The nuclear lobby want to change the law so that “radiation is good for you”

Smoking is good for you ...

....and in 2015 Radiation is Good for You
“Scientific Evidence that Smoking is Good for You” ….and …Now in 2015 “Radiation is Good for You”  !!   ………………….Give us the Truth

In a move reminiscent of the tobacco industry’s blatant lies about health the nuclear industry is desperate to repackage the effects of radiation as benign.

We have just received a message from our colleagues at Kick Nuclear.  Please read it and take action on this proposed law change in the US designed to protect the nuclear industry at the expense of our health and safety.  If this happens in the US …it will happen here.  The nuclear industry is in effect being deregulated like there is literally no tomorrow

Dear All,

Very disturbingly the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering making the hormesis model of radiation’s effects the basis for setting radiation standards.

Dr Ian Fairlie has published a paper explaining LNT vs Hormesis

A reader of wrote to us with the following helpful links:

Here is the link to submit comments, and it also explains it further ->

And here is a link for those who want to submit their comment ANONYMOUSLY ->!documentDetail;D=NRC-2015-0057-0010

More of the reader’s comment here:

Are you aware that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering a rule change that would adopt HORMESIS as the radiation-exposure-model instead of the present “Linear No-Threshold” radiation model?
HORMESIS is the idea that low-level radiation is “good for you.”
The NRC is also considering other recommendations that would allow citizens to be exposed to as much radiation as a nuclear worker; and to allow children and pregnant woman to be exposed to that amount of radiation, too. (it is well known that children and fetuses/embryos are very sensitive to radiation)

The NRC is requesting COMMENTS from the public on this until September 8th.
Can you please raise public awareness about this?
This really needs a strong vocal response against it and LOTS OF COMMENTS.
Here is the link to submit comments, and it also explains it further ->
And here is a link for those who want to submit their comment ANONYMOUSLY ->!documentDetail;D=NRC-2015-0057-0010

There is also a good interview by LibbeHaLevy of Nuclear Hotseat who says:
“Diane D’Arrigo of Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) on the current Petition in front of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to change radiation evaluation standards from current linear no-threshold to the false science of hormesis which tries to fool people into believing that
“radiation is GOOD for you!”

Comments are needed before September 8 on the NRC website.

*Go to:
*In the subject line, make certain to include the ID number:
*OR – Go directly to:!documentDetail;D=NRC-2015-0057-0010
*CLICK on the “Comment Now” button.
Then give the NRC a piece of your mind. You don’t have to make it fancy; they count number of responses more than the content. MAKE YOUR VOICES HEARD NOW!”

I hope you will choose to not remain silent on this vital matter, and encourage
everyone you know to say NO MORE RADIATION EXPOSURE!
Thank you.

10 thoughts on “The nuclear lobby want to change the law so that “radiation is good for you”

  1. Dr Ian Fairlie an expert in radiation has explained: “Hormesis advocates typically argue that although radiation attacks DNA and causes mutations, DNA repair mechanisms quickly correct these. These mechanisms are
    certainly numerous and busy – it is estimated over 15,000 repairs per hour are carried out in each cell – but from the sheer number of repairs, many misrepairs occur and it is the misrepairs that cause the damage.
    But even if the existence of hormesis were accepted, the question remains – what relevance would it have for radiation protection? The answer- as stated repeatedly in official reports by UNSCEAR and BEIR etc – is zero. For example, do we give “tickle” doses to people about to undergo radiation therapy, or to nuclear workers? Of course, we don’t.
    And what about background radiation? All of us receive small “tickle” doses of radiation – about 3 mSv per year. Do these somehow protect us from more radiation? How would we notice? And if it did, so what? That is, what relevance would it have for radiation protection, eg setting radiation standards? The answer is again ….none. Indeed, as we show below, good evidence exists that even background radiation itself is harmful.”

