TheThorium.Network

Category: ALARA

The High Price of Keeping Nuclear Fission Energy Suppressed: How Fossil Fuels Bankroll Fear and Regulation
Author Jeremiah Josey

In 1969, the United States was surging ahead with nuclear fission power, flipping the switch on three new reactors a year to electrify millions of homes. Fission energy promised a cheap, reliable, and clean source of power, with a footprint as small as a few Central Parks combined. Fast forward to 2025, and fission energy, though still one of the safest and cleanest energy sources, has been largely sidelined. Why?

The quiet, complex answer to this question lies in the billions—actually, trillions—of dollars the fossil fuel industry spends each year to keep fission energy suppressed. This strategic campaign to protect fossil fuel market share is a story woven through decades of fear-mongering, onerous regulations, and orchestrated myths largely funded by fossil fuel interests and their allies, including influential institutions such as the Rockefeller Institute.

A Global Campaign Against Fission Power

Fission energy’s limitations have less to do with safety or technology and more to do with economics and political influence. Fossil fuel companies, aware of nuclear power’s potential to disrupt their dominance, have poured immense resources into shaping public opinion and regulatory environments. For example, in Germany, a country known for its green-energy ambitions but also high industrial energy costs, the government publicly spent approximately 690 million euros in 2021 campaigning against cheaper French nuclear energy. The result? German industries, like its carmakers, suffered from higher energy prices, making them less competitive than their French counterparts powered predominantly by nuclear electricity.

This is just one part of a global pattern. Various studies and reports highlight how fossil fuel subsidies, lobbying, and marketing have weakened fission power ambitions across continents. In Australia, for example, government fossil fuel subsidies reached USD 14.9 billion in 2024–25, fuelling coal, gas, and oil production, while nuclear options remain politically marginalised despite its obvious and logical potential as a clean energy pillar.

Fossil Fuel Spending on Energy Suppression in 2025

Globally, fossil fuel subsidies and related expenditures to bolster oil, natural gas, and coal industries continue to rise. The International Energy Agency (IEA) reports that in 2025, governments and private interests worldwide will spend billions annually—estimated at over USD 1 trillion—on fossil fuel support measures including subsidies, tax breaks, and lobbying efforts aimed at maintaining the status quo. They are using public funds – your tax money – to keep their merry-go-round going around.

This vast pool of money not only props up fossil fuel extraction but also backs anti-nuclear campaigns, strict regulatory frameworks, and misinformation campaigns that cascade into project delays and cost inflation for nuclear projects. These tactics increase the construction time of nuclear plants from a few years to sometimes decades, exponentially raising capital and interest costs—effectively pricing nuclear out of competitive viability.

The Rockefeller Institute and the Fossil Fuel Nexus

One of the key orchestrators in this suppression strategy has been the Rockefeller Institute and its multifaceted network of foundations and organisations. Historically vested in fossil fuels—mainly oil—the Rockefeller interests have wielded significant influence to sway energy policy, often under the guise of environmental concern.

Their involvement is evident in the proliferation of the Linear No-Threshold (LNT) radiation model, which posits that any amount of radiation exposure increases cancer risk. While later findings have disproved the scientific basis of LNT, its implementation led to stringent safety regulations that made nuclear plant construction prohibitively expensive. This regulatory labyrinth was a boon to the fossil fuel sector who benefited—as they intended—from delaying nuclear advancements.

The Economic Scale of Suppression: An Expensive Trade-off

The economic numbers reveal a staggering cost—not just in dollars but in lost opportunity for clean and abundant power. According to U.S. Congressional Budget Office estimates, each month of delay in constructing a nuclear plant can cost about USD 44 million, plus USD 20 million in lost potential revenue. Over decades, the compounded cost of these delays, driven largely by unnecessary regulation and public fear campaigns, has ballooned nuclear construction costs tenfold.

Meanwhile, fossil fuel industries continue to thrive on government support totalling hundreds of billions a year. The contrast is stark: in Australia alone, fossil fuel subsidies outstrip disaster readiness funds by 14 times, underscoring priorities tilted heavily toward maintaining fossil fuel dominance rather than investing in clean alternatives like nuclear.

What This Means for Clean Energy’s Future

Despite these barriers, there’s a renewed interest and slow resurgence in Fission technology, particularly in innovative designs like Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), which are more cost-effective and easier by design. The U.S., Canada, and some European countries are pushing these technologies as part of their clean energy transition. Or, like Sweden, making their main game.

Yet the fossil fuel industry’s influence remains a formidable obstacle. Continued financial prioritisation of fossil fuels over Fission hampers progress and locks in higher emissions, the deaths they cause and energy insecurity risks for decades to come.

Global Reflection: The Need for Transparency and Realignment

Around the world, the fossil fuel industry’s strategic spend to suppress Fission energy is a costly shadow game with massive implications for climate, economy, and energy independence. Countries like Germany demonstrate the pain of energy policy skewed by fossil fuel lobbying, while Australia’s ballooning fossil fuel subsidies show the magnitude of public money fuelling this suppression.

In 2025, as global clean energy investments reach unprecedented levels—over USD 2.2 trillion supporting renewables—the fossil fuel industry’s spending to maintain its grip on the market emphasises how much is at stake. If society is serious about combating climate change, improving energy security, and ensuring economic competitiveness, policymakers must address this imbalance and reconsider the obstacles fossil fuel interests have placed against Nuclear Fission Power.

The truth behind Fission power’s stagnation is not one of technology limits or safety failures but of calculated financial power plays sustained by fossil fuels and their political allies. It’s a story worth knowing—and changing.

Appendix: Country-by-Country Fossil Fuel Spending and Its Impact on Nuclear Energy Suppression in 2025

This appendix complements the main report’s overarching analysis by providing granular data and examples that underscore the global nature of fossil fuel spending in nuclear energy suppression.

These country-specific figures and contexts reveal the scale and diversity of fossil fuel industry support worldwide, illustrating how this financial leverage acts as a powerful brake on the development of safe, reliable, and carbon-free nuclear energy in 2025.

