A story from shortly after that time. A younger friend of mine, a retired Physics processor, did his Ph.D. in Physics at Berkeley ~ 50 years ago. Alvarez (Physics Nobel prize winner for experimental particle physics) was in the department and was notorious for giving AEC (now NRC) officials grief about their nonsensical radiation standards when they visited. In my most recent meeting with my friend he said that Alvarez's objections and criticisms were most emphatic.
I really wish you'd written this one about a week ago. :) My talk on Saturday cited the Rockefeller Foundation's stacking the deck at BEAR-1 but I didn't understand the detailed context summarized here. I just said "public concern over atmospheric bomb testing". Didn't realize it was the scientific precursor to today's climate science -- the goal is so important that if we have to bend the truth to get there, so be it.
You ask the question: how did it ever get accepted? The answer: through willful scientific misconduct. But the other question is: why has it remained cast in regulatory cement? We are taught that scientific process is self correcting. A successful hypothesis can be rendered obsolete with a single contradicting experiment. Why is LNT so impervious to the scientific process?
The short answer is that it took an LNT inspired, unbridled regulator about a decade to make nuclear prohibitively expensive. After that, the nuclear establishment decided to stay in business by extracting taxpayer money for clean up, endless studies of problems that don't exist or have simple solutions. The key to this rip off was keeping the public petrified of radiation.
LNT is a consequence of the dogma that radiation affects cells through particles directly hitting genes. DNA repair complicates the model, but does not radically change it. The main reason the LNT model is flawed is that the effect of radiation is primarily indirect, through the generation of reactive oxygen species. The LNT model was never tested against the data because it was forbidden to show that Gofman's estimates were correct.
Though there is good evidence that the RF was concerned about the bomb, proliferation to other nations and atmospheric testing, the RF's leaders were smart, capable people who could pursue more than one goal at a time.
Take another look at the Fosdick quotes:
"Whether the release of atomic energy in the long run will result in good or evil for the race, no one can now say; but whatever the consequences, the Foundation and its related boards cannot escape their share of the responsibility, indirect as it may be. "
Sure, bombs release "atomic energy", but so do power plants. In 1945, most of the world's people would have considered that a new abundant energy source would be a good thing, not an evil thing.
He went on to say "The towering question which faces the world now is whether the new energies can be controlled." Again, he said "energies" not bombs. Those with a link to the fossil fuel industry would be well aware of the need to "control" new energy sources that could disrupt the energy industry, shifting markets and lowering prices.
I remain convinced that opposition to nuclear weapons motivated most of the scientists, but I also believe that there were businessmen, bankers and speculators that wanted to control atomic energy so that it would not harm their established positions.
BTW - at least one of the original AEC commissioners was well versed in financing the global energy industry and knew very well how the business world worked. That commissioner, Lewis Strauss, was the chairman of the AEC when the RF created the BEAR and he quietly supported the effort.
One more thing - during the period between his time on the Commission as one of five and his reappointment as Chairman, Strauss served as a financial advisor to the Rockefeller Family Office. Not the foundation, but the family's investment managers.
Jack - I said nothing about 60s and 70s cost increases.
The topic of your post and my comment was 1940s & 50s successful actions to promote the no threshold dose (aka no safe dose) of ionizing radiation in both regulations AND public perception.
And I did NOT say “Big Oil.” I said businessmen, bankers and speculators in the world’s energy business.
In those years, by the way, King Coal was at least as big and as politically influential as Big Oil.
A threshold (zero harm) and a "safe dose "are too entirely different entities. We cannot successfully defend the former, and "safe dose" is a judgement about how much harm we are willing to tolerate in return for the manifold benefits of cheap nuclear power. If we are to have any chance of getting rid of LNT, we must carefully distinguish between these two very different concepts. This distinction, unlike our silly back and forth on Big Oil (sorry, fossil fuel interests) is at the heart of the beast. We've got to get it right, or we and humanity lose.
Unfortunately, there are some who refuse to admit that nuclear energy has "manifold benefits." Some adamantly assert that wind, water and solar can supply all the energy we need. Others say that natural gas and coal are easy, abundant and cheap and they profess distain for considering cleanliness as a measure of effectiveness.
These people have often been influenced by the antinuclear weapons movement that originally pushed for the LNT to be used as the radiation protection standard. They often describe the no threshold part of that as "no safe dose." It's not something I made up. (Google suggestion: "no safe dose" radiation)
Maybe my definition is wrong, but threshold to me means no measurable (detectable) harm. Find that dose and then apply a safety factor. This is the method used by the ICRP predecessor agency to set the 1934 standard.
I think we might both agree that the old term of "tolerance dose" is a reasonably accurate description of what otherwise might be called a safe dose.
Participating in scientific fraud to "save the world" is burning down the village to save it.
The human condition progresses through scientific innovation. Every action taken to reduce the honesty of science is an attack on humanity. It is entirely indefensible.
FYI, Doomberg on Substack had post on May 22 talking about LNT and hormesis. Since Doomberg seems to have a large audience and have a fair amount of influence, I take this to be a positive development.
Such a great article - what a succinct explanation for the massive lie - I suspect the "Cover Up" at the white-house with the presidents health is similar - "We know better than the public, we must save the world"
Blow back and unplanned results are a bitch . . . .
A story from shortly after that time. A younger friend of mine, a retired Physics processor, did his Ph.D. in Physics at Berkeley ~ 50 years ago. Alvarez (Physics Nobel prize winner for experimental particle physics) was in the department and was notorious for giving AEC (now NRC) officials grief about their nonsensical radiation standards when they visited. In my most recent meeting with my friend he said that Alvarez's objections and criticisms were most emphatic.
John,
Is there any record of those encounters?
Mike was a graduate student at UC Berkely, probably starting in 1975 or so. He is an emeritus professor at U of Cincinatti, Dr. Sokoloff.
John,
Could you send me Sokoloff's email to djw1 at thorconpower dot com.
I really wish you'd written this one about a week ago. :) My talk on Saturday cited the Rockefeller Foundation's stacking the deck at BEAR-1 but I didn't understand the detailed context summarized here. I just said "public concern over atmospheric bomb testing". Didn't realize it was the scientific precursor to today's climate science -- the goal is so important that if we have to bend the truth to get there, so be it.
You ask the question: how did it ever get accepted? The answer: through willful scientific misconduct. But the other question is: why has it remained cast in regulatory cement? We are taught that scientific process is self correcting. A successful hypothesis can be rendered obsolete with a single contradicting experiment. Why is LNT so impervious to the scientific process?
Because it works to keep the skeleton in the closet.
https://danielcorcos.substack.com/p/radiation-the-other-conspiracy-of
Paul.
The short answer is that it took an LNT inspired, unbridled regulator about a decade to make nuclear prohibitively expensive. After that, the nuclear establishment decided to stay in business by extracting taxpayer money for clean up, endless studies of problems that don't exist or have simple solutions. The key to this rip off was keeping the public petrified of radiation.
For the long answer, see
https://gordianknotbook.com/download/the-two-lies-that-killed-nuclear power.
LNT is a consequence of the dogma that radiation affects cells through particles directly hitting genes. DNA repair complicates the model, but does not radically change it. The main reason the LNT model is flawed is that the effect of radiation is primarily indirect, through the generation of reactive oxygen species. The LNT model was never tested against the data because it was forbidden to show that Gofman's estimates were correct.
https://danielcorcos.substack.com/p/radiation-the-other-conspiracy-of
Broken record here.
Though there is good evidence that the RF was concerned about the bomb, proliferation to other nations and atmospheric testing, the RF's leaders were smart, capable people who could pursue more than one goal at a time.
Take another look at the Fosdick quotes:
"Whether the release of atomic energy in the long run will result in good or evil for the race, no one can now say; but whatever the consequences, the Foundation and its related boards cannot escape their share of the responsibility, indirect as it may be. "
Sure, bombs release "atomic energy", but so do power plants. In 1945, most of the world's people would have considered that a new abundant energy source would be a good thing, not an evil thing.
He went on to say "The towering question which faces the world now is whether the new energies can be controlled." Again, he said "energies" not bombs. Those with a link to the fossil fuel industry would be well aware of the need to "control" new energy sources that could disrupt the energy industry, shifting markets and lowering prices.
I remain convinced that opposition to nuclear weapons motivated most of the scientists, but I also believe that there were businessmen, bankers and speculators that wanted to control atomic energy so that it would not harm their established positions.
BTW - at least one of the original AEC commissioners was well versed in financing the global energy industry and knew very well how the business world worked. That commissioner, Lewis Strauss, was the chairman of the AEC when the RF created the BEAR and he quietly supported the effort.
One more thing - during the period between his time on the Commission as one of five and his reappointment as Chairman, Strauss served as a financial advisor to the Rockefeller Family Office. Not the foundation, but the family's investment managers.
Rod,
Broken record indeed.
This is the last time I'm going to repeat myself on this one.
Anyone who want to do a fact check on Rod's attempt at mind reading
needs to revisit the actual history of Big Oil in the 60's and 70's.
https://gordianknotbook.com/download/nuclear-power-and fossil-fuel
Attempts to blame nuclear's 10 fold increase in cost in the 70's on Big Oil
is revisionist history and a counterproductive distraction from the real problem.
Jack - I said nothing about 60s and 70s cost increases.
The topic of your post and my comment was 1940s & 50s successful actions to promote the no threshold dose (aka no safe dose) of ionizing radiation in both regulations AND public perception.
And I did NOT say “Big Oil.” I said businessmen, bankers and speculators in the world’s energy business.
In those years, by the way, King Coal was at least as big and as politically influential as Big Oil.
Rod,
A threshold (zero harm) and a "safe dose "are too entirely different entities. We cannot successfully defend the former, and "safe dose" is a judgement about how much harm we are willing to tolerate in return for the manifold benefits of cheap nuclear power. If we are to have any chance of getting rid of LNT, we must carefully distinguish between these two very different concepts. This distinction, unlike our silly back and forth on Big Oil (sorry, fossil fuel interests) is at the heart of the beast. We've got to get it right, or we and humanity lose.
Unfortunately, there are some who refuse to admit that nuclear energy has "manifold benefits." Some adamantly assert that wind, water and solar can supply all the energy we need. Others say that natural gas and coal are easy, abundant and cheap and they profess distain for considering cleanliness as a measure of effectiveness.
These people have often been influenced by the antinuclear weapons movement that originally pushed for the LNT to be used as the radiation protection standard. They often describe the no threshold part of that as "no safe dose." It's not something I made up. (Google suggestion: "no safe dose" radiation)
Maybe my definition is wrong, but threshold to me means no measurable (detectable) harm. Find that dose and then apply a safety factor. This is the method used by the ICRP predecessor agency to set the 1934 standard.
I think we might both agree that the old term of "tolerance dose" is a reasonably accurate description of what otherwise might be called a safe dose.
Youre missing the point and I've led us off topic. This subject warrants a piece of its own. Coming soon.
You're too generous to people.
Participating in scientific fraud to "save the world" is burning down the village to save it.
The human condition progresses through scientific innovation. Every action taken to reduce the honesty of science is an attack on humanity. It is entirely indefensible.
FYI, Doomberg on Substack had post on May 22 talking about LNT and hormesis. Since Doomberg seems to have a large audience and have a fair amount of influence, I take this to be a positive development.
So at least some of the people pushing for LNT did so for the purpose of opposing nuclear weapons.
This does seem to have pushed the testing of nuclear explosives from the atmosphere to underground.
Is there any reason to think this cut the chances of a nuclear war occurring?
no
Such a great article - what a succinct explanation for the massive lie - I suspect the "Cover Up" at the white-house with the presidents health is similar - "We know better than the public, we must save the world"
Blow back and unplanned results are a bitch . . . .