In my continuing efforts to produce a narrative about the way that the public was taught to be afraid of ionizing radiation, no matter how low the dose, I came across an interesting write up in the Rockefeller Foundation Annual Report for 1958.
Here is some important temporal context. The Foundation Board of Trustees asked the National Academy of Sciences to study the biological effects of atomic radiation during a board of trustees meeting held in the spring of 1954. Conveniently, Detlev Bronk, the president of the NAS at the time, was a member of the board and present at the meeting.
That was probably the first meeting of that particular body of established business leaders that occurred after President Eisenhower gave his December 1953 Atoms for Peace speech to the United Nations. My working theory is that the following section of that speech disturbed many people who rose to, or were born in, positions of power and wealth during the hydrocarbon age.
[59] The United States would seek more than the mere reduction or elimination of atomic materials for military purposes.
[60] It is not enough to take this weapon out of the hands of the soldiers. It must be put into the hands of those who will know how to strip its military casing and adapt it to the arts of peace.
[61] The United States knows that if the fearful trend of atomic military build-up can be reversed, this greatest of destructive forces can be developed into a great boon, for the benefit of all mankind.
[62] The United States knows that peaceful power from atomic energy is no dream of the future. That capability, already proved, is here–now–today. Who can doubt, if the entire body of the world’s scientists and engineers had adequate amounts of fissionable material with which to test and develop their ideas, that this capability would rapidly be transformed into universal, efficient, and economic usage?
[63] To hasten the day when fear of the atom will begin to disappear from the minds of people, and the governments of the East and West, there are certain steps that can be taken now.
The NAS BEAR committee released its report on June 12, 1956.
The Genetics Committee’s report was printed in full in the New York Times in the June 13, 1956 edition. Warren Weaver, the Rockefeller Foundation’s Vice President for Natural and Medical Sciences, was the chairman of the Genetics Committee.
The June 13, 1956 edition of the New York Times included the following headlines above the fold on the top right hand corner of the front page.
From front page of June 13, 1956 New York Times. Right column headline.
Arthur Sulzberger, the publisher of the New York Times, was a member of the Rockefeller Foundation Board of Trustees and was present at the 1954 meeting. That fact probably contributed to the successful publicity effort for the NAS BEAR committee reports.
There is one more bit of information I’d like you to think about while reading the below excerpt. A powerful way to influence both education and training on a selected topic is to write the curriculum, produce the lesson plans and train the instructors that will be delivering the material created.
The rapid advances being made in the application of atomic energy to industrial research and development give urgency to the need for more extensive and precise information concerning the dangers inherent in the use of atomic power, and to the need for specialists equipped to safeguard public and industrial health. For some years New York University has been giving increasing attention to the health considerations arising in the atomic energy industry, and has already instituted courses for physicians, nurses, industrial hygiene engineers, and health officials on the problems of toxic dusts and chemicals and various other matters related to radiological safety. Now, through a cooperative arrangement between the university and the Atomic Energy Commission, the resources of the university’s Institute of Industrial Medicine and the commission’s Health and Safety Laboratory will be joined in a broad program focused on the dangers to the general population of radiation and on the special risks in industrial use of nuclear power.
In the new program, attention will be given to the ecological movement of radioactive materials through intermediate hosts to man, to human genetics, the epidemiology of radiation effects, and the physical and biological factors that determine radiation dosage and tissue response. A full graduate curriculum in health physics is being instituted under the program and teaching and research in radiobiology, epidemiology, and population response are being extended. More advanced pre-and postdoctoral training is available in the health physics courses being provided for research workers.
To help the New York University–Bellevue Medical Center develop the cooperative teaching and research program on the industrial and public health aspects of radiation hazards over the ten-year period beginning January 1, 1958, The Rockefeller Foundation in 1958 made available $500,000 appropriated for this purpose in 1957. Other grants in the same amount were made in 1957 to Harvard University, the Johns Hopkins University and the University of Pittsburgh for university-wide programs of training and research in the health problems associated with nuclear energy.
University of Chicago
Section of Nuclear Medicine
The University of Chicago, where the first controlled release of atomic energy was achieved in 1942, is now establishing a Section f nuclear Medicine which will serve as a combined clearinghouse and focal point for faculty members with special interest and competence in the broader aspects of nuclear energy’s impact on public health. Functioning as a unit of the Department of Medicine of the university’s Division of Biological Sciences, the section will be the center for study of the legal, psychological, and social implications for community development and industry of various problems arising from the use of nuclear energy. Among the general areas of concern to which attention will be given are the increase in natural background radiation resulting from the use of nuclear energy devices, and the probably genetic and physiological consequences to man and domestic animals of increased exposure to ionizing radiations.
Through participation in the program of many different units of the university, the section will contribute to the curricular content of relevant courses, particularly at the graduate level. Conferences and seminars will ensure that all interested groups at the university are made aware of important information and ideas formulated during the course of the work at the section.
Among the various university units that will cooperate with the Section of Nuclear Medicine are the regular departments of the Division of Biological Sciences, the Schools of Law and Business, the Enrico Fermi Institute for Nuclear Studies, the Institute for the Study of Metals, the Food Research Institute, the Public Administration Service, the National Opinion Research Center, the Weather Forecast Research Center, the Conference Center, the Downtown Center concerned with adult education, and the Argonne Cancer Research Hospital and National Laboratory.