United States
- Annual fossil fuel subsidies exceed USD 20 billion, encompassing federal and state tax breaks and direct funding.
- Disclosed fossil fuel industry lobbying surpasses USD 125 million each year, heavily influencing regulations that significantly increase nuclear plant construction costs and timelines.
- Undisclosed fossil fuel support for suppressive activities is estimated to exceed USD 5 billion annually.
- Regulatory frameworks such as the Linear No-Threshold radiation exposure model, instigated by fossil fuel interests, contribute billions in additional costs and delays for nuclear projects.
- The combined effect creates a challenging environment for nuclear energy expansion despite its safety and clean energy benefits.
Germany
- The German government spent approximately 690 million euros in 2021 actively campaigning against French nuclear power, motivated by economic competition concerns as lower French electricity prices put German industries, especially automotive manufacturing, at a disadvantage. Germany routinely spends more than 500 million euros each year on programs against French Fission energy.
- Fossil fuel subsidies and supports range between USD 15-USD 20 billion annually, primarily supporting coal and gas power plants during the energy transition.
- These substantial political and financial efforts sustain high fossil fuel dependency and suppress domestic nuclear energy initiatives.
Australia
- Total fossil fuel subsidies from federal and state governments amounted to USD 14.9 billion in 2024–25, marking a 3% increase from the previous year.
- The Federal Government’s Fuel Tax Credits Scheme is a significant contributor, valued at over USD 10 billion alone.
- State-level spending includes substantial funding for coal mines, gas power stations, and related infrastructure, with Queensland and Western Australia being notable contributors.
- Nuclear Fission power remains politically sidelined, with fossil fuel industry influence heavily steering energy policy.
Canada
- Fossil fuel subsidies are estimated between USD 10-13 billion annually, mainly through tax incentives and direct spending to support oil sands and pipeline infrastructure.
- Fossil fuel industry revenues significantly shape regional energy policies, limiting nuclear energy’s expansion potential.
China
- China provides over USD 30 billion in annual fossil fuel subsidies, underpinning coal and natural gas as critical transition fuels despite aggressive nuclear development plans.
- Political influence from state-owned fossil fuel enterprises delays broader nuclear adoption in some regions, balancing industrial and energy security concerns.
India
- Fossil fuel subsidies totalled approximately USD 40 billion in 2024, predominantly favouring coal and oil sectors.
- Although nuclear power is considered a future energy option, the overwhelming fossil fuel dominance slows regulatory progress and investment in nuclear infrastructure.
France
- France represents a pro-nuclear exception with relatively low fossil fuel subsidies, below USD 5 billion annually.
- France’s government-backed nuclear energy utilities have minimised fossil fuel influence, supporting a substantial portion of the country’s electricity without significant opposition.
United Kingdom
- Fossil fuel subsidies range between USD 8-10 billion annually, largely focusing on oil and gas industries in the North Sea.
- The fossil fuel sector’s political clout contributes to regulatory challenges that inhibit the scaling up of nuclear power projects, despite official plans to expand nuclear capacity.
References
Tags

#CleanEnergyTransition #NuclearPowerNow #FossilFuelFree #EnergyPolicyReform #ClimateAction2025 #Nuclear #Energy

Links

Linkedin

Patreon
September 4, 2025
An Engineers’ Point of View on Thorium: Unwrapping the Conspiracy
Preface

I have written this article exclusively for The Thorium Network(1) on the basis that I remain anonymous – my livelihood depends on it. I completed my nuclear engineering degree in the late 2000’s and shortly thereafter found a position in a semi-government owned nuclear power station – with several PWRs to look after. One year after graduating and commencing my professional career, I discovered the work of Dr. Alvin Weinberg(2) and began conducting my own research.

My anonymity is predicated on my experience during this time of intense study and learning. As a young female graduate when I shared my enthusiasm for this technology I faced harassment and derision from my male colleagues, from high level government officials and also, unfortunately, from my university professors, whom I initially turned to for help. It wasn’t long before I started to keep my research and my thoughts to myself.

I have found Women In Nuclear(3) to be most supportive and conducive to fostering and maintaining my interest in this technology, though even there it remains a “secret subject”.

So when I discovered The Thorium Network(1), I decided it was a good platform to tell my story. I look forward to the time when there is an industry strong enough to support engineers like me full time, so we can leave our positions in the old technology and embrace the new.

My Studies – No Thorium?

As a nuclear engineer, I was trained to understand the intricacies of nuclear reactions and the ways in which nuclear power could be harnessed for the betterment of humanity.

During my time in university, I learned about various types of reactors, including pressurized water reactors, boiling water reactors, and fast breeder reactors.

Phew!

However, one type of technology that was never mentioned in my coursework was the Thorium Molten Salt Burner (TMSB). Or “Thorium Burner” as my friends like to say. “TBs” for short. I like it too. Throughout my article I also refrain from using traditional words and descriptions. The nuclear industry must change and we can start by using new words.

Shortly after graduating I stumbled upon information about TBs from the work of the famous chemist and nuclear physicist, Dr. Alvin Weinberg(2). TBs have enormous potential and are the future of nuclear energy. I can say that without a doubt. I was immediately struck by the impressive advantages that TBs offer compared to the technologies that I had learned about in school. I found myself wondering why this technology had not been discussed in any of my classes and why it seemed to be so overlooked in the mainstream discourse surrounding nuclear energy and in particular in today’s heated debates on climate change.

What are TBs – Thorium Burners

To understand the reasons behind the lack of knowledge and recognition of TBs, it is first important to understand what exactly TBs are and how they differ from other types of fission technologies. TBs are a type of fission device that use Thorium as a fuel source, instead of the more commonly used uranium or plutonium. The fuel is dissolved in a liquid salt mixture*, which acts as the fuel, the coolant and the heat transfer medium for taking away the heat energy to do useful work, like spin a turbine to make electricity, or keep an aluminum smelter bath hot**. This design allows for a number of benefits that old nuclear technology does not offer.

*A little tip: the salt is not corrosive. Remember, our blood is salty but we don’t rust away do we.

** I mention aluminum smelting because it too uses a high fluorine based salt – similar to what TBs use. And aluminum is the most commonly used metal on our planet. You can see more on this process here: Aluminum Smelting(4)

Advantages of TBs

One of the most significant advantages of TBs is their inherent safety. They are “walk away safe”. Because the liquid fuel is continuously circulating, and already in a molten state, there is no possibility of a meltdown. If the core region tries to overheat the liquid fuel will simply expand and this automatically shuts down the heating process. This is known as Doppler Broadening(5).

