Nuclear power could transform energy affordability, grid reliability and carbon emissions reductions. However, for decades it has been suppressed by a deeply flawed scientific model: the Linear No-Threshold (LNT) model. The model’s theory states that any exposure to ionizing radiation, no matter how small, increases cancer risk, with risk rising linearly with exposure. This is not true.
The roots of LNT’s dominance are more political than scientific.Its influence can be traced to Hermann Muller, a geneticist and 1946 Nobel Prize winner. Muller’s research in the 1920s and 1930s claimed that radiation induced mutations in fruit flies and that there was no safe threshold.He became an ardent propagator of the idea that even tiny doses of radiation could cause genetic defect.
However, Mueller appears to have deliberately misled his followers. For example, in his 1946 Nobel Prize acceptance speech, Muller falsely claimed that “don’t run away“Although we are aware of evidence to the contrary, we have concluded that any radiation is harmful.
Mueller’s influence peaked during the Cold War, when public concerns about radioactive fallout from above-ground nuclear weapons testing dominated.He warned that the consequences could be play Based on unfounded extrapolations from his experiments with fruit flies, a series of birth defects developed.although human research Mueller finds no clear evidence of genetic damage in descendants of Japanese atomic bomb survivors help persuade The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) ruled out this inconvenient data during a meeting expert panel To assess the risk of consequences, he chose to rely on his research using fruit flies and more recent research involving mice.
The inner dynamics of these scientific groups are not objective. Toxicologist Edward Calabrese of the University of Massachusetts Amherst revealed that panel members openly strategized about how the conclusions of their reports could increase funding for their research.Even the group leader Mentioned Calling members “conspirators”. This conflict of interest resulted in a biased final report that overstated the health risks posed by the effects and ignored lower estimates, thereby creating a false consensus.
The deception worked.The group’s report attracted widespread attention media reports, whose dire warnings caused a stir. It prompted a major shift in government policy toward reliance on LNT for radiation regulation and risk assessment. Subsequent expert committees often repeatedly endorsed LNT downplay or ignore Challenge it to new discoveries.
One such discovery was the discovery of a DNA repair mechanism by geneticists William and Liane Russell in the late 1950s, which contradicted LNT’s core premise that radiation damage always accumulates. When NASA convened a meeting of its radiation panel on the new version, the panel initially tried to cover up the fix. An early draft of the group’s report omitted the repair results. This information was not added until several members protested, including, to his credit, Hermann Müller.However the committee Still agree LNT.
In the 1990s, researcher Paul Selby exposed The Russells’ early mouse studies had serious flaws (or perhaps intentional distortions) that were critical to the acceptance of LNT. If these errors had been known from the beginning, the regulatory regime surrounding radiation today might have been very different.
Recently, with the introduction of LNT, the debate about LNT has been reignited within the Health Physics Society. video series In April 2022, the checkered history of LNT was detailed. The series featured an interview with Edward Calabrese, which sparked a backlash. Emails obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request show, Well-planned stress campaigns LNT supporters in society, federal agencies, and the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements smeared the film series and suppressed further discussion.The president of the association is the leader of the video project condemning Instigated by the Board of Directors of the Health Physics Society, this was clearly an act of revenge as some of the individuals were named in the undiscovered emails. Ultimately, the censure was overturned by a membership vote.
dirty history “LNT” is a cautionary tale about how flawed science, ideological bias, and political motivations can distort the search for truth. Yet this questionable pattern persists, with implications beyond the scope of academic debate. The LNT established strict radiation regulations that dictated cleanup standards, overall regulation of nuclear power plants, and public perceptions of radiation risks, leading to exaggerated fears, higher energy costs, and long-term obstacles to nuclear industry progress.
We need a more biologically based approach, one that recognizes the evolved ability of organisms to repair damage from low-dose radiation. Dose limits should be based on observable health effects rather than speculative inferences from experiments in fruit flies.Besides, it’s time to give up healthy (“as low as reasonably achievable”) concept requires nuclear power plants to continuously engage in costly efforts to reduce exposure levels based on the unfounded premises of the LNT model.
Science should correct itself through processes such as a culture of healthy skepticism and peer review. Yet these corrections often fail.Given the concerns surrounding LNT’s past and many studies To challenge its core assumptions, policymakers need to revisit the foundations of LNT-based regulation. Responsible reforms will reduce and potentially eliminate the burden on the nuclear power industry. radiophobiaopening the door to a more scientific approach to nuclear security.
If we can learn from this history, we can develop science-based strategies around regulating nuclear technology to help people gain access to affordable, abundant and reliable clean energy.
