Posted on 05/19/2024 2:55:09 PM PDT by Twotone
Nuclear power could be a game-changer for energy affordability, grid reliability, and carbon reduction. However, it's been stifled for decades based on one deeply flawed scientific model: the linear no-threshold (LNT) model. The theory underlying this model suggests that any exposure to ionizing radiation, no matter how small, increases cancer risks and that risks rise in a linear way with exposure levels. It's not true.
The roots of LNT's dominance are more political than scientific. Its influence traces back to Hermann Muller, a geneticist and 1946 Nobel Prize winner. Muller's research in the 1920s and '30s claimed to show that radiation induces mutations in fruit flies, with no safe threshold. He became an ardent evangelist for the idea that even tiny radiation doses could cause hereditary defects.
However, it appears Muller may have deliberately misled his followers. For example, Muller falsely claimed in his 1946 Nobel acceptance speech that there was "no escape" from the conclusion that any radiation is harmful, despite being aware of evidence to the contrary.
Muller's influence peaked during the Cold War, as fears of radioactive fallout from above-ground nuclear weapons testing dominated public discourse. He warned that fallout could unleash a wave of birth defects based on unwarranted extrapolations from his fruit fly experiments. Though human studies of the offspring of Japanese atomic bomb survivors found no significant evidence of genetic damage, Muller helped convince the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to exclude this inconvenient data when it convened an expert panel to assess fallout risks, opting instead to rely on his research using fruit flies and newer studies involving mice.
The internal dynamics of these scientific panels were less than objective. Edward Calabrese, a toxicologist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, revealed that panelists openly strategized about how conclusions from their report could increase funding for their research. The head of the panel even referred to the members as "conspirators." This conflict of interest resulted in a biased final report that exaggerated health risks from fallout and omitted lower estimates to create a false veneer of consensus.
The deceptions worked. The panel's report led to widespread media coverage, which caused a sensation with its dire warnings. It catalyzed a major shift in government policy toward reliance on LNT for radiation regulations and risk assessment. Subsequent expert committees would repeatedly endorse LNT, often while downplaying or ignoring new findings that challenged it.
One such finding was the discovery of DNA repair mechanisms in the late 1950s by geneticists William and Liane Russell, which contradicted LNT's core premise that radiation damage always accumulates. When the NAS convened a new version of its radiation panel, the group initially sought to bury the repair discovery. An early draft of the panel's report omitted the repair findings. Only after several members protested—including, to his credit, Herman Muller—was the information added. Yet the committee still endorsed LNT.
In the 1990s, researcher Paul Selby uncovered serious flaws (or possibly deliberate misrepresentations) in earlier mouse studies by the Russells that had been pivotal to LNT's acceptance. Had these errors been known from the start, the regulatory regime surrounding radiation today could be very different.
More recently, the debate over LNT reignited within the Health Physics Society following the launch of a video series in April 2022 that detailed the checkered history of LNT. The series, featuring interviews with Edward Calabrese, sparked a vicious backlash. Emails obtained via Freedom of Information Act requests revealed an orchestrated pressure campaign by LNT proponents within the society, federal agencies, and the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements to discredit the video series and quash further discussion. The society's president, who spearheaded the video project, was censured by the Board of Directors of the Health Physics Society, in an apparent act of retaliation since some of these individuals were mentioned by name in the uncovered emails. The censure was ultimately overturned by a vote of the membership.
The sordid history of LNT is a cautionary tale of how flawed science, ideological bias, and political motives can distort the search for truth. Yet this dubious model remains and its influence extends beyond academic debates. LNT shapes onerous radiation regulations that dictate cleanup standards, nuclear plant oversight generally, and public perceptions of radiation risk, leading to exaggerated fears, higher energy costs, and perennially thwarted progress in the nuclear industry.
A more biology-based approach is needed—one that recognizes organisms' evolved capacities to repair low-dose radiation damage. Dose limits should be grounded in observable health effects, not speculative extrapolations from experiments on fruit flies. Additionally, it's time to discard the ALARA ("as low as reasonably achievable") concept that requires nuclear plants to continuously undertake costly efforts to lower exposure levels, based on the unfounded premises of the LNT model.
Science is supposed to self-correct through a culture of healthy skepticism and procedures like peer review. Yet these corrections often fail. Given the revelations about LNT's past and the many studies challenging its core assumptions, policymakers need to revisit the foundations of LNT-based regulation. Responsible reforms would lift burdens on the nuclear power industry and potentially dispel radiation phobias, opening the door to a more science-based approach to nuclear safety.
If we can learn from this history, we can build a scientific strategy around regulating nuclear technologies that helps people gain access to affordable, abundant, and reliable clean energy.
Seems “scientists” don’t actually believe in science.
We have eight decades of experience with radiation workers now. That is more than a sufficient sample size. If LNT was true, they should easily be able to prove it through epidemiological studies. ‘They’ have not.
BTW....highest lifetime occupational radiation exposure belongs to...
Airline pilots.
I always thought that the biggest long term problem with nuclear power was how to store/handle/protect the spent radioactive fuel.
…..for centuries
“Nuclear regulation” might be better declared as “unclear regulation”.
Nearly eighty years since the designation of nuclear radiation as a “zero-tolerance”, apparently the actual effects have never been revisited and a considerable amount of research has either been left undone, or what has been studied in that time has been largely ignored.
