New scientific findings suggest radiation risks are exaggerated
London – An important new paper from the Global Warming Policy Foundation reveals that low-level nuclear radiation might be much less dangerous than previously thought.
According to authors, Professor Edward Calabrese and Dr Mikko Paunio, recent reviews of seminal research conducted in the decades after the Second World War has uncovered serious flaws in the “linear no-threshold” assumption – the idea that nuclear radiation is dangerous even at very low exposures.
According to Professor Calabrese, Professor of Toxicology at the University of Massachusetts, these claims are now known to be based on scientific studies that were deceptive, flawed, or even fraudulent:
“The key work that was done in the US after the war was fatally flawed. But influential scientists managed to suppress the evidence and ensure that the linear no-threshold assumption survived.”
And Professor Calabrese’s position is confirmed by a review of recent findings from Japan, which have been reviewed by Dr Paunio, a former chairman of the Finnish Radiological Protection Board. According to Dr Paunio, key support for the linear no-threshold assumption came from a major study that followed the life histories of theÂ HibakushaÂ – the survivorsÂ of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atom bombs.
“Their error was extraordinary,” says Dr Paunio. “They failed to account for the effects of secondary radiation exposures and fallout. This means that the rather low numbers of cancers observed in the hibakusha in the decades after the war were actually caused by quite high exposures to radiation.”
The implication of these reviews is that nuclear radiation seems to be relatively harmless at low levels. If correct, it means that the nuclear energy industry is being grossly over-regulated for no reason at all.
According to GWPF director Benny Peiser, there is now a need for government to act.
“Over the weekend, itÂ was reportedÂ that the government might finally kick the small modular nuclearÂ programme into action. If so, then it’s a welcome development, but there remains a real risk that the programme will be sunk by the environmental bureaucracy.”
“If the extremely costly regulatory burden is really as pointless as these new findings suggest, there is an important opportunity for the country. It’s time for a major review of the new radiation science.”
Edward J. Calabrese is Professor of Toxicology at the University of Massachusetts, School of Public Health and Health Sciences, Amherst. Dr Calabrese has researched extensively in the area of host factors affecting susceptibility to pollutants, and is the author of over 900 papers in scholarly journals, as well as more than ten books. He was awarded the 2009 Marie Curie Prize for his body of work on hormesis. He was the recipient of the International Society for Cell Communication and Signaling-Springer award for 2010. He was awarded an Honorary Doctor of Science Degree from McMaster University in 2013. In 2014 he was awarded the Petr Beckmann Award from Doctors for Disaster Preparedness.
Mikko Paunio MD, MHS is adjunct professor in epidemiology at the University of Helsinki. From 2009-2019, he was the chairman of the Radiation Safety Advisory Board set up by the Council of State of Finland.
2 thoughts on “New scientific findings suggest radiation risks are exaggerated”
This new “science” is fake shill science.
The reality is that the true facts on radiation toxicity have been carefully obfuscated for ages by all nations profiteering handsomely from nuclear energy, medical radiation, and nuclear weaponry, such as the US, France, Russia, India, or Japan.
The conventional medical-dental industries and the nuclear-military industries (=the radiation cartel) have been, for well over half a century , perpetually lying about, and minimizing, the true toxicity of ionizing radiation (e.g resorting to false sneaky comparisons between radiation exposure from sunlight or an airplane flight to a dental or medical x-ray or the exposure to nuclear fallout, etc. to deliberately deceive the unwitting public) to avoid culpability for the huge number of deaths and injuries that they’re responsible for (discussed and well referenced in the book “The Mammogram Myth” by Rolf Hefti).
The official accounts on the Chernobyl debacle, as an example, range from a few dozen to a few hundred people who ended up dead while independent analyses (conducted by people NOT tied to the corrupt corporate mainstream “science” syndicate) estimated the death toll in the tens to hundreds of thousands (in some cases approaching a million) of deceased people (and the radiation cartel-induced massacre is continuing).
The distortions and disinformation about the alleged safety of (low dose) radiation or the purported lack of much harm to people, whether from medical x-rays or fallout from disaster sites such as Chernobyl or Fukushima, continues to this day. The real danger and damage caused by Chernobyl and Fukushima are much higher than the officialdom wants the public to believe.
You can recognize the global grip of this powerful big money cartel by the ominous absence in the reporting of the allied corporate mass media (the mainstream fake news media) about the ongoing severe disaster at Fukushima, or by any of the solid proofs about the frauds this criminal evil cartel is involved in. You can find out more about that from Dr. Chris Busby, Dr. Helen Caldicott and others who are not tied to the corrupt radiation cartel.
The risk assessment of low level radiation long ago became indepdendent of the A-bomb survivor studies, which were always problematic with regard to dose-assessment. In the late 1970s I worked closely with Professor EP Radford (Pitsburgh) who assessed epidemiological data from Swedish iron ore miners – he sat on the US National Academy of Sciences Biological Effects of Ionising Radiation Committee, which took issue with the ‘shills’ mentioned by Harry above – the International Committee on Radiological Protection, set up by the UN but actually an industry body. The ICRP also opposed for more than a decade the epidemiological analysis of Dr Alice Stewart (with whom I also worked) on the effects of X-rays on pregnant women – eventually conceding, of course. The effects of ionising radiation are complex – gamma fields from nuclear reactors are very different from ingested alpha or beta emitters that are discharged through waste streams. The safest assumption is to assume a no threshold linear response.