Additionally, the liquid fuel is not pressurized, removing any explosion risk. It just goes “plop”.

These physical features make TBs much safer than traditional machines, which require complex safety systems to prevent accidents. Don’t misunderstand me, these safety systems are very good (there has never been a major incident in the nuclear industry from the failure of a safety system), but the more links you have in a chain the more chances you have of a failure. TBs go the other way, reducing links and making them safer by the laws of physics, not by the laws of man.

Another advantage of TBs is their fuel utilization. Traditional machines typically only use about 3% of their fuel before it must be replaced. In contrast, TBs are able to use 99.9% of their fuel, resulting in effectively no waste and a much longer fuel cycle (30 years in some designs). This not only makes TBs more environmentally friendly – how much less digging is needed to make fuel – but it also makes them more cost-effective.

TBs are also more efficient than traditional machines. They are capable of operating at higher temperatures (above 650 degrees C), which results in increased thermal efficiency and a higher output of electricity per unit of fuel. This increased efficiency means that TBs require even less fuel to produce the same amount of energy, making them even more a sustainable option for meeting our energy needs.

The Conspiracy

Ever wonder why all the recent “conspiracy theories” have proven to be true? It looks like Thorium is another one. It’s just been going on for a long, long time.

So why, then, was I never taught about TBs in university? The answer to this question is complex and multi-faceted, but can all be traced back to one motive: Profit. The main factor that has contributed to the lack of recognition and support for TBs is the influence of the oil and fossil fuel industries. These industries have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo to preserve their profits. They have used their massive wealth and power to lobby against the development of competitive energy sources like TBs. Fossil fuel companies have poured billions of money into political campaigns and swayed public opinion through their control of the media. This has made it difficult for TBs to receive the funding and recognition they need to advance, as the fossil fuel industries work to maintain their dominance in the energy sector.

First Hand Knowledge – Visiting Oak Ridge

During my research I took a trip to Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, where the first experimental Thorium Burner, the MSRE – the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment – was built and operated in the 1960s. During my visit, I had the chance to speak with some of the researchers and engineers who had worked on the MSRE – yes some are still around. It was amazing to speak with them. I learnt first hand about the history of TBs and their huge potential that they have. I also learnt how simple and safe they are. They called the experiment “the most predictable and the most boring”. It did everything they calculated it would do. That’s a good thing!

The stories I heard from the researchers and engineers who worked on the MSRE were inspiring but also concerning. They spoke of the tremendous potential they saw in TBs and the promise that this technology holds for the future of meeting world energy demands. They also spoke of the political and funding challenges that they experienced first hand. The obstacles that prevented TBs from receiving the recognition and support they needed to advance. They were told directly to destroy all evidence of their work on the technology when Dr. Alvin Weinberg was fired as their director in 1972 and the molten salt program shut down. This was done under Nixon’s watch. You can even hear Nixon do this here on this YouTube(6) clip. Keep it “close to the chest” he says. I am surprised that this video is still up on YouTube considering the censorship we’ve been experiencing in this country in the past few years.

1971 Nixon Phone Call – Nixon Speech on Jobs in California – TR2016a

The experiences at Oak Ridge confirmed to me that TBs are a promising and innovative technology that have been marginalized and overlooked clearly on purpose. On purpose to protect profits of other industries. It was inspiring to hear about the dedication and passion of the researchers and engineers who worked on the MSRE, and it reinforced my belief in the potential of TBs to play a major role in meeting our energy needs in a sustainable and safe manner. I am hopeful that, with increased investment and support, TBs will one day receive the recognition and support they deserve, and that they will play a significant role in shaping the future of energy.

Moving On – What is Needed

Despite the challenges, I believe that TBs have a promising future in the world of energy from the Atom. They offer a number of unique benefits that can clearly address the any minor concerns surrounding traditional nuclear energy machines, such as safety and waste management. They are also the answer for world energy.

Countering the Vested Interests – Education and Awareness

In order for TBs to become a more widely recognized and accepted technology, more funding – both public and private – is needed to revamp the research and development conducted in the 1950’s and 1960’s. Additionally, education and awareness about the potential of TBs must be raised, in order to dispel any misconceptions and address the stigma that still surrounds nuclear energy, and to counter the efforts that are still going on even today, to stymie TBs from becoming commercial.

In order to ensure that TBs receive the support they need to succeed, it is necessary to counter the influence of the oil and fossil fuel industries and to create a level playing field for competitive energy sources. This will require a concerted effort from the public, policymakers, and the private sector to invest in and promote the development of TBs.

Retiring Aging Assets and Funding New Ones

There’s also another factor that also needs to be addressed the same way as the oil and fossil fuel industries and that is the existing industry itself. The nuclear industry has long been dominated by a few large companies, and these companies have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo and investing in traditional reactor technology. This includes funding universities to train people such as myself. This has made it difficult for TBs to gain traction and receive the funding they need to advance.

An Industry Spawned: Non Linear Threshold (LNT) and As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA)

A third reason is the prodigious amount of money to be made in maintaining the apparent safety of the existing nuclear industry. This was something else I was not taught in school – about how fraudulent science using fruit flies was railroaded by the oil industry (specifically the Rockefellers) to create a cost increasing environment for the nuclear industry to prevent smaller and smaller amounts of radiation exposure. Professor Edward Calabrese(7) taught me the most about this. You must watch his interviews.

What has grown from this is a radiation safety industry – and hence a profit base – with a life of it’s own. I see it every single working day. It holds tightly to the vein that radiation must at all costs (and all profits) be kept out of the public domain. Again a proven flawed premise but thoroughly supported by the need, and greed, of the incumbent industry to maintain the status quo.

Summing Up – Our Future

In conclusion, as someone who studied nuclear engineering but never learned about Thorium Molten Salt Technology, I am disappointed that I was not given the opportunity to learn about this promising and innovative technology during my time in university. However, I am also grateful to have discovered it now, particularly with my professional experience in the sector. I am eager to see how TBs will continue to evolve and change the face of energy worldwide. With the right support and investment, I believe that TBs have the potential to play the main role in meeting our energy needs in a sustainable and safe manner, and I hope that they will receive the recognition they deserve in the years to come.

