Home | About | Donate

The "Radioactivity is Good for You" Push


The "Radioactivity is Good for You" Push

Karl Grossman

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering a move to eliminate the “Linear No-Threshold” (LNT) basis of radiation protection that the U.S. has used for decades and replace it with the “radiation hormesis” theory—which holds that low doses of radioactivity are good for people.

The change is being pushed by “a group of pro-nuclear fanatics—there is really no other way to describe them,” charges the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) based near Washington, D.C.


Here's to hoping for the obsolescence of nuclear power however that may happen.


I am not sure in what language, but I suspect that hormesis is an anagram for newspeak.


The timing is interesting for the following reasons:

  1. Most U.S. nuclear plants have aged to the point that accidents become likelier (few were expected to remain active past intended expiration dates)

  2. Climate change is bringing fires, floods, earthquakes, and sink holes to unexpected (and for the most part, unanticipated) places. That can put any number of plants in jeopardy

  3. Japan has left its radioactive wound open, like a gaping scar emanating toxicity into air, soil and water--the Pacific. The Abe govt. set the precedent of lowering safety thresholds in response to the "fall out" problem.

Although the government is the insurer of last resort, someone with savvy about insurance matters no doubt has influenced this odious decision. In the same way that banks are only required to possess 10% of the funds they keep "on the books," corporate and government insurers also like to play long odds:

“The Nuclear Regulatory Commission may decide that exposure to ionizing radiation is beneficial­—from nuclear bombs, nuclear power plants, depleted uranium, x-rays and Fukushima,” notes Nuclear-News. ”No protective measures or public safety warnings would be considered necessary. Clean-up measures could be sharply reduced…In a sense, this would legalize what the government is already doing ­failing to protect the public and promoting nuclear radiation.”


What's the estimated statistic? That 5% of the population is sociopathic? That would mean at least 5% of scientists which explains the crop that also insists that:

  1. There is no such thing as global warming... the sun's cycle suggests a new Ice Age
  2. Vaccines are perfectly safe when poured into infants' bodies, one after another
  3. Bio-genetically altered "food" is substantially equivalent to what Mother Nature designed with LOVE and genuine natural ingredients

And now this:

"Dr. Luckey further holds: “The trillions of dollars estimated for worldwide nuclear waste management can be reduced to billions to provide safe, low-dose irradiation to improve our health. The direction is obvious; the first step remains to be taken.” And he wrote: “Evidence of health benefits and longer average life-span following low-dose irradiation should replace fear.”

It's useful to remember that Right wing Christian colleges teach Biology in a way that argues the Earth is 8000 years old. In other words, perspective matters. Who credentials these people?


This article warns us of what would be an ever-present danger from which there would be no escaping. It isn't only direct exposure but also indirect exposure and of course persistent low dose exposure. Most especially of concern for children and fetuses but also for people who may be genetically predisposed to cancer or whom have already accumulated significant exposure from other sources like x-rays or truck drivers transporting low level waste etc.

I get the feeling that more background radiation will be in our future and more radiation will be in the foreground of our lives. In the twenties they though x-rays might even be good for you. How'd we end up going back in time? Oh right...of course... the money!

Speaking of which they irradiate money to track it. Um... how would we know if we had one of those irradiated bills btw? Just asking.


The privatization meme raises its head once again. All of Science will be taken over by it wherein even research once done for the Public's interest becomes a "for profit" model.

In line with this it was recently announced that 21st Century Fox having as a principal shareholder one Rupert Murdoch a person who claims there no such thing as Global Warming , has purchased National Geographic. National Geographic has been non-profit since its founding. It will now be a "revenue generator" for Murdoch's Empire. I am sure we will soon see articles tailored to "sell product" and ones that will not compromise Mr Murdoch's other business ventures.


I did not know that NG was bought by Murdoch. Thank you (?) for informing me. I'll weep for all the years in my youth when I treated it as trusted source. Thanks for the heads up!


Good God. This is deeply insane. I'd say it is surely a matter of sociopaths in the driver's seat. And, yes, I just learned about Rupert Murdoch, Fox News buying into a majority share of National Geographic, insuring that this access to fairly objective scientific articles is heading right down the tubes. Hmm... maybe this will solve global warming, by finally discounting it at 'the source': Science!


And think of the energy savings if we glow in the dark!


Isn't radioactive exposure cumulative?


Yes, the Nuclear Regulatory commission is considering a repudiation of the Linear No-Threshold hypothesis. It is false to say that NRC is considering “replacing” it with any other hypothesis, certainly not that of radiation hormesis.

Radiation hormesis, if correct, must be established by long-term mechanistic laboratory research. The hormesis idea has arisen only anecdotally by observation of the health status of certain groups of people who seem, anecdotally, to have benefitted from low-dose exposure.

This article by Mr. Grossman is laden with unproved assertions presented as demonstrated scientific findings.

