« Nuclear Warships Prove Effective in Battle | Main | Radiation Victims are Not Black Swans »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

you providing information is good thank u for sending lead bricks

Ted - Great work. The only thing I will add is the fact that spreading fear of radiation has been immensely profitable for the fossil fuel competition to nuclear energy production.

One small example with real numbers can be found in the aftermath of Fukushima. Because the Japanese people and their politicians have been taught to fear the tiniest quantities of radiation, they decided that it would be "conservative" to gradually shut down all of their nuclear power plants for increased inspections and stress tests before allowing them to restart.

In the brief period between March 2011 and December 2011, Japan spent $55 billion more for imported natural gas, oil and coal to fuel the "thermal" power plants whose output replaced the output of the 50 operable reactors that were shut down.

That additional cost to the Japanese people was additional revenue for the fossil fuel industry and is part of what allowed multinational oil companies to maintain petroleum prices well above the 5 year rolling average price. Germany's irrational decision to also shut down 1/3 of its capacity contributed to those high oil prices.

As a "by the way", natural gas is only cheap in the US and Canada. The LNG that Japan was purchasing cost about 5 times as much per unit of energy as the stuff that is currently being traded at a price that is below the cost of production here in the US.

For over 100 years, the science has been clear and unambiguous: Low-dose radiation in the range of interest is beneficial, not harmful, and repeated attempts by regulators to hide or deny this fact are indefensible scientifically. The relevant scientific organizations have made this position part of their public policy. The extensive report published in connection with the 2012 ANS President’s Special Plenary summarizes the scientific knowledge on low-dose radiation effects. Regulators owe deference to this fact. Distortion of the science for political purposes is not only harmful to the advancement of nuclear technology; it is harmful to the public health and should no longer be tolerated.

The article's also excellent, my spouse and i enjoy it relatively very much.

These are but a few examples of the nuclear community’s repeated efforts to exaggerate the dangers associated with any form of nuclear technology.so well!

Hi Ted,
Lovely article; it conforms near-perfectly to what I want to be true.
For your information: A comment on a Bishop Hill article led me to the blog gottadobetterthanthis, which led me here.
Still, may I commend to you the importance of repeatedly citing the sources for that which you know will be seen as controversial? Specifically in this case to the claim "Nuclear radiation (ionizing radiation: alpha, beta and gamma radiation) is essential to Life; without it, organisms wither and die."
Presumably, you have it well-documented throughout your site, but your blog is two interesting though tangential hyper-links away from the original issue I was following up; I can't invest the time to hunt up the evidence to support your case. I'm asking you to cite the source for that claim with a link, or alternatively to link to an article that cites many of these studies.
You might well be frustrated at being asked to provide evidence yet again as if you had not provided it many times before, but the simple fact is that you haven't done so to me, and to many other new visitors to your site.
I respectfully suggest you abandon the practice of bolding keywords. It too closely resembles the caps-locks of the cranks.
We who are passionate advocates of any issue need to exhibit restraint and balance, or we'll not only look like them, we'll actually become cranks. (One tip I use to avoid this is to regularly remind myself of the points my opponents make that I do agree with.)
I'll check back later and see if you provide that link; I'd love to be able to quote those sources to others.

For a reference on the statement that nuclear radiation is essential to life, I turn to Marshall Brucer,MD, "The Father of Nuclear Medicine," and his canonical tome, "A Chronology of Nuclear Medicine, 1600-1989," page 423, last paragraph:

"In August 1985 a Conference on Radiation Hormesis in Oakland, CA, recognized the reversal in concepts of radiation effects. Its Proceedings, published in the Health Physics Journal in 1987, finally recognized that low-dose radiation is not only good for you, it is essential to life."

On the previous page, Brucer has statements such as the following:

"No medieval poisoner would dare kill somebody without first tasting the poison. Alchemists all knew that a poison in small dose was not poison. A few generations ago, physicians carried strychnine in their bags for aged 50-year old patients. Only in high dose was it a poison; prescriptions were for a stimulating tonic."

I remember published minutes of an NRC meeting in which work with mice, to supplement previous work with microscopic organisms by Planel and others, was described. Not only were the mice shielded from eternal radiation; potassium depleted in K-40 in the Oak Ridge Calutrons was fed them, to decrease their internal radiation. The mice grew sickly, and regained health only after returning to normal food. One of the staffers remarked by name on record that that research would not be reported, to protect the LNT.

This is a well-researched article.Radiation has done great damage in a some nuclear plants.History is the witness of this:Chernobyl and lastly is the Fukushima in Japan.

Das meiste, was Sie darauf hinweisen, ist erstaunlich legitim und das macht mich frage mich, warum ich nicht an dieser mit diesem Licht sah zuvor.

  Three mice are being chased by a cat. The mice were cornered when one of the mice turned around and barked, "Ruff! Ruff! Ruff!" The surprised cat ran away scared. Later when the mice told their mother what happened, she smiled and said, "You see, it pays to be bilingual!"

The comments to this entry are closed.