a million miles driving on its interstate and U.S. highways. Most Americans have probably had at least a small taste of that experience. The contrast between Florida’s highways and those in Vermont is stark; Florida’s are littered with billboards. They often advertise products or […]

Read more »

Atomic Show #249 – All-Electric America by Freeman and Parks

S. David Freeman and Leah Y Parks have published a book titled All-Electric America: A Climate Solution and the Hopeful Future. There are a number of visionary sections of the book that appeal to me. However, I was not surprised to find out that the book takes a strong position in opposition to nuclear energy. […]

Read more »

NCSE Food-Water-Energy Nexus – Day 1

The National Council on Science and the Environment (NCSE) is holding its annual conference this week at the Hyatt-Regency National Airport hotel in Washington, DC. This year’s conference topic is the food-water-energy nexus; it is aimed at bringing together people who are deeply engaged in science, actions, and policy development to address one, two or […]

Read more »

Clean energy, sustainable energy – both terms include nuclear energy

For the Democratic Party debate held last night, the scientists at MinuteEarth were asked to provide a video giving some context for their question to the candidates about climate change. Here is their video, their question and responses from Senator Bernie Sanders and Governor Mark O’Malley. Secretary Clinton wasn’t given a chance to answer; it […]

Read more »

Assembling reliable off grid power system for emergency preparedness

Many advocates of unreliable power sources like wind and solar blithely toss out the concept of “storage” as the panacea that makes their favored energy sources viable competitors in the potentially lucrative business of supplying on demand power. I’m skeptical because I have some experience with operating and budgeting for power systems that use batteries […]

Read more »