Modern designs of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors have NONE of the design flaws that lead to large releases of radioactive materials. And the radioactive byproducts can be used to “seed” thorium-fueled molten salt reactors, using up what is now termed to be “spent” uranium fuel rods.
Now, more than ever, the world NEEDS copious quantities of CHEAP electricity, and there is no safer or more economical means of generation than nuclear power, be it fueled with uranium, or the newer designs that are fueled by thorium.
We only lack the will to use what we already know how to do.
Thanks for posting!!
I’m an HPS member….
The globalists don't want us to have clean, cheap energy of any kind.
That's the reason we don't use the technology we already have.
““Nuclear regulation” might be better declared as “unclear regulation”.”
For a second there I thought you meant UN Clear regulation.
as in United Nations
Exactly so. There is considerable evidence the Liniar No Threshold (LNT) model is false. Yet, our whole nuclear regulatory scheme is based on it.
Not only that, but it has been extended to most other poisons.
We can detect poisons to extremely low levels now, which have, essentially, no effect. Yet the EPA keeps pushing to lower the acceptable thresholds. This makes everything cost much, much more.
>> I always thought that the biggest long term problem with nuclear power was how to store/handle/protect the spent radioactive fuel.<<
That’s because Jimmy Carter prohibited recycling spent rods into new fuel. The French have been doing it without issues.
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/jimmy-carter-killed-technology-50-004249906.html
“However, it’s been stifled for decades based on one deeply flawed scientific model: the linear no-threshold (LNT) model. “
Having worked at over 15 nuclear plants including 10 new startups that has never been stifling.
“Nearly eighty years since the designation of nuclear radiation as a “zero-tolerance”
Having worked with radiation for over 40 years, that is the first time I heard that.
“That’s because Jimmy Carter prohibited recycling spent rods into new fuel. “
Reversed by Reagan.
From what I get out of the article, they are most concerned with ionizing radioation from reactors. But exposure is far more common than people believe.
Ionizing radiation is the most energetic form of radiation. X-rays are perhaps the best known type of ionizing radiation; other types include alpha, beta and gamma rays. (Gamma rays are emitted from radioactive materials while aslpha and beta require inhalation or injected to include entrance through open wounds of exposed skin for a problem) Ionizing radiation is naturally present in our environment and exposure to certain levels of it can’t be avoided. In fact, approximately 80 percent of all exposure can be attributed to naturally-occurring sources.
Only about 20 percent of exposure to ionizing radiation comes from man-made sources. Medical procedures, like diagnostic x-rays and radiation therapy, are the most significant contributors. But some consumer products, such as smoke detectors and televisions, also give off low levels of it. Individuals who smoke are exposed to ionizing radiation in tobacco smoke. So people who work in the field have to be aware of intake. People like lab techs, xray people, and military are especially instructed to keep count.
While exposure to ionizing radiation can be potentially dangerous, it’s believed that the body is able to successfully defend itself against and repair the damaging effects of low level exposures. This article reeks of chicken little.
wy69
From what I get out of the article, they are most concerned with ionizing radioation from reactors. But exposure is far more common than people believe.
Ionizing radiation is the most energetic form of radiation. X-rays are perhaps the best known type of ionizing radiation; other types include alpha, beta and gamma rays. (Gamma rays are emitted from radioactive materials while aslpha and beta require inhalation or injected to include entrance through open wounds of exposed skin for a problem) Ionizing radiation is naturally present in our environment and exposure to certain levels of it can’t be avoided. In fact, approximately 80 percent of all exposure can be attributed to naturally-occurring sources.
Only about 20 percent of exposure to ionizing radiation comes from man-made sources. Medical procedures, like diagnostic x-rays and radiation therapy, are the most significant contributors. But some consumer products, such as smoke detectors and televisions, also give off low levels of it. Individuals who smoke are exposed to ionizing radiation in tobacco smoke. So people who work in the field have to be aware of intake. People like lab techs, xray people, and military are especially instructed to keep count.
While exposure to ionizing radiation can be potentially dangerous, it’s believed that the body is able to successfully defend itself against and repair the damaging effects of low level exposures. This article reeks of chicken little.
wy69
Not only is low-dose radiation not harmful, but there is a great deal of evidence that it is beneficial.
In one of the most dramatic cases, apartments in Taiwan were constructed with materials contaminated with Cobalt-60. Nearly 10,000 residents lived there for ten years before the radiation was discovered.
Surprisingly, the cancer rate among the residents was less than 5 percent the rate for the rest of Taiwan. Note that, is was not 5 percent less - it was 5 percent or twenty times less!
There are numerous other studies that support benefits of low-dose radiation.
Yes...being exposed to a neutron flux in a critical reactor will kill you...quickly.
But to put things in perspective:
You have four cookies...a gamma cookie, an alpha cookie, a beta cookie, and a neutron cookie. You can eat one, hold one in your hand, put one in your pocket, and throw one away. What do you do?
Eat the gamma cookie...gammas have no mass, thus they are very low energy and do little biological damage, and are just as likely to pass through you without hurting anything.
Hold the Alpha cookie in your hand...your skin is dense enough to keep that particle out of your body.
Put the Beta cookie in your pocket...the fabric is dense enough to shield you from absorbing it.
You throw the neutron cookie away...it is high mass and high energy, and will do the most damage of any ionizing radiation.
With a reactor, all other fission products are contained within the cladding of the fuel pellets, and neutron levels fall very quickly after the reactor is shut down.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.