1. I wonder if they also cling to theory of evolution or the theory of general relativity?

    1. Yes, it is likely that the physicians accept the theory of evolution, and likely, general relativity.

  2. Consumer reports can’t even competently test TVs, printers, or lawnmowers. I certainly wouldn’t expect any sort of medical insight from that group.

  3. @Bob, why don’t you reference bloodletting or celestial immutability. These were also consensus theories at one point. The nature of a theory leaves it open to challenge, that is the process. Maybe the fact that the consensus supporting LNT among experts in the field of radiation protection is weakening daily explains your need to repeat so often that it is the consensus. Too bad wishing doesn’t make something a fact.

    1. LNT is a “consensus” all right…. A “consensus” among the financial beneficiaries of radiation protection. That tobacco companies should be protected against tobacco data was a “consensus” among tobacco peddlers. I think even Bob recognizes that parallel.

      I think everyone else recognizes that LNT was borne at least initially due to it’s overriding convenience and the lack of data for near background levels of radiation. Now, that there are beneficiaries of this nearly groundless “science” with respect to low levels of radiation, there are strong political forces keeping this lithic perspective in place. That fact that Bob shows up whenever a detail of LNT is expressed is a strong case in point.

    2. Just curious, are you as critical of the “consensus” regarding CO2 contributing to AGW? Let’s stipulate that science is not governed by consensus but by facts, by data clearly presented for anyone to question the methodology used to draw conclusions. How well does the UEA, Michael Mann, James Hansen and so many other proponents of this theory stack up to the expectation of unfettered analysis and critique by equally credentialed yet skeptical scientists? Seems to me the opposite of skeptical is gullible.

  4. I’ve been reading more about the fallacy of LNT and in particular whether there’s any merit to hormesis. There’s an interesting discussion at https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/hormesis-is-some-radiation-good-for-you.148847/ I’m in the process of reading Underexposed: What If Radiation Is Actually Good for You? by Ed Hiserodt wherein Mr Hiserodt offers evidence (all backed up with countless references) that hormesis is a very real phenomenon! The kindle version costs a buck so no excuse not to read it yourself. 🙂

  5. Are these claims of risk justified by statistical evidence? Surely there is some reason for the claims of risk.

    I don’t disagree with CR’s claim of the medical proffession engaging in uneccessary procedures. A coupla years ago, experiencing extreme knee pain, I got xrays and and an MRI. I was told by two separate specialists that I needed surgery. I elected to forego the surgery, the pain lessened, and eventually, over the course of about a year.completely dissipated to zero discomfort.

    Point being, CR has a valid complaint about uneccessary procedres being administered often by the medical community. Seems to me one has to assess the risk on a personal level, and make a decision based on the best information available. If there is statistical evidence for CR’s claims, I would want to know that information before allowing a procedure.

    1. @poa

      Though many disagree with my interpretations, I’ve tried to explain the basis for the “no safe dose” of ionizing radiation risk model.

      Go to the archives page and select the LNT category.

      Not all perceptions or assertions of risk are based on reality.

  6. Interesting…..

    CR consistently cites the same statistics, apparently from the same “study”, in a number of the articles Rod linked to. They do not link to the study, nor do they even reveal who conducted the study. Pretty shoddy journalism.

    1. You’re being generous with the “shoddy” appellation. Lazy, incompetent, dishonest, one-sided, all of those would apply in spades to an article like this.

  7. I just read the linked January 27th “surprising dangers” piece. Despicable shoddy work. I hate CR magazine and I have for a long time. Any time they do a review on something that I happen to be informed on, I see that their review, methods, and conclusions is completely bogus. I’m surprised any one still reads that fishwrap.

  8. Such deceitful phrasing by CR: “the form of radiation that’s used in medical imaging is a known carcinogen” — no mention of the AMOUNT of the “form” or radiation is a “known carcinogen.”
    It’s like saying “sort of liquid coming out of the faucet in your kitchen sink is the cause of hundreds of deaths each year.”

    1. Exactly! There’s no allowance for possible beneficial effects at lower levels. For example we of course are well aware that oxygen is needed to continue living. Yet at elevated levels oxygen is a poison that kills any human (any oxygen-dependent organism actually) yet I know of no organization that’s going around condemning the continual use of oxygen.