“ But as the years went by it became clear there was no threshold—­that any amount of radiation could injure and kill, that there was no “safe” dose. “

That belief did not develop as the years went by. It was a sudden one-time assertion made by Herman Muller at his Nobel Prize acceptance speech in 1946.

It was a baseless assertion since Muller’s doses were unrelated to any amount that could be considered moderate or low or safe. They were massive. Furthermore, they were delivered by x-rays, a form of radiation not produced by nuclear fission.

The only observations Muller could make were of gross external abnormalities, mostly eye-color variations in his insect test-subjects. He was unable to visually inspect cell-molecular abnormalities because the electron microscope had not yet been invented during the 1920s when his research was performed. Likewise for measurement of variations in the mass in organic molecules; neither had the mass spectrometer yet been invented.

“ But, it was found, after a ‘latency’ or ‘incubation’ period of several years, the exposure could then result in illness and death. “

“ Moreover, because the effects of radiation are cumulative, the sum of several small exposures are considered to have the same effect as one larger exposure, something called ‘response linearity.’ “

The latency and response linearity (cumulative effects) hypotheses certainly have been proposed, but they have never been tested. To test them would involve decades-long research performed on long-lived animals, probably primates. Such research would require commitment of large amounts of laboratory space, manpower, and money. Those have never been forthcoming and the studies to test those hypotheses have not been performed.

“ BEIR VII found that ‘the balance of evidence from epidemiological, animal and mechanistic studies tend to favor a simple proportionate relationship at low doses between radiation dose and cancer risk.’ “

There exists no balance of evidence from epidemiological, animal and mechanistic studies. As stated above, mankind has performed no animal or mechanistic studies, only epidemiological studies. This has been the state of affairs until very recently.

“ Dr. Fairlie says ‘the scientific evidence for the LNT is plentiful, powerful and persuasive.’ He summarizes many studies done in Europe and the United States including BEIR VII. “

BEIR does not conduct studies. It is tasked with making recommendations, expected to be based on research study results presented to it. No such results, other than epidemiological, have been presented. It is characteristic of epidemiological studies that there is no clearly identifiable control group, and usually no reliable information about exposure rates for individual subjects.

Mankind has only recently begun to address our historic neglect of animal and mechanistic investigation of ionizing radiation. For example, see my blog post at http://tinyurl.com/lo5azxw , describing slight progress in those fields, in the following paragraphs:

Blog Entry: However, in 2012 there was a bare scratching of the surface of the type (2) class of study. That is, a laboratory experimental study measuring numeric values for breakage categories (A) and (B), using molecular mass spectrometry and optical microscopes, for an irradiated test group of animals, was compared to a non-irradiated control group.

It was performed at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, funded by the US Department of Energy and the MIT Center for Environmental Health Sciences [National Institute of health]. It was published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives under the auspices of the National Center for Biotechnology Information - NCBI. It is viewable at
and described in laymen's terms at


Hormesis is an ambiguous notion that typically gets seriously distorted and is often wrongly applied to all kinds of things.

Per the "logical" theory - or rather, dogma - of hormesis you're chance of getting lung cancer is reduced if you were to smoke a few cigarettes every day ...

It is interesting to note that it has been almost exclusively promoters and mouthpieces of the radiation-military-medical industries (or other big corporate cartels) who've been advocating the alleged virtues of radiation hormesis, ignoring and denying the real data. The nuclear energy-radiation-medical industry cartel has been disregarding and minimizing the true dangers of low dose radiation for many decades - see "The Mammogram Myth" by Rolf Hefti (see outline at http://www.supplements-and-health.com/mammograms.html ).

The ultimate aim of this propaganda is to discredit and suppress the facts that the lowest possible dose of ionizing radiation is carcinogenic (the pawns of the corporate environment-polluting industries do the same sort of thing about toxicants) and that these corrupt industries are responsible for the death of millions of people.

The public at large is generally clueless about most of this because the cartel's dominant disinformation tool is the mainstream media. And their propaganda dissemination is ongoing, keeping the general public hypnotized with a made-up fake reality.
The racket is profound and systematic. You can see that "in action" in how the corporate press and the mainstream authorities have blacked out what's really going on at Fukushima, or 9/11 (watch, on youtube, etc, the free online film "September 11 – The New Pearl Harbor"), or the ugly truth about the US Federal Reserve Bank, etc. The lack of continuous and in-depth media coverage of the ongoing disaster at Fukushima is indicative of the huge racket.


bobmerlin wrote:

'Isn't radioactive exposure cumulative?'

Certainly not! To call it cumulative isv to ignore the plethora of repair mechanisms that the body is continually employing. If ionizing radiation damage were cumulative, the harm caused by a given dose would be independent of the dose rate.That is NOT observed. A given dose absorbed over a short period of time tthat is lethal, would do very little harm if the time interval were much longer.

Ionizing radiation damage is decidedly dose-rate dependent, not cunulative.


What's next---radioactive vaccines pushing it into our veins because it is "good for us"?