Miss A., Space Ship Mother Earth, 2023.

References and Links
Tags

#nuclear #thoriumburner #thoriummoltensalt #energy #university #womeninnuclear
February 21, 2023
Nuclear is the Only Answer to Our Energy Transition
Post created by Jeremiah Josey and the team at The Thorium Network

Content by Wade Allison, professor of physics at Oxford University.

This was first published in the New Statesman special supplement on Energy and Climate Change on 27 May 2022. Reproduced with permission from the author.

Wade Allison is emeritus professor of physics at Oxford University and author of Radiation and Reason, and Nuclear is for Life.

Finding sufficient energy is essential to all life. Humans have excelled at this, notably when they studied and overcame their innate fear of fire some 600,000 years ago. Until the Industrial Revolution they made do with energy derived, directly or indirectly, from the daily sunshine that drives waterpower, the wind and other manifestations including the production of vegetation and food. But, although better than for other creatures, human life was short and miserable for the population at large. The causes were the anemic strength of the Sun’s rays, averaging 340 watts per square meter, and its random interruption by unpredicted weather.

Homo Sapiens Discovering Fire – 600000 years ago

With fossil fuels, available energy increased, anywhere at any time. Life expectancy doubled and the world population quadrupled. For 200 years whoever had access to fossil fuels had world power. However, at the 2015 Paris Conference nations agreed that the emission of carbon posed an existential threat and that, sooner rather than later, this should cease.

“The coal a man can get in a day can easily do 500 times as much work as the man himself. Nuclear energy is at least one million times more powerful still…”
Sir Winston Churchill, 1931

World Population Growth 1700-2100

Technology may be challenging and exciting, but it cannot deliver energy where none exists, today as in pre-industrial times. Writing in 1867, Karl Marx dismissed wind power as “too inconstant and uncontrollable”. He saw waterpower as better, but “as the predominant [source of] power [it] was beset with difficulties”. Today, the vast size of hydro, wind and solar plants comparative to their power reflects their weakness and destructive impact on flora and fauna – a point often curiously ignored by environmentalists.

Karl Marx – “Wind power is backwards”

If renewables are simply inadequate and fossil fuel emissions only accelerate climate change further, what abundant primary energy source might permit political and economic stability for the next 200 years? Natural science can say without doubt, the only answer is nuclear.

Nature – Energy and Society by Prof. Wade Allison Download

In 1931, Winston Churchill wrote: “The coal a man can get in a day can easily do 500 times as much work as the man himself. Nuclear energy is at least one million times more powerful still… There is no question among scientists that this gigantic source of energy exists. What is lacking is the match to set the bonfire alight… The discovery and control of such sources of power would cause changes in human affairs incomparably greater than those produced by the steam-engine four generations ago.”

Churchill and Trumann

The History of the Linear No-Threshold Model

He was right, but this transition requires adequate public education. In recovering from World War Two and its aftermath, the world lost confidence and demonised nuclear energy. This denial of an exceptional benefit to society has persisted for 70 years supported by bogus scientific claims around radiation and oil interests. But, aside from the blast of a nuclear explosion, nuclear energy and its radiation are safer than the combustion of fossil fuels, as confirmed by evidence from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. Furthermore, nuclear applications in medicine pioneered by Marie Curie (such as the use of radiation to treat cancerous tumours) have been widely appreciated for 120 years.

Abstract
Among those who have made important discoveries in the field of radioactivity and thus helped in the development of nuclear medicine as an identical entity are: Heinrich Hertz who in 1886 demonstrated the existence of radiowaves. In 1895 Wilhelm Röntgen discovered the X-rays. In 1896 H. Becquerel described the phenomenon of radioactivity. He showed that a radioactive uranium salt was emitting radioactivity which passing through a metal foil darkened a photographic plate. An analogous experiment performed by S.Thomson in London was announced to the president of the Royal Society of London before the time H.Becquerel announced his discovery but Thomson never claimed priority for his discovery. Muarie Sklodowska Curie (1867-1934) was undoubtedly the most important person to attribute to the discovery of radioactivity. In 1898 she discovered radium as a natural radioactive element. This is how she describes the hard time she had, working with her husband Pierre Curie (1859-1906) for the discovery of radium and polonium: “During the first year we did not go to the theater or to a concert or visited friends. I miss my relatives, my father and my daughter that I see every morning and only for a little while. But I do not complain…”. In presenting her discovery of radium, Madame Curie said: ” …in the hands of a criminal, radium is very dangerous. So we must often ask ourselves: will humanity earn or lose from this discovery? I, myself belong to those who believe the former…”. The notebooks that Madame Curie had when she was working with radium and other radioactive elements like polonium, thorium and uranium are now kept in Paris. They are contaminated with radioactive materials having very long half-lives and for this reason anyone who wishes to have access to these notes should sign that he takes full responsibility. There are some more interesting points in Madame Curie’s life which may not be widely known like: Although her full name is Maria Sklodowska-Curie, she is not known neither by that full name nor as Maria Sklodowska but as Marie Curie. Madame Curie was the second of five children. At the age of 24 she went to Sorbonne-Paris after being invited by her sister Bronja to study for about 2-3 years; instead she stayed in Paris for her whole life. Her doctorate was on the subject: “Research on radioactive substances” which she completed in six years under the supervision of H. Becquerel. Pierre Curie was Director of the Physics Laboratory of the Ecole Municipale of Physics and Industrial Chemistry when he married M. Curie in 1895. Pierre Curie left his other research projects and worked full time with his wife. In this laboratory M. Curie and her husband Pierre discovered radium and polonium. In 1901 Pierre Curie induced a radiation burn on his forearm by applying on his skin radiferous barium chloride for 10 hours. During World War I, M.Curie organized for the Red Cross a fleet of radiological ambulances each with X-ray apparates which were called “Little Curies”. The X-ray tubes of these apparates were unshielded and so M.Curie was exposed to high doses of radiation. Once an ambulance fell into a ditch and M.Curie who was inside the ambulance was badly bruised and stayed at home for 3 days. M. Curie with her daughters, Irene and Eve, was invited and visited America in 1921. She led a successful campaign to collect radium for her experiments. Before leaving America, President Harding donated through her to the Radium Institute of Paris 1 g of radium for research purposes. At that time the process to obtain 0.5 g of pure radium bromide required 1 ton of ore and 5 tons of chemicals. No measures of radiation protection were taken back then. In 1929 Madame Curie visited the United States for a second time. She met with President Hoover and with the help of the Polish women’s association in America collected funds for another gram of radium. Madame Curie died of leukemia on July 4, 1934. Sixty years after her death her remnants were laid to rest under the dome of the Pantheon. Thus she became the first woman under her own merit, to rest in the Pantheon. In 1934 at the Institute of Radiology in Paris, Frederique Joliot and Irene Curie-Joliot discovered artificial radiation. They studied alpha particles and beta;-radiation.
Pioneers of nuclear medicine, Madame Curie, Hell J Nuclear Medicine, 2004 Jan-Apr; 7(1):30-1

Regulation around nuclear needs to be commensurate with actual risk, and it should be financed appropriately, with richer nations covering the costs for developing countries.

