Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Subscribe to Comments:


  1. Is it a mistake to think that scientific views on this issue are shaped by economic interests, truth be damned? Radiological remediation companies feed their “pie holes” (pig bellies) by standing up for lies in favor of LNT. Do they care if anthropogenic global warming via coal use is greatly encouraged by their radiation hysteria? No, they don’t. They care about their pie holes. That being given, what defeats them? Economic power is defeated by a greater power. Stagnation due to monopoly inside a capitalist country is defeated by capitalist competition on the world stage. In brief, China will lead the next stage of technological, industrial revolution: nuclear energy. This will then pose the question to the dinosaurs in power in the USA (dead dinosaur junkies and pushers, and their helpers, the radiophobia-mongers): change or be smashed. The Chinese are taking steps to be the determining factor in world nuclear energy regulation. This is being reported in the press, even today. When Chinese reactors are ready for mass production and export, this will be stepped up, IMHO.

  2. “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

    To which the correct response is Bertrand Russell’s teapot. 🙂

      1. @Todd De Ryck Russell’s teapot is the argument used to show the logical fallacy in all such assertions.

  3. I cannot think of anything more unscientific than to say that you will not change your mind no matter what the evidence. This dogmatism reminds me of the Greenpeacer who said, “I don’t care if it can be shown to be perfectly safe, I still don’t want nuclear”

  4. Meanwhile, after all this chin-wagging. our resilient planet is starting to tell us that it is running out of resilience. (Witness the increasing power of recent hurricanes.) We need to move ahead with the extensive knowledge that we have, and develop safe methods for nuclear energy (instead of methane!) to support renewable energies in a compatible manner. Nature cannot wait much longer while we sit around and dither.

    1. From: “Continental United States Hurricane Landfall Frequency and Associated Damage: Observations and Future Risks“

      [Internet Search of the above title will provide a pdf copy.”

      “While United States landfalling hurricane frequency or intensity shows no significant trend since 1900, growth in coastal population and wealth have led to increasing hurricane-related damage along the United States coastline. Continental United States (CONUS) hurricane-related inflation-adjusted damage has increased significantly since 1900. However, since 1900 neither observed CONUS landfalling hurricane frequency nor intensity show significant trends, including the devastating 2017 season.

  5. Merchants of Doubt wrote:

    “Maybe it’s not possible. But I feel we must communicate this to the public. Say maybe there is something at low doses. Maybe there is nothing. We don’t know. We have to admit that. It’s a matter of honesty and transparency. But we can say for sure that it cannot be much. If it was large, we should see it. That is for sure.”

  6. Was there a correlation with age for the 3 different views, i.e., older folk sticking with LNT, younger going with hormesis? Looking for an assessment of where we are going as older experts retire, and younger take over.

    1. I suspect you’re going to see an ideological and economic divide persist.  People whose paychecks come from “radiation protection” are not going to be swayed by evidence that they’re “protecting” people from a possible benefit.

  7. What do the scientific journals say ? Where is the peer review? Healing properties of low dose exposure ? How much ? What proven benifit?

  8. Thank you very much for a short summary of the discussions at the meeting. The meeting stressed the familiar pattern. I am very happy to learn that the proceedings in some form will appear in public domain. We, as scientists were successful in developing the science and technology of radiation protection to incomprehensibly fantastic limits. We could demonstrate damage to the smallest part of a single cell at extremely low levels. The differences among us persisted. We lost the plot the very day we started propagating conspiracy theories and conflicts of interests. We ignored the the need for evolving consensus. We left profound scientific issues to be settled in judiciary and legislature. Uncertainties will continue so long as our attempt is to get deterministic answers to purely probabilistic questions. These uncertainties will continue so long as the interaction processes even at one step are stochastic in nature. So long as there are no clearly identified threshold levels, debates will continue. We must convey the need for arriving at acceptable levels of risk. We never came out to explain the situation to public at large. We remained in the comfort zones of our labs. Unfounded belief in the scientific accuracy of LNT may be one reason for fear of radiation among the public. Did we do anything substantial to mitigate the fear? Now it may be harder. What is “reasonable” in ALARA is a societal question. Scientists must accept their role in proposing what is reasonable.

    1. I’m not sure what you mean by “demonstrate damage to the smallest part of a single cell at extremely low levels.”
      I listened closely and did not see such evidence presented, especially if one defines “damage” as a persistent change that can be detected even after cellular response systems are given time to work.

      1. What I had in mind is the bystander effect demonstrated by micro-beam alpha particle irradiation. Single alpha particle hitting a target cell and cells not directly hit but remaining in the periphery demonstrating the effect.

  9. There is a great void of knowledge about radiation. Years ago we got or insured we got enough Vitamin D from the Sun. Today we get it from a bottle and cover our body to prevent any exposure to sunlight. I say this as my younger brother had Polio. After leaving the hospital he had twice daily sessions under a Carbon-Arc lamp, as prescribed by the doctor to assure that he got extra Vitamin D. I would lay on the pad with him to keep him company and enjoy the time their. we did this for at least two winters and got lots of outside Sun time in the summertime. We are both in are seventies and neither of us have had any form of cancer or skin cancer. PERIOD. In addition to emitting UV-A, UV-B and UV-C, [All called dangerous toxins today] there is also high amounts of electromagnetic radiation given off by an Arc Lamp. Far worse than the radiation from a cellphone or handheld radio transmitter.
    Additionally, back in the 40’s and 50’s seemed like every shoe store had a Shoe X-Ray viewer. Again, I and my brothers and sisters spent five to ten minutes and probably much more looking at each others feet, wiggling our toes, etc every time we got shoes. We begged our mother to go to the store that had this X-Ray. And, again, none of us have any form of cancer on our feet, lower extremities or body. Period.
    Where are the studies looking at these two forbidden devices?

    1. It is clear to me that there were a whole lot of maybes involved with establishing EXISTING set of rules.

      It’s also clear that the overall effect of the existing construct is to discourage use of the best energy source in favor of inferior, dirtier and more harmful sources.

      1. Agreed.  The Greenpeace activists who don’t care that nuclear is the cleanest and safest energy source we have, they’re against it anyway need to be punished as enemies of humanity and the world as a whole.

  10. Rod, i agree with your comment:
    “It’s also clear that the overall effect of the existing construct (LNT) is to discourage use of the best energy source in favor of inferior, dirtier and more harmful sources.”
    I agree that we must continue to hammer home the point that LNT let to the Fuk evacuation and hence much more damage than benefit. We should also remind everyone that the WHO estimate for air pollution deaths in Japan is tens of thousands/year. Shutting down 50+ nukes in Japan and Germany due to LNT increased deaths in these countries.
    I think we have to remind the pro-LNT camp that they are increasing risk of death in many ways.
    I think a climate scientist, Hansen, estimated saved lives/year per reactor. We need that info out there.

Recent Comments from our Readers

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

Similar Posts