      We live in an environment that includes radiation. Our genes are designed to cope. Of course extreme levels are toxic. But much evidence makes it clear that lower levels actually stimulates an organism to enhanced health.and longevity.

  9. A few years ago, my brother arrived at the hospital in excruciating pain for what turned out to be a kidney stone. The staff didn’t want to perform a scan or xray because of fears of the “unneeded” radiation. I was utterly dumbfounded when he told me this story. I couldn’t believe that this type of FUD had made its way into the medical profession.

  10. Look at these two links – More of the UN Agenda 21 Sustainability program (being taught at a college/university near you).



    And here is what the greenies are doing to Japan’s CO2 levels.

    How does all of this help? What is the real intent of the Sustainability program?

  11. Rod what do you make of the GE asset sale? ( http://www.bbc.com/news/business-32247268 )

    They seem to be committed to the gas turbine thing ( http://seekingalpha.com/article/3063156-ge-steamrolling-the-competition-heading-into-april-earnings )

    I haven’t been able to find if they are selling any nuclear assets or do anything with GEH. They just opened a new training facility. ( http://portcitydaily.com/2015/03/31/congressman-attends-ge-hitachis-dedication-of-nuclear-reactor-training-area/ ) and they seem also to have plenty of new projects lined up.

    1. BTW John…..

      In the speech you allude to with your link, Bush said….

      “Americans are beginning to recognize that nuclear energy caters to both our lifestyle and our greening mentality”

      He also said……

      “Americans are beginning to shed the emotional debate about nuclear energy and are taking a practical look at why it is essential to meeting our future energy demand”

      Do you feel this is an accurate picture, that applies today?

      1. Apparently John is not going to answer this question. Maybe he saw this recent Gallop poll….


        This business of “Americans want this” and “Americans want that” is a typical political speech ploy designed to convince you a policy is widely endorsed by the voting public. As often as not, its BS, as demonstrated by the Bush quotes I provided.

  12. Most of Hillary Clinton’s “Top Agenda Items”; clean energy and climate change ( https://twitter.com/johnpodesta/status/587355760839000064 ) are already better addressed by Jeb Bush :


    Published on Apr 20, 2013
    Question from Paul Miller:
    As President would you encourage the construction of future and more Nuclear Power Plants?
    Answer Sen. Hillary Clinton:
    That’s why I’ve not included it in my plan. I have said that for
    Nuclear Power to be a viable safe option for America’s future energy
    needs it faces some very difficult problems which I don’t yet see being
    addressed adequately.” (https://youtu.be/kvd8u-LccDU )


    “There are now 104 nuclear power reactors in the United States that are
    safely producing 20 percent of the nation’s electricity – notably,
    without producing any of the harmful greenhouse gases some believe to be
    a major factor in climate change. Americans are beginning to recognize
    that nuclear energy caters to both our lifestyle and our greening
    mentality. And it offers the most proven means for our country to
    achieve much needed energy security.” ( http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2008/03/jeb-bush-on-nuclear-power.html )

    Leading climate scientists agree ;

    Kharecha, P.A., and J.E. Hansen, 2013: Prevented mortality and greenhouse gas emissions from historical and projected nuclear power. ( http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2013/2013_Kharecha_Hansen_1.pdf )

    1. You have posted statements from both Hillary and Jeb that are dated. Clinton’s quote is from 2013, and Bush’s is from 2008. As slimey and dishonest as politicians tend to be, you cannot take their dated statements from yesterday as being what they would say today, much less consider statements they made years ago as stances they would now assume. Nice try, though.

      1. Dated.

        As opposed to the info you offered. Zilch. And called me dishonest which is just lazy argument technique.

        If they have not updated it, its logical to assume its still somewhat current. If I missed something correct it.

        1. Chuckling here, John. First off, I did not call you dishonest. However, I will admit to implying a certain naivette on your part. Is it your contention that politicians such as Hillary or Jeb maintain stated positions despite changing political winds and the nature of the audience they are addressing?

          Heres the deal, John. You attempted you make a point along partisan lines, using political statements that were offered years ago. This is a campaign season, so both of these candidates can be trusted to speak the truth about as much as the devil can be trusted to feed the starving. Who the heck knows what they will say about NE today? Almost assuredly it would depend on venue and audience. And it would not be suprising if either candidate expresses polar positions on the same issue, depending on the audience.