Fully informed, everybody should welcome the security of small, mass-produced, cheap, local nuclear energy plants dedicated to serving modest-sized communities for 80 years with on-demand electricity, off-peak hydrogen, fertiliser, industrial heat, and seasonless farming.

The only real challenges are in building a new generation with the relevant scientific knowledge and skills, and instilling public confidence.

Professor Wade Allison, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Professor Wade Allison is author of Radiation and Reason, and Nuclear is for Life.

Nuclear is for Life by Prof. Wade Allison

Radiation and Reason by Prof. Wade Allison

Links and References
September 14, 2022
A Crib Sheet for Journalists and Students of Thorium
Authored by Jeremiah Josey

Are you a journalist – or a student – looking for the inside on Liquid Fission Thorium? Unlimited energy. Secure. Reliable. Well this page is for you.

We’ve been asked many times for a summary of resources or key people to speak with.

Are we biased? Of course we are. Read on and you’ll know why. You’ll probably want to Join Us too.

A Future Powered by Thorium is our objective. We are leveraging the billions of USD in today’s value and millions of hours invested over 50 years ago in a technology that is demonstrably superior to anything else we have today.

Here’s a summary of that work from Oak Ridge National Laboratories:

The Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment from 1969

We have this YouTube and other useful 3rd party links on our website here:

The Thorium Knowledge Base

See this chart of energy density from an Australian government website. Everything else pales into insignificance when compared to Liquid Fission Machines (also called MSR Molten Salt Reactors).

ANSTO Energy Density Bar Chart

Here’s a recent article from Germany we translated into Japanese. It contains a lot of information on China’s progress also. China is replicating the 1960’s USA program, publicly announcing in 2011 investing USD 3,3 billion and 700 engineers for the work. This is not about reinventing the wheel, it’s just remembering what we’ve done before. Remember also China and Australia worked together to create a replacement for the super alloy metal “Hastelloy”. This super metal was created in the 1950’s in the USA for their advanced nuclear programs and is only made today by two companies in the world – one in the USA and Mitsubishi. Now China has an alternative.

「パーフェクトテクノロジー」-バイリンガル記事-日本語/英語 – “The Perfect Technology” – a Bilingual Article – Japanese & English

The article also includes information on Japan’s liquid fission project – FUJI.

Here’s a list of must-do-interviews for background on Liquid Fission Thorium Energy or subjects related, such as radiation safety, the effects of Chernobyl and Linear No Threshold theory.

Professor Geraldine Thomas
Director of the Chernobyl Tissue Bank, the world’s preeminent knowledge base for all things related to the real effects of that industrial accident. Prof. Thomas is became staunchly pro-nuclear due to her directorship. George Monbiot – a former Greenpeace anti-nuc activist, and now no longer in Greenpeace and strongly pro nuclear – after an interview he also had with Prof Thomas he had as a writer for the UK’s Guardian.

George Monbiot on Wikipedia

Geraldine Thomas on Wikipedia

Chernobyl Tissue Bank

Geraldine Thomas

Mr. Daniel Roderick
Former President and CEO of Westinghouse and then Toshiba Energy Systems. Danny steered the sale of Westinghouse for Toshiba, securing a positive, multi billion USD outcome for Japan. Danny was also the leader of negotiations to secure USD 50 billion in funding for a new nuclear build in Türkiye (derailed by the 2016 attempted coup in Türkiye). Mitsubishi subsequently submitted (and withdrew) a nuclear build in Sinop, Northern Türkiye. Rosatom (Russia) is now building a nuclear power station in Akkuyu, southern Türkiye.

Daniel Roderick

Dr. Adi Paterson
Dr. Paterson is the former head of ANSTO and an advocate of Liquid Fission Thorium Energy Technology. During his 9 year tenure at ANSTO, Dr. Paterson steered Australia to membership of the Generation IV forum, kind of the United Nationals for advanced fission designs. This is no mean feat given Australia’s lack of much to do with nuclear energy.

Generation IV Forum

Adi Paterson

Dr. Resat Uzman
Director of nuclear energy systems at Figes AS, of Türkiye. Dr. Uzman has more than 40 years experience in all things nuclear, Türkiye and rare earths – the materials where Thorium is often found bound with.

Interview #3, Dr. Reşat Uzmen, Nuclear Technology Director of FİGES. Part of the Thorium Student Guild Interview Series, “Leading to Nuclear”

Dr. Resat Uzmen

Professor Berrin Erbay
Senior lecturer and former dean of mechanical engineering at Osmangazi University, Türkiye Prof. Erbay has been liaising with the professors in Japan for several decades. You can see one of her presentations on the status of Liquid Fission Technology in Japan here on Youtube:

Berrin Erbay

4. Nesil Nükleer Reaktör Teknolojileri Toplantısı

Mr. Phumzile Tshelane
Mr. Tshelane is a former CEO of NECSA South Africa, now holds various directorships across a wide range of industrial sectors. His position as head of a state owned nuclear technology development company gives him a particular view point on commercialisation of nuclear energy technologies.