To help the University of Chicago, Illinois meet various expenses connected with the establishment and development of the Section of Nuclear Medicine, The Rockefeller Foundation has appropriated $500,000 for use over a ten-year period.
This documents one more piece of the evidence puzzle showing how the Hydrocarbon Establishment, in in the form of a wealthy, influential and decades-old foundation worked diligently to impose the false notion that all radiation, down to the lowest possible dose, was dangerous. It’s a smoking gun.
Of course the figures in this drama also recognized that there were benefits to be realized, but they openly declared that the power needed to be tightly controlled. The strong underlying implication was that “they”, people like them, and people trained (indoctrinated) by them should be the only ones entrusted with the control.
It should be noted that the Rockefeller Foundation, its affiliated foundations, and its partner foundations are still funding efforts to “educate” people about the hazards of atomic radiation. Another way to describe their efforts is spreading FUD – fear, uncertainty and doubt.
Rod Adams
Rod Adams is Managing Partner of Nucleation Capital, a venture fund that invests in advanced nuclear, which provides affordable access to this clean energy sector to pronuclear and impact investors. Rod, a former submarine Engineer Officer and founder of Adams Atomic Engines, Inc., which was one of the earliest advanced nuclear ventures, is an atomic energy expert with small nuclear plant operating and design experience. He has engaged in technical, strategic, political, historic and financial analysis of the nuclear industry, its technology, regulation, and policies for several decades through Atomic Insights, both as its primary blogger and as host of The Atomic Show Podcast. Please click here to subscribe to the Atomic Show RSS feed. To join Rod's pronuclear network and receive his occasional newsletter, click here.
Leave a Reply
22 Comments
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.
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
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.
@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.
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.
@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.
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.”
@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?
So, well, might as well pull all the guards off our saws, eh Brian?
@ 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.
Found this on the internet.
OPPD CEO: Shut down Fort Calhoun nuclear plant by end of the year
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?
@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.
Unless there is a legislation change in Illinois, Exelon will be shutting down Quad Cities and Clinton too.
Its maddening !!!!
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.”
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?
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.
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.
@poa
Today’s political situation has some very deep and disturbing roots.
Advice for a happier life – stop watching TV news and start listening to No Agenda as it deconstructs media coverage of world events.
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
“…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.
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.
“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?
Recent Comments from our Readers
“He was the CEO of Liberty Energy, North America’s second largest hydraulic fracturing company…” Sounds like a reasonable pick for…
How can it use a Brayton cycle if it doesn’t get output heat at 1200 Celsius?
*Just realised that it is using an open air brayton cycle turbine, which won’t work underwater! I guess it could…
Could this be used to make the Australian Navy’s upcoming Ghost Shark drone submarines almost unlimited range? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HTdytBojsM&t=4s
Hi Rod, Fascinating program on e-Vinci with Leah Crider. Looking at the Westinghouse website, there is shielding on one end…
An article titled “US sweetens pot to study siting for spent nuke fuel storage” was published in the January 26, 2023 edition of the Washington Post. The article included a paragraph that credited “environmentalists” as being the main source of opposition to construction of consolidated interim spent fuel (CISF) storage facilities that are either licensed…
A coalition of electric power producers that operate natural gas-burning generation plants have filed suit in the U.S. District Court Southern District of New York. They are challenging the New York State Department of Public Service’s (NYSDPS) recently enacted Zero Emission Credit. Competition wasn’t designed with customers in mind The lawsuit filing document Indicates that…
By A. David Rossin, PhD The June 2013 issue of Nuclear News (page 35) carried an article under the heading “Performance Indicators—WANO/INPO 2012 data show reduced radiation exposure.” A pair of companion graphics titled “Collective Radiation Exposure” are presented, one for boiling water reactors and a similar one for pressurized water reactors. What for? Collective…
Edward Calabrese has published a fascinating and terribly important paper in the University of Chicago Law Review titled US Risk Assessment Policy: A History of Deceptionthat needs to be widely distributed and discussed. Here is the quoted introduction: Strategies to limit the general public’s exposure to toxic substances—via national standards such as community-based drinking water…
Dr. Jerry Cuttler provided a copy of an open letter signed by 23 members or affiliate members of SARI – Scientists for Accurate Radiation Information that describes important information about the use of a specific regimen of whole (or half) body low dose radiation as a treatment in the continuing battle against cancer. The organization…
Dr. Edward Calabrese and G Dhawan have published an article titled Historical use of x-rays: Treatment of inner ear infections and prevention of deafness in Vol 33(5) of Human and Experimental Toxicology, May 2014. Abstract Purpose: This article provides an historical assessment of the role of radiotherapy in the treatment of inner ear infections. Materials…
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.
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
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.
@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.
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.
@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.
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.”
@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?
So, well, might as well pull all the guards off our saws, eh Brian?
@ 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.
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?
@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.
Unless there is a legislation change in Illinois, Exelon will be shutting down Quad Cities and Clinton too.
Its maddening !!!!
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.”
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?
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.
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.
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.
@poa
Today’s political situation has some very deep and disturbing roots.
It’s nearly impossible to control kudzu unless you attack the root crown. http://www.kokudzu.com/SurgicalRemoval.html
Advice for a happier life – stop watching TV news and start listening to No Agenda as it deconstructs media coverage of world events.
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
“…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.
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.
“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?