ABC reporter John Stossel featured radiation in his series “Myths, Lies and Downright Stupidity" in the May 12 installment of the news program “20/20.” Stossel refuted the myth that “radiation will kill you” by citing a growing number of researchers asserting that low doses of radiation actually may be beneficial to immune system performance and longevity.
Stossel discussed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. In each case, he said, predictions about death or deformity rates turned out to be grossly inaccurate. Co-founder and former leader of Greenpeace Patrick Moore agreed.
“Not a single person is being killed in the nuclear industry, and people are wanting to ban it. It's pure scare tactics," Moore said.
“So next time someone scares you about radiation,” Stossel concluded, “remember that you are exposed to it all the time without harm, and some people even want more of it.”
UPDATE: There's a discussion going on an ABC message board about Stossel's report. One supporter of nuclear is relying on the facts to take on several anti-nukes about Chernobyl. So stop by and add your thoughts. If you want to read up on the subject first, here are some links:
• Background info about radiation in general.
• Background info on Chernobyl, including the latest United Nations report on the effects of Chernobyl.
• Previous blog post on Chernobyl.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Power, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, ABC, Radiation
Stossel discussed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. In each case, he said, predictions about death or deformity rates turned out to be grossly inaccurate. Co-founder and former leader of Greenpeace Patrick Moore agreed.
“Not a single person is being killed in the nuclear industry, and people are wanting to ban it. It's pure scare tactics," Moore said.
“So next time someone scares you about radiation,” Stossel concluded, “remember that you are exposed to it all the time without harm, and some people even want more of it.”
UPDATE: There's a discussion going on an ABC message board about Stossel's report. One supporter of nuclear is relying on the facts to take on several anti-nukes about Chernobyl. So stop by and add your thoughts. If you want to read up on the subject first, here are some links:
• Background info about radiation in general.
• Background info on Chernobyl, including the latest United Nations report on the effects of Chernobyl.
• Previous blog post on Chernobyl.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Power, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, ABC, Radiation
Comments
If not, why is NEI promoting this hypothesis?
Does the US industry reject the "linear, no threshold" hypothesis which is the basis for all regulation of the US nuclear industry?
And does this hormesis perspective inform industry's decisions on radiation safety matters?
Instinctively, most people know this. That is why no one ever calculates the number of radiation related fatalities from airline travel, medical x-rays or living in Denver, although the LNT allows this to be easily calculated.
"Asking for an "industry position" is a red herring."
Not at all. The NEI represents the US nuclear industry; I'm asking for the NEI's position on the hormesis theory, and whether that hypothesis is used in any way in the industry's radiation safety programs.
"most professional do not believe that LNT is technically correct and that there is, indeed, a threshold."
Then why do BEIR and UNSCEAR consistently reject this notion?
The LNT theory sticks around because there is not enough conclusive evidence to prove that the theory is wrong. This does not mean, however, that there is conclusive evidence -- or any evidence at all, for that matter -- that the LNT theory is correct.
It all boils down to this: nobody credible is arguing that low levels of radiation are more harmful than the LNT theory; therefore, it is the most conservative approach. Thus, it is used to extrapolate theoretical fatalities, even though it's applicability to the real world is completely unknown.
I think my friends in the nuclear industry have answered your question. In addition, I just ran into Ralph Andersen, our health physicist, and he said the following: Hormesis is an interesting theory and we continue to monitor it, but we need to see more science.