Mr. Phumzile Tshelane

S3E6 Africa4Nuclear: The Story of Thorium

Ms. Rana Önem
Former president of the Thorium Student Guild. You should hear from someone discovered the benefits of Liquid Fission Thorium when studying their nuclear engineering degree. You can see Rana interviewing Dr. Uzman here. Follow the links at the end of the article to see her role as president of the Guild:

Interview #3, Dr. Reşat Uzmen, Nuclear Technology Director of FİGES. Part of the Thorium Student Guild Interview Series, “Leading to Nuclear”

Fmr. President – Ms. Rana Önem, Eng

Student Guild

An important subject to cover is linear no threshold theory – a fraudulent model of radiation management that, unfortunately, has spawned an industry of radiation protection and radiation safety keen on maintaining its own survival. This results in massive, unnecessary overspending on nuclear builds. Professor Edward Calabrese is a leading expert on this subject and you can watch a series of interviews with Ed here:

The History of the Linear No-Threshold (LNT) Model Episode Guide

Together with Professor Jerry Cuttler, Ed presents clearly, laying out how LNT has demonstrably been proven false. (And consequently those that died at Fukushima died unnecessarily, as a direct result of inappropriately applying that theory).

What would become of nuclear risk if governments changed their regulations to recognize the evidence of radiation’s beneficial health effects for exposures that are below the thresholds for detrimental effects?

Here’s the background on the Türkiye Japan University (TJU). Our founder, Jeremiah Josey, met with the Japanese Ambassador to Türkiye in 2021 and confirmed Japanese support for technology development of Liquid Fission is easier should such work be included in the curriculum of the TJU. Early planning stages of the TJU can be seen here below. The vice president of TJU is a senior professor at the Tokyo University responsible for nuclear engineering.

The “only” obstacle to adoption of Liquid Fission Thorium is the incumbent energy industries. It’s a significant obstacle, and it would be naive to think otherwise. Operating much like the tobacco industry has done in the past, lobbyists and funding at all levels occurs to stymie any potential competitors.

It is predicted that the 7 Trillion USD per year fossil fuel energy market would shrink to a few hundred billion USD per year with a society powered by Liquid Fission Thorium. This is an obvious disincentive for incumbents to do anything but to obfuscate and delay. For the true scale of these numbers, that means that a world powered by Liquid Fission Thorium energy would require only one ship like the one below to carry ALL WORLD’s Energy for ONE year.

100,00 DWT Bulk Carrier Cape Ace

You can see that obfuscation at work here with both Wired and the Bulletin in 2019 on USA presidential candidate Andrew Yang:

Fact-check: Five claims about thorium made by Andrew Yang – Bulletin

Andrew Yang Wants a Thorium Reactor by 2027. Good Luck, Buddy – Wired

The half truths and lies are difficult, if not impossible, for the layperson to identify. We contacted one of Andrew’s advisory team members and confirmed Andrew supports Liquid Fission Thorium, and was committing several billion USD to have USA’s energy footprint 100% on the technology by 2030. Technically very doable. Politically, not.

It is important to recognise the ecological and economic footprint of energy from Thorium (a substance as common as lead) as being much smaller than even uranium. In the article link above (the Japanese translation one) there are three slides that demonstrate the significant benefits Thorium has over uranium. These slides are repeated below.

Thorium and Uranium Compared Slide 1 of 3

Thorium and Uranium Compared Slide 2 of 3

Thorium and Uranium Compared Slide 3 of 3

The IAEA report TE1450 from 2005 is an excellent read. It says Thorium is not an issue and is a good prospect for energy – back in 2005. Once the physics is proven it doesn’t need to be “upgraded” every 6 months like an iPhone.

And yes, Thorium doesn’t explode. “Walk away safe” is a suitable term for Liquid Fission Technology.

IAEA Tecdoc 1450 Thorium Fuel Cycle May 2005 Download

Here’s the former head of IAEA, Hans Blix, stating that “Thorium shouldn’t be treated like uranium”.

Thorium Nuclear Power and non Proliferation Hans Blix IAEA ThEC13

See more Hans Blix on Liquid Fission Thorium Energy

Attached below is a brief summary of “Why Thorium didn’t take off” by Bruce Hoglund, 5 November 2010. It’s an excellent starting point for data gathering and research – and not “Wikipedia”. Wikipedia was used as partial evidence why the United Kingdom should’t use Thorium for energy. Some 10 years ago in a UK government 1.5m GBP funded “study”, rubbished Thorium and directly contradicted the advice of the IAEA’s TE 1450 report.

Why MSRS Abandoned ORNL Weinbergs Firing Download

The information here is but the tip of the iceberg, however it gives an excellent starting point. There are of course, many, many others who can contribute considerably for a balanced and objective article or articles on Thorium for our energy future. And with today’s communications technology, such conversations are only but a few key strokes away.

Burning stuff is old tech. Star Trek technology is where we have to be now. Fission does that, especially Liquid Fission Thorium Energy Technology.

Uncle Martin would be proud. Nanu, nanu!

Post created following a 2 hour interview between Associated Press representative for Japan, Ms. Yuri Kageyama and founder of The Thorium Network, Jeremiah Josey

Links and References
#Journalist #CribSheet #Thorium #Interviews #MoltenSaltFissionEnergy #Rosatom #Japan #Turkey #China #LNT #LiquidFission
July 23, 2022
Episode 12 – The Dismay of Radiophobia – Unintended Consequences – Chapter 5, Part 2

Created by Jeremiah Josey and the team at The Thorium Network

Remembering Leslie Corrice’s words from Episode 11, Corrice’s dismay over the results of radiophobia are echoed by many professionals, one being Dr. Antone “Tony” Brooks, who grew up in “fallout-drenched” St. George, Utah, which led him to study radiation at Cornell University. For an excellent, short video of the conclusions he reached, please visit:

Our Stories: “Fallout Man” with Tony Brooks – 2017 SILVER TELLY AWARD WINNER

Dr. Gunnar Walinder, an eminent Swedish radiation scientist, bluntly told UNSCEAR, “…LNT is the greatest scientific scandal of the 20th Century.”

Some Perspectives on Actions on Areas Contaminated by Radioactive Fallout Gunnar Walinder Download

The Harmful and Fraudulent Basis for the LNT Assumption, August 2017, Charles Sanders

Doctors petitioning NRC to revise radiation protection regulations June 29, 2015, Rod Adams

LNT begat ALARA
“As Low As Reasonably Acheiveable”
LNT- “Any radiation can kill you
minimise the risk”.
“Achievable” depends on technology, not health effects.
Country Tritium Limits
Canada 0.1 mSv/y World Health Org
US 0.04 mSv/yr LWRs can meet
Alarming ALARA

The belief that tiny amounts of radiation can be lethal created ALARA – As Low As Reasonably Achievable – an anti-nuclear bias that has permeated our regulations for decades. However, “reasonably” is vague, and “achievable” depends on technology, not health effects.

For example, the World Health Organisation has set a public exposure limit for tritium from nuclear power plants of 0.1 mSv per year. Canada’s reactors comply with this limit, but due to ALARA, the limit in the USA is 0.04 mSv per year. Why? Because it is achievable – not because it is necessary.

Tritium (also known as hydrogen-3), is often used in watches and emergency exit signs. It is also present in our food and water. Furthermore, its tiny nucleus emits a particle so slow that it cannot even penetrate skin. In comparison, the Potassium-40 in our omnipresent banana emits beta particles that are 230 times as energetic, but no one worries about those deadly bananas.

“Adults would have to drink ~3 gallons of Vermont-Yankee tritiated water every day to match the internal radiation they get from the Potassium-40 in their own bodies.”
Mike Conley

LNT and ALARA can easily lead to absurdities: For example, airline passengers are exposed to about 20 times more cosmic radiation than those at ground level, but despite the dire predictions of LNT, they experience no more cancer than those who don’t fly. Should jets be required to fly at low altitudes, where they produce more greenhouse gases, just to satisfy ALARA – and what about the flight attendants and pilots who constantly work in higher levels of cosmic radiation?

As Radiation detection technology improves, ALARA just increases fear.

¹³⁷Caesium decay scheme showing half-lives, daughter nuclides, and types and proportion of radiation emitted.

Caesium-137 from Fukushima is detectable, so Counter Punch complains of Blue Fun tuna containing 0.0000077 mSv per 7 oz serving [200 grams], writing “… no radiation exposure of any kind is safe”.

Washington’s Hanford storage site has a budget of about USD 3 billion per year, much of which is used to try to reduce area radiation to the LNT-based standard of less than 0.15 mSv. (Normal Denver exposure is 40 times higher.)

Construction of Nuclear Waste Storage Tanks at Hanford 1943

It is wasteful to spend money “protecting” people from tiny amounts of radiation. Instead, let’s finance programs that help people stop smoking, which brings carcinogens like cyanide, formaldehyde, ammonia, carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxide into intimate contact with their lungs. (Smoking related diseases kill 5 million people per year).

Radiation exposure in reactor buildings is so low that it isn’t an issue, but educating the public on basic environmental radiation is a very critical issue.

For example, after Fukushima, lack of accurate radiation knowledge and the media’s eagerness to hype radiation issues caused a run on potassium iodide [KI] pills along our west coast, but no media explained that this was pointless. Pharmacies ran out, and some patients who needed KI couldn’t get it, while those who needlessly took it actually raised their chances of disease because too much KI can cause thyroid malfunction.

Radiation is safe within limits
LNT and ALARA are regulation policies, not scientific facts. Replace them
An evidence-based radiation safety limit would be 100 mSv per year.
Rational regulation is all that is needed to let nuclear power thrive and solve our global environmental and economic crises.

Dr. Robert Hargraves, the author of THORIUM: Energy Cheaper than Coal, writes,

“Radiation safety limits have been ratcheted down from 150 mSv/year in 1948 to 5 mSv/y in 1957 to 1 mSv/y in 1991 without supporting evidence by relying on the erroneous LNT model. EPA limits are set 100 times lower than levels that could cause harm. ALARA leads people, the press, and Big Green to falsely conclude that any radiation exposure may kill you.”

Thorium – energy cheaper than coal

Robert Hargraves – Aim High! @ TEAC3

However, just 50 mSv/yr is the new limit proposed by Dr. Carol Marcus and other experts in their 2015 petition that requests the NRC to increase the limits based on current knowledge.

The petitioner recommends the following changes to 10 CFR part 20:
(1) Worker doses should remain at present levels, with allowance of up to 100 mSv (10 rem) effective dose per year if the doses are chronic.
(2) ALARA should be removed entirely from the regulations. The petitioner argues that “it makes no sense to decrease radiation doses that are not only harmless but may be hormetic.”
(3) Public doses should be raised to worker doses. The petitioner notes that “these low doses may be hormetic. The petitioner goes on to ask, “why deprive the public of the benefits of low dose radiation?”
(4) End differential doses to pregnant women, embryos and fetuses, and children under 18 years of age.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), United States of America

For more on the consequences of accepting LNT, which led to ALARA, please see these links:

Scientists for Accurate Radiation Information – S.A.R.I.

XLNT Foundation website

Absurd Radiation Limits Are a Trillion Dollar Waste
James Conca, Forbes magazine – 2014

James Conca, in Forbes: “There are some easy decisions to make that will save us a trillion dollars, and they could be made soon by the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA could raise the absurdly low radiation levels considered to be a threat to the public. These limits were based upon biased and fraudulent “research” in the 1940’s through the 1960’s, when we were frightened of all things nuclear and knew almost nothing about our cells’ ability to repair damage from excess radiation.

“These possible regulatory changes have been triggered by the threat of nuclear terrorism and by the unnecessary evacuation of tens of thousands of Japanese after Fukushima Daiichi, and hundreds of thousands of Russians after Chernobyl. There, the frightened authorities were following U. S. plans that were created because of the ALARA policy (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) that has always been misinterpreted to mean that all forms of radiation are dangerous, no matter at what level. It’s led to our present absurdly low threat level of 25 millirem.

“Keep in mind that radiation workers can get 5,000 mrem/year and think nothing of it. We’ve never had problems with these levels. Emergency responders can get up to 25,000 mrem to save human lives and property. I would take 50,000 mrem just to save my cat.

“This wouldn’t be bad if it didn’t have really serious social and economic side-effects, like pathological fear, significant deaths during any forced evacuation, not receiving medical care that you should have, shutting down nuclear power plants to fire up fossil fuel plants, and a trillion-dollar price tag trying to clean up minor radiation that even Nature doesn’t care about.”

Approximately 100,000 people were evacuated from the Fukushima area after the meltdown, and by September, 2013, about 1,200 evacuees had died from suicide and the stress of the excessive evacuation.

Dr. Brian Hanley

Radiation – Exposure and its treatment A modern handbook

Dr. Brian Hanley: [Fukushima] “If no evacuation had occurred, and everyone had lived outdoors with no precautions, at most 15 cancer deaths might have happened, but probably none.

“People have been going to radioactive spas in Ramsar, Iran for a long time without ill effect. In a 2-week visit, the dose would be a maximum of 10 mSv. That is 6 to 80 times more radioactive than the evacuation zone of Fukushima.”

Ramsar

Grand Ramsar Hotel

Ramsar

“To enable nuclear power, the NRC must renounce the non-scientific basis for LNT and ALARA”
Dr. Robert Hargraves

Coming up next week, Episode 13 – What’s So Great about Nuclear Power

Links and References

1. Next Episode – Episode 13 – What’s So Great about Nuclear Power
2. Previous Episode – Episode 11 – Looking for Radiation
3. Launching the Unintended Consequences Series
4. Dr. George Erickson’s Website, Tundracub.com
5. The full pdf version of Unintended Consequences
6. https://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com/
7. https://worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n77019846/
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Scientific_Committee_on_the_Effects_of_Atomic_Radiation
8. https://www.osti.gov/etdeweb/servlets/purl/20637408
9. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318986234_The_Harmful_and_Fraudulent_Basis_for_the_LNT_Assumption
10. https://atomicinsights.com/doctors-petitioning-nrc-to-revise-radiation-protection-regulations/
11. https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/glossary/alara.html
12. https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/tritium-radiation-fs.html
13. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium
14. https://www.linkedin.com/in/mike-conley-5529b3/
15. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesium-137
16. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/west-coast/science-data/fukushima-radiation-us-west-coast-tuna
17. https://www.nuclear-power.com/nuclear-engineering/radiation-protection/equivalent-dose/sievert-unit-of-equivalent-dose/sievert-gray-becquerel-conversion-calculation/
18. https://doh.wa.gov/sites/default/files/legacy/Documents/Pubs//320-015_cleanup_e.pdf
19. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site
20. https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/index.htm
21. https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/emergencies/ki.htm
22. https://www.linkedin.com/in/roberthargraves/
23. https://www.amazon.com/THORIUM-energy-cheaper-than-coal/dp/1478161299
24. https://thoriumenergyalliance.com/resource/robert-hargraves-aim-high/
25. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOoBTufkEog
26. https://www.linkedin.com/in/carol-s-marcus-ph-d-m-d-11111a62/
27. https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/rulemaking-ruleforum/petitions-by-year/2015/index.html
28. https://atomicinsights.com/doctors-petitioning-nrc-to-revise-radiation-protection-regulations/
29. https://www.regulations.gov/document/NRC-2015-0057-0010
30. http://radiationeffects.org/
31. http://www.x-lnt.org/
32. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/07/13/absurd-radiation-limits-are-a-trillion-dollar-waste/
33. https://www.linkedin.com/in/jim-conca-2a51037/
34. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/06/18/fukushima-2-25-the-humanitarian-crisis/
35. https://www.linkedin.com/in/brian-hanley-983312/
36. https://www.amazon.com/Radiation-Exposure-treatment-modern-handbook-ebook/dp/B00D7KLQYY
37. http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2018/ph241/lance2/
38. https://parsianramsar.pih.ir/
39. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsar%2C_Iran

#GeorgeErickson #UnintendedConsequences #Thorium #Fukushima #ALARA #Radiophobia #Ramsar

March 31, 2022
Episode 11 – Looking for Radiation – Unintended Consequences – Chapter 5 Part 1

Created by Jeremiah Josey and the team at The Thorium Network

The Consequences of Overreaction

ALARA = As Low As Reasonably Achievable

LNT [Linear No Threshold Theory] was pushed through the U.N. by Russia and China in the 1950’s to stop America’s above-ground weapons testing. It worked, but it also caused a worldwide fear of radiation below levels that are dangerous.. The radiation safety people liked it because it seemed so… conservative. But it has become an ideology “ruled by hysteria and fuelled by ignorance.” Dr. Kathy Reichs, Society for the Advancement of Education.

Cancer And Death by Radiation? Not From Fukushima, James Conca, Forbes 2014

Contamination dropping in evacuation zone
07 June 2013

IAEA would recommend evacuation of the areas in RED [>166 mSv/yr]

Japanese Government
– Resettlement allowed < 20 mSv per year
– Remediation Goal 1 mSv per year
– More Confusion –

The Linear No-Threshold Relationship Is Inconsistent with Radiation Biologic and Experimental Data, Tubiana, Feinendegen, Yang, Kaminski, Radiology, April 2009

Dr. Tim Maloney: “Anyone living permanently in the green zone would only receive a dose rate equal to twice the rate in Colorado, where the cancer rate is less than the US average. The dose rate in the dark red regions is 1/3 of the safety threshold set by the International Commission on System of Radiological Protection in 1934. Even by today’s extreme standards, this level of exposure carries no known cancer risk.

“Anxious to impress, officials and reporters donned white suits and masks, which made good TV but did nothing for the child who saw the school playground being dug up by workers who were afraid of an unseen evil called radiation. Unfortunately, most people see their fears confirmed as fact when workers and officials dress this way. An open-necked shirt with rolled-up sleeves, a firm hand shake and a cup of tea would be a better way to reassure.”

A man uses a roller near a Geiger counter, measuring a radiation level of 0.207 microsieverts per hour, during nuclear radiation decontamination work at a park in Koriyama. Photograph: Toru Hanai/Reuters

Imagine the anxiety created by clueless officials who provided useless information, as when a school official warned parents that the radiation intensity was 0.14 micro Sieverts per hour, which was meaningless because the normal radiation level in some Japanese cities can be five times that high.

Officials in protective gear check for signs of radiation on children who are from the evacuation area near the Fukushima nuclear plant on March 13, 2011, two days after the accident began. Photo: Kim Kyung-Hoon/Reuters

Fukushima Fear of Radiation Killed People

In 2012, UNSCEAR stated, “…no clinically observable effects have been reported and there is no evidence of acute radiation injury in any of the 20,115 workers who participated in Tepco’s efforts to mitigate the accident at the plant.”

A year later, UNSCEAR added