Similar Posts

Recent Comments from our Readers

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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe to Comments:

22 Comments

  1. I have followed the work and writing of Dr. Calabrese for some years. There is a very revealing interview (almost 1 hour long) given by Dr. Edward Calabrese back in 2011 on this subject available on YouTube, entitled:

    Dr. Edward Calabrese The Fraud of LNT and Future of Radiation October 14, 2011

    It is good to see that his extensive research into the subject of toxicology, dose response, and LNT is being reported not only here on Atomic Insights but also in a recent article about Dr. Calabrese’s findings on the Breakthrough Institute’s website.

    Thanks Rod for bringing this to peoples’ attention.

  2. There is as well an interesting article on the subject of LNT on the Energy for Humanity website:

    Is Radiation Necessary For Life?

    contributed by James Conca on March 16, 2016

  3. In all fairness (incoming!), the 1950s lit the fuse on the Cold War arms race. Detonations at land and sea were causing unnecessary exposure to the public, and the historic high Cesium 137 burden in the Pacific, finally peaking in 1963. Our beloved founder, Admiral Rickover, was no fan of unnecessary radiation exposure, employing the genius of Ted Rockwell to keep us safely low in the dose arena. At some point, people draw conclusions. Really smart people preferred dose being very low. Government regulators take cues, but lack detailed knowledge about the establishment of thresholds. They rely on experts, real or imagined – and have considerable difficulty discerning the two.
    In 1958, the Rockefeller Foundation (ignoring the biases of a near monopoly in oil) report is not that far out of touch for the day. They were no experts, either.
    We now have decades of medical data from Military and Commercial industries, these show that no effects are discernible at the established dose rates. Healthy Worker Effect is my favorite term, veteran Navy Nukes have lower mortality because of screening, health care, average income, standard of living, etc – which plausibly mask the radiogenic health effects.
    So, in 2016, we need the latest science, and the most advanced experts to revamp our philosophy – and change regulations based on facts.

    1. @Rob Brixey

      Of course the Rockefeller Foundation report in 1958 is aligned with the reality of the day.

      The point is that they were intimately influential in CREATING that reality.

      Not only did they request and completely fund the National Academy of Sciences studies on the Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation, but two of the most influential participants in the bomb testing program, AEC Chairman Lewis Strauss and Dr. Edward Teller, had deep ties to both the foundation and the Rockefeller family.

      It might also interest those who believe that the antinuclear movement is full of Mathusians who are deeply anxious about humans and our exploding population to read the book excerpt found here.

    2. Rob,

      Speaking of the “healthy worker effect”, perhaps part of Rod’s messaging should start to add in some mentions that his goal is for a human population of 9+ billion to all have the opportunity to experience the healthy worker effect.

      Being exposed to tiny, tiny doses of radiation that are masked by the healthy worker effect would be far, FAR better than being cursed to a life of energy poverty, spending 20 hours per week doing such fun activities as fetching water or cooking indoors with dung with the requisite shortening of lifespans that comes along with such activity.

      1. @EntrepreNuke

        I like the way you’re thinking.

        A “healthy worker effect” is generally said to be due to things like better healthcare, better diet, less stress about poverty, etc. Since opponents have often claimed it is strong enough to explain away the reduced mortality of a population of occupationally exposed workers, it would seem logical that it is worth pursuing a world in which a growing portion of the population — approaching 100% — is exposed to the effects of healthy working with productive endeavors sufficient to provide adequate returns & compensation.

        1. The “healthy worker effect” is an unfortunate term. The epidemiologists should have just called it what it is, selection bias. It only applies when comparing a select population (e.g., workers at a nuclear plant or fuel fabrication facility) to the general population.

          You can no more give the general population a “healthy worker effect” than you can live in Lake Wobegon, where “all the children are above average.”

          1. @Brian Mays

            Hmmm. So you think that humanity’s increased average life spans during the past 200 years were simply selection bias and not the result of better nutrition, better health care, more prosperity, etc?

          2. Rod – No. I’m saying that the “healthy worker effect” is just epidemiological jargon for selection bias. It’s an unfortunate one, because it tends to cause a good deal of confusion for laymen.

            Better health care, better diet, better lifestyle choices … they’re all part of the strong correlation between socioeconomic status and better health outcomes, which is well known and well documented. This is why socioeconomic status is one of the first confounders that researchers control for in their studies. If you raise the average socioeconomic level of a given population, then you improve public health, in general. Nevertheless, that doesn’t have anything to do with the “healthy worker effect.”

        2. @ Rod – A “healthy worker effect” is generally said to be due to things like better healthcare, better diet, less stress about poverty, etc.” In particular “less stress.”
          Suggestions about less stress just do not seem possible to be applicable to to jobs in neither the Navy nor the commercial nuclear power programs.
          The application of Zero tolerance for errors, zero tolerance for even failure of mechanical/electrical components during operation, ALARA, extremely short reporting requirements, even zero tolerance for a single misspelled word on any document submitted to the NRC, etc. [One plant I worked at had the “Idiot Test.” All documents sent to the NRC were proof read by three non technical people, and signed a document indicating such. No, computer spell checkers do not work and were never good enough.] This environment provides some of the highest stress risers of any occupation. Perhaps this constant stress eliminates all but those with a type “A” personality and creates this “healthy” effect. However, more and more doctors are now attributing “stress” as the leading contributor to many health problems, including cancer.