  2. Bravo and thanks for your elegant explanation. This topic is so repugnant I haven’t known how to initially approach it. They have only uploaded pro-hormesis comments thus far. The doctor who is spear-heading this is long past retirement age and affiliated with a med school in California. The nuclear industry is unable to get any young biologists or doctors to promote their lies. I think the reason is that there are now ethical standards, whereas people like the doctor promoting this made their livings off of grant monies torturing animals with radiation during the Cold War. Some kept on after the Cold War. The US BEIR report also explains why they don’t believe in hormesis. It also harkens back to the radium craze from 100 years ago which made so many sick. I have recently seen much lower background levels per country (something like 1.9 mSV) and noticed that the US has higher background than Canada which can’t be based on geology but rather weapons testing. I think this may also be in BEIR which is available online for free from the US National Academy of Science. 3 mSv would be world average including Chernobyl and possibly Fukushima.

  3. I think that where the lie comes in on hormesis is that, of course, there are reactions-immune response to the radiation, just like when you burn yourself. However, unlike a quick external burn, the radiation first incites the immune response (often causing inflammation) and then may destroy the ability to respond. Anyone who has ever cut their finger or burned themselves knows that the repair is often imperfect. In that case they can see the scarring. In the case of radiation the damage could lead over time to cancer, etc.

    There is also a logical argument that sometimes higher doses are better than lower to the extent that they are more likely to kill damaged cells. Surviving damaged cells can lead to cancer, etc. However, too many dead cells and you die because the body is composed of cells!

    Here is a piece from 1956 which shows that the body’s response first appeared positive, but then quickly turned negative. For external xrays there was some recovery. In the case of internal plutonium, however, there was no recovery over the 63 day period. This is lumped in one of the Radioactive Reindeer series posts, which has a lot of good abstracts.

    “Effects of Total Body X-Irradiation and Plutonium Injection on the Cholinesterase of Erythrocytes and Brain” by Jean C. Sabine
    American Journal of Physiology, Published 31 October 1956, Vol. 187no. 275-279
    Both total body x-irradiation (25–300 r) and injected plutonium (0.63 µc Pu+6) produce an increase in the cholinesterase activity of erythrocytes of mice on the 4th day. In mice receiving 300 r, high values were found on the 3rd–5th days. Subsequently there was a sharp fall in this titer to values far below normal at the end of the 1st week. During the 2nd week recovery began and was apparently complete by the end of the 3rd week. The reticulocyte count was significantly depressed during the 1st week, and there was a small but significant reticulocytosis during the 3rd.

    In the plutonium-injected mice, the same early peak was observed and the same fall to values well below normal. There was no recovery during 63 days of observation.

    Data are presented for the 4th day following doses of x-rays from 15–300 r. From 25 r upwards there is a significant increase in the mean cholinesterase titer. There appears to be a relationship between the proportion of high individual titers and the dose, and the highest individual values were observed at 300 r. Data are presented on a large series of control mice, and these are shown to conform well to the normal distribution as evaluated by k-statistics.”

  4. I think they are still torturing animals with radiation….deliberately and as collateral damage like the rest of us. I’ve got a feeling the NDA/RWM are involved in the project looking at Chernobyl …poor animals are used in ‘experimental control’ as well as in the environment….I think this is the case would have to check.

    1. I haven’t had time to check but I would be surprised if people trained in the last decades are still actively torturing animals (e.g. dogs) by injecting them with radionuclides. Maybe there’s been a resurgence. The original round of torturers would be very old by now and need replacement soon. Some researchers in Japan were irradiating butterflies as controls for Fukushima, which I think was wrong. The MD proposing this is in her late 70s, so was young in the hey-day of animal torture. She’s still at UCLA and probably still supervising torture of animals. Maybe that’s why she’s still there. They know it’s bad so no reason to torture to prove it’s good or bad. They irradiated fruit-flies in the 1920s. They’ve known it was bad for 50 to 100 years. Oh, IAEA has a project to irradiate fruit-flies as pest control (irradiate males to make them infertile). Sorry I am preaching to the choir.

  5. Pingback: BBC 4 TV Sellafield Infomercial Tonight at 9.00pm | Radiation Free Lakeland

  6. It’s even worse than I understood. They want 50 to 100 mSv per year for everyone, meaning all women and most men are guaranteed cancer from this source alone. Half will die and have lives shortened 14 to 15 years so no retirement. Work, get cancer and die.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s