          But hey. If you are willing to take either candidate at their word, who am I to object? I mean golly, how can these scumballs continue to con us if there’s not a healthy amount of patsies who go skipping and humming off to the ballet booth?

  13. Heres a quiz for ya, John…

    Who said…..

    “It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power from the table”

    And who said about global warming….”I’m a skeptic, not a scientist”


    Who has adocated for 25% renewable energy by 2025?

    1. BTW, it is Obama that stated that nuclear energy is essential if we are to “meet our aggressive climate goals”.

      And Jeb says that global warming and climate change “might be” caused by our pollutants. ‘Course, I’m sure that depends on who he’s talking to, his oil buddies that the Bush family has been heavily invested in, or those headed for the ballot booth, eh?

  14. Excerpt from link….

    ASSOCIATED PRESS | 12/3/12 6:03 AM EST

    PRAGUE (AP) – U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton lobbied the Czech government Monday to approve an American bid for a $10 billion expansion of a nuclear power plant, even as a rival Russian offer seems to be the favorite.

    Further excerpt, quoting Clinton….

    “We are encouraging the Czech Republic to diversify its energy sources and suppliers,” Clinton said. “Given how long-term and strategic this investment is, the Czech people deserve the best value, the most tested and trustworthy technology, an outstanding safety record, responsible and accountable management.”


    1. I think that was her job at the State Department. But, indeed why would she just support it overseas? Is she afraid of offending the “Progressives”/”Greens”? I want updates and specifics.

      Id love to see both parties in a fight to see who would support nuclear more. I dont care so much about renewables/carbon taxes, commitment to populist climate change dogma and whatever. Those can push/make things even worse if done wrong.

      1. “I want updates and specifics”

        Do you and Brian ever do your own research? Asking me for specifics is asinine, because your request already implies you don’t trust the information. Also, in an above post you accuse me of being lazy in my research on which to base a rebuttal. You might wanna reflect on that before you make demands for information.

        1. Im not asking you for them. I wasn’t in that post. I want them from the candidates. I thought that was clear. So far only James Webb has put forth a clear position this cycle.

      2. “Id love to see both parties in a fight to see who would support nuclear more”

        Me too. If such a debate was truly based on intention rather than insincere posturing.

        But then again, were that to happen, our partisan media from both sides of the aisle would not be able to tell us what they want us to believe. And many folks would lose the opportunity to know nothing while repeating what they’ve been told, as if they know everything. Some here would be reduced to speechlessness. (Gosh, is that a word?)

  15. It seems that the editors of consumer reports are unaware that dose matters. Their response, while technically correct, that “the form of radiation used in medical imaging is a known carcinogen”, while true, completely neglects that it’s only a carcinogen above certain dose levels.

  16. The LNT model, used in 1956 by Russell to evaluate the radio-induced mutations in the germ cell line in the mouse, was introduced between 1960 and 1980 for the purposes of regulation in radioprotection with regard to all mutagenic and carcinogenic effects in humans. At that time, LNT was considered a convenient pragmatic relationship but not a model based on scientific data. In the 1960s, the International Commission of Radioprotection (ICRP) introduced it because it allows the addition of sequential irradiation delivering low or high doses of radiation received by an individual whatever the dose rate and the fractionation. Thus it greatly simplifies accounting in radioprotection. However, gradually LNT was interpreted as meaning that the carcinogenic risk is proportional to the dose and that even the smallest dose induces a cancer risk. Thus the LNT has been used for assessing the effect of low and very low doses. This procedure has become a dogma in many radioprotection circles, but the validity of the LNT has been challenged over the past decade for two main reasons: a) the meta-analyses of the animal data have shown the absence of any carcinogenic effect of doses below 100 mSv, b) scientific progress has revealed the complexity of carcinogenesis, and the diversity and effectiveness of the responses of a cell to irradiation. Indeed, a cell is not passively affected by the accumulation of lesions induced by ionizing radiation. It reacts through several mechanisms.

    “Dose-effect relationship and estimation of the carcinogenic effects of low doses of ionizing radiation”,
    The Joint Report of the Académie des Sciences (Paris) and of the Académie Nationale de Médecine, 2005.

Comments are closed.

Recent Comments from our Readers

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

Similar Posts