          1. @Rich

            It should be noted that most of the radiation health effects studies of occupational radiation workers that have been dismissed as having results that can be attributed to a “healthy worker effect” included large populations of people that did most of their nuclear work under different conditions than exist today.

            There jobs didn’t include the effects of several decades worth of requirements ratcheting.

  4. Found this on the internet.

    OPPD CEO: Shut down Fort Calhoun nuclear plant by end of the year

    http://www.omaha.com/money/oppd-ceo-shut-down-fort-calhoun-nuclear-plant-by-end/article_f8b86658-184e-11e6-b852-8f5144170b67.html

    Looks like the administration is increasing rather than decreasing CO2 with their “Renewable Energy Plan.” Does not look like he will be “Achieving an economy-wide target to reduce emissions by 26%-28% below 2005 levels in 2025;” goal.

    How many more shut down before 2020?

    1. Unless there is a legislation change in Illinois, Exelon will be shutting down Quad Cities and Clinton too.

      Its maddening !!!!

  5. Wouldn’t harmful effects (if they exist at low dosages) of radiation be more apparent in healthy workers exposed to radiation when compared to a healthy population with less radiation exposure? And if the effects of radiation are hidden by the “healthy worker effect”, doesn’t this place an upper bound on the risk?

    1. Wouldn’t harmful effects (if they exist at low dosages) of radiation be more apparent in healthy workers exposed to radiation when compared to a healthy population with less radiation exposure?

      Well, that’s what the researchers do. Since comparisons with the general public suffer from selection bias (“healthy worker effect”), the researchers try to estimate the exposure of each member of the population, collect them in groups according to estimated dose, and compare “low-dose” and “high-dose” groups within the population. This is almost always done by fitting some sort of curve through the data on the risk versus dose graph.

      The problem is that, in any population large enough to get even slightly significant results, there are always a few individuals who have manged to get a substantial dose — into the range where we know and nobody doubts that there is going to be increased risk of cancer and whatnot. Thus, the right-hand-side of the graph is pulled up, the middle part of the graph (low-dose area) is fuzzy because of large uncertainties, and the left hand side (almost zero dose) is predictably close to zero excess risk. The curve fit through the data looks like it goes to zero with no threshold, and the researchers conclude that their data is “consistent with” current radiation protection standards (i.e., LNT). Lather, rinse, repeat.

      And if the effects of radiation are hidden by the “healthy worker effect”, doesn’t this place an upper bound on the risk?

      To get any kind of quantitative result, one would have to know approximately how strong the healthy worker effect is, but this effect is even more difficult to quantify than the risks that one is trying to determine in the first place.

  6. I guess yesteryear’s corrupt behaviour is grist for discussion, because it definitely has sown ramifications showing up in modern times. But I’m not sure it matters anymore. Watching the news today, listening to one political pundit after another tell us that integrity doesn’t matter, and when someone running for president obviously and blatantly lies to us it is totally irrelevent to his or her suitibility for office, I feel a great sadness. These are the kind of leaders that will weigh energy needs, pay attention to actual science, make decisions based on a consideration for the people’s intetests? No way. Yeah, maybe the Rockefellers stacked the deck. But if you think these despicable excuses for humanity, vying for the throne, are made of any better grizzle than yesterday’s power brokers and office holders, than you simply ain’t paying attention. This electoral cycle is a cruel joke on those still holding faith that this nation is still what it was supposed to be. I’m ashamed.

    1. “…and when someone running for president obviously and blatantly lies to us it is totally irrelevent to his or her suitibility for office…”

      It’s not irrelevant. Lying is ESSENTIAL for getting elected. That’s why, as a former FBI criminal profiler pointed out, there is a large degree of overlap between the characteristics of serial killers, business executives and politicians. A lack of any sense of remorse and a glib persona.

      1. “It’s not irrelevant. Lying is ESSENTIAL for getting elected”

        Yes, but at least a lie used to be an honest attempt to convince you the lie was a truth. Now, they have even thrown away that important aspect of prevarication. Now, they look you straight in the eye, tell you a lie that they know you will realize is a lie, and in so doing, spit in your face. But even worse than the liar, are the supporting mouthpieces, that know a lie is a lie, but try to stumble thtough ridiculous assertions about the lie being the truth. These braying gennys on the news should be too embarrased to come out in public. They are making complete idiots of themselves. If they are going to corrupt the Oval Office with a liar, can’t they at least give us a good liar, that has the common sense to surround himself with good liars?

  7. While the nuclear community is hard debating how many angels could fit on the head of a pin with this radiation dosage issue and goo-gaa over future whiz-bang nuclear tech, more and more reactors are on FUD’s chopping block all over while windmills and solar farms bloom like crabgrass. When is the nuclear industry/community going to take a PR cue from how the fossils promote themselves even over their worst accidents and failings??

    James Greenidge
    Queens NY

  8. The Rockefeller Foundation also financed Alfred Kinsey’s studies which have been found to be fraudulent.

    So when I see Rockefeller Foundation involvement in anything, I know it’s going to stink. Any work awarded the Pulitzer, is also suspect.

    Just about ALL of these foundations have been captured by the extreme Left. It is a remarkable pattern.