Nuclear power could be a game-changer for energy affordability, grid reliability, and carbon reduction. However, this problem has been suppressed for decades based on a seriously flawed scientific model: the Linear No Threshold (LNT) model. The theory underlying this model suggests that exposure to ionizing radiation, no matter how small, increases the risk of cancer, and that risk increases linearly with the level of exposure. That's not true.
The roots of LNT's dominance are more political than scientific. The effects go back to the beginning. Hermann Muller, geneticist and 1946 Nobel Prize winner. Mueller's research in the 1920s and 1930s claimed to have shown that radiation induces mutations in fruit flies and that there is no safe threshold. He said that even if the radiation dose is small, genetic defect.
But it appears Mueller may have intentionally misled his supporters. For example, Muller falsely claimed in his 1946 Nobel Prize acceptance speech that:There's no escape“From the conclusion that all radiation is harmful, despite evidence to the contrary.
Mueller's influence peaked during the Cold War, when concerns about radioactive fallout from ground-based nuclear weapons tests dominated public debate. He warned that fallout was possible. release A wave of birth defects based on unwarranted extrapolations from his fruit fly experiments.However human research No significant evidence of genetic damage was found in the descendants of Japanese atomic bomb survivors, Mueller said. It was helpful in persuading The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) called for the exclusion of this inconvenient data during a meeting. expert panel To assess the risk of fallout, he chose instead to rely on his work in fruit flies and a new study in mice.
The internal dynamics of these scientific committees were not objective. Edward Calabrese, a toxicologist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, said the panelists openly strategized about how the report's conclusions could increase research funding.The head of the panel mention Members as “co-conspirators.” This conflict of interest resulted in a biased final report that exaggerated the health risks of fallout and omitted lower estimates to disguise a false consensus.
The deception worked. According to the panel's report, media coverage, caused a sensation with its dire warning. This triggered a major shift in government policy toward reliance on LNT in radiation regulation and risk assessment. Although subsequent expert committees repeatedly upheld her LNT, downplay or ignore A new discovery that challenges that.
One such discovery was the discovery of DNA repair mechanisms in the late 1950s by geneticists William and Leanne Russell, which contradicted the core premise of LNT that radiation damage is always cumulative. . When the NAS convened a new version of the radiology panel, the group initially tried to hide the findings of the repair. An earlier draft of the panel's report omitted the repair findings. The information was only added after several members protested, including Herman Muller to his credit.Still, the committee still supported LNT.
In the 1990s, researcher Paul Selby not covered It was a serious flaw (or perhaps intentional misrepresentation) in the Russells' early mouse studies that was key to LNT's acceptance. If these mistakes had been discovered from the beginning, today's regulatory system surrounding radiation may have changed significantly.
Recently, the debate about LNT has reignited within the Health Physics Society. video series In April 2022, LNT's checkered history was detailed. The series, which featured an interview with Edward Calabrese, sparked intense backlash. via email obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request. organized pressure campaign The aim is to discredit this video series and negate further discussion by LNT proponents within the association, federal agencies, and the National Radiation Protection Measurement Council. The association's president, who spearheaded this video project, said: condemned Some of these individuals were named in the exposed emails and were accused by the Society of Health Physics Board of Directors in an apparent act of retaliation. This condemnation was ultimately overturned by a vote of members.
despicable history LNT is a cautionary tale about how flawed science, ideological bias, and political motivation can distort the search for truth. But this dubious model still exists, and its influence extends beyond academic debate. LNT shapes cumbersome radiation regulations that determine cleanup standards, overall nuclear power plant oversight, and public perception of radiation risks, leading to exaggerated fears, rising energy costs, and a constant impediment to the progress of the nuclear industry. is connected to.
A more biologically based approach is needed, one that recognizes the evolved ability of living organisms to repair damage caused by low-dose radiation. Dose limitations should be based on observable health effects rather than speculative extrapolation from Drosophila experiments. moreover, Alara (“as low as reasonably achievable”) A concept that requires nuclear power plants to continually make costly efforts to reduce exposure levels based on the unsubstantiated assumptions of the LNT model.
Science is supposed to be self-correcting through a culture of healthy skepticism and procedures like peer review. However, these fixes often fail. The past of LNT lots of research Questioning its core assumptions, policymakers need to rethink the basis of LNT-based regulation.Responsible reform could ease the burden on the nuclear industry and unburden the nuclear industry radiation phobiaopens the door to a more science-based approach to nuclear safety.
If we can learn from this history, we can build a scientific strategy around the regulation of nuclear technology that gives people access to affordable, abundant, and reliable clean energy.