Today: 24.Nov.2020

Leslie Corrice, the author of The Hiroshima Syndrome website, first career of 21 years (in order) nuclear power plant operator, environmental monitoring technician, health physics design engineer, public relations spokesperson, public education coordinator and emergency planner. His second career was teaching science and math on the high school level. Now, he dedicates himself to The Hiroshima Syndrome website. After the Fukushima accident, his website was one of the most widely read about understanding the accident. He is dedicated to teaching people around the world about the benefits of nuclear energy, radioisotopes and low-dose radiation

Published in USA

Jerry Cuttler - Cuttler & Associates, Inc. Toronto, Ontario, Canada explains the science of low dose radiation.

Published in Environmental News

Wade Allison - Radiation and Reason. Radiation is not a big threat to mankind, unlike socio-economic stability, population, water and food supplies. Everywhere, new fresh education is needed to explain radiation to more people in simple terms to remove the stigma.

An Open Letter to Advisory Bodies regarding the disastrous consequences from the use of the LNT model at Fukushima Daiichi

Excerpts from the letter:

The nuclear reactor accident at Fukushima Daiichi that followed the earthquake and tsunami in 2011 prompted well-intended measures that have had disastrous consequences. These were not caused by the radiation itself but by the social stress, the forced evacuation, and the ongoing displacement of tens of thousands of people. Both the stress and the population relocations are based on the fear of low-dose radiation that originated from the use of the linear no-threshold (LNT) model for radiation-induced cancers and its associated “no safe dose” mantra.

If the evacuated Fukushima area residents had returned to their homes and resumed normal activities in 2012, the maximum additional radiation dose they would have faced has been estimated to be ~8 mSv/y by Harada et al. 2014 for the regions considered, while doses up to 12 mSv/y have been estimated in the UNSCEAR Report, 2013 (Table C19). These modest dose-rates would decrease every year. Considering the wide variation in annual natural background radiation doses around the world, and the lack of observed increases in cancer rates in areas having higher annual doses than noted above, repopulation would not have posed an increase in cancer risk, notwithstanding the current use of the LNT model.

Signed, members of Scientists for Accurate Radiation Information

  • Latest
  • Popular
  • John Shanahan, civil engineer, editor allaboutenergy.net: Many…
  • Sebastian Luening, paleogeologist, editor of kaltesonne.de: FFF,…
  • visualcapitalist.com: Following the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster…
  • .
  • Mr. Chairman, Senator Alexander, and members of…