NRC Calls Off Expensive Search for Witches

September 11, 2015 by Rod Adams

The NRC announced that it would stop funding the National Academy of Sciences’s effort to study whether or not populations that are exposed to radiation doses that are a tiny fraction of average background radiation related to proximity to licensed nuclear energy have an elevated risk of contracting cancer.[read more]

Shaping Public Perceptions of Radiation Risk

November 29, 2014 by Rod Adams

Radiation and the Perception of Health Risk

On Monday, November 17, the US House of Representatives passed H.R. 5544, the Low Dose Radiation Research Act, which called for the National Academies to “conduct a study assessing the current status and development of a long-term strategy for low dose radiation research.”[read more]

Why Radiation is Safe and Why All Nations Should Embrace Nuclear Energy

August 23, 2014 by Rod Adams

Nuclear Energy, Radiation, and Risk

Dr. Wade Allison has recently published a video on radiation that is aimed at a general audience. It explains why radiation associated with nuclear energy production, medical diagnostics, and medical treatments is generally safe and should not be a cause for excessive concern.[read more]

Fukushima Radiation Affecting US Tuna

August 30, 2013 by Antonio Pasolini

Fukushima Radiation Spread?

Recent reports have exposed what some people had predicted at the time of the Fukushima nuclear disaster: that radiation would spread. And it has, as detectable radiation in fish that migrate across the Pacific between North America and Japan.[read more]

Learning the Right Nuclear Energy Lessons: A New Paradigm for the Future

May 2, 2013 by Milton Caplan

It's important we learn the "right" lessons from Fukushima. This will lead to improving the response following accidents, and then ultimately starting a meaningful dialogue to reduce the public fear of nuclear energy.[read more]

Risk Assessment: Are Our Regulators Going Too Far?

January 9, 2013 by Rod Adams

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 Deception that needs to be widely distributed and discussed. Here is the quoted introduction:Strategies to limit the  general  public’s  exposure  to toxic...[read more]

A Revolution in Radiation Protection?

January 7, 2013 by Rod Adams

Nuclear Radiation via Shutterstock

Dr. Wade Allison, author of Radiation and Reason, recently shared a short paper titled A revolution in radiation protection that would lead to safer and cheaper nuclear power. He described it as “reference light”, explaining that his intended audience for this work is not the journal-reading academic community but the kind of people who...[read more]

Health effects of Radiation - Overestimated?

October 2, 2012 by Rod Adams

Radiation Sign via Shutterstock

A friend shared a link to a prize winning essay titled The path to reconstruction in Fukushima as seen through fieldwork in Eastern Japan. It was written by Jun Takada, Doctor of Science Professor, Sapporo Medical University. Here is a sample quote:Following the nuclear accident in Fukushima that occurred as a result of the Great East...[read more]

How Realistic is The Economist’s Cool View of Nuclear Power?

March 19, 2012 by Barry Brook

Last week, the influential weekly news and international affairs publication, The Economist, ran an essay on the future of nuclear energy – The dream that failed: Nuclear power will not go away, but its role may never be more than marginal.[read more]

How Fukushima Led to a Radiation Panic

March 14, 2012 by Breakthrough Institute

One year after Fukushima, independent scientists working for the UN say bluntly that irrational fears of radiation poisoning will cause far more harm than the radiation itself. Not a single individual from the Japanese public received a dangerous dose, according to the early and informal analyses by the scientists. (Conspiracy theories...[read more]

Whos' Really to Blame for Fukushima Health Impacts?

March 12, 2012 by John Wheeler

As is often the case, the passage of time yields clarity about events, and the nuclear power plant accident at Fukushima is no different.  It has become clear that the misinformation and hysterics by anti-nuclear groups and individuals were mostly wrong.  Their doomsday prophesizing actually worsened human suffering and...[read more]

Lawrence Berkeley National Lab: Breakthrough Study of Low Radiation Dose Effects

December 21, 2011 by Rod Adams

The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory issued a press release on December 20, 2011 titled New Take on Impacts of Low Dose Radiation: Berkeley Lab Researchers Find Evidence Suggesting Risk May Not Be Proportional to Dose at Low Dose Levels.The press release summarizes the results of a paper that has been published in the Proceedings of...[read more]

Reducing Nuclear Operational & Capital Costs By Improved Technology

December 1, 2011 by Rod Adams

I received a link from the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) to a fascinating video about their recent efforts to develop CoSecTM, a new resin technology that is more effective at capturing cobalt-60. Most of the radiation doses that nuclear workers receive come from this single isotope.  One possible cost savings aspect...[read more]

The Discussion Continues: Nuclear Power in Japan

November 29, 2011 by Karen Street

This began as an answer to one letter writer in Friends Journal, and grew. The information that surprised me most is the answer to this question: How does the danger from the Fukushima Daiichi reactors compare to other health dangers, such as Tokyo pollution? ************** There were a number of responses to Earthquake, Tsunami, and...[read more]

Sensible Recommendation: 100 mSv/month – Radiation As High As Relatively Safe

November 14, 2011 by Rod Adams

Dr. Wade Allison, the author of Radiation and Reason, was interviewed following a recent visit to Japan. He has a rational recommendation for the international radiation protection community – instead of setting radiation dose limits based on keeping them as close to zero as possible, why not choose levels that are based on keeping the hazard to human beings within reasonable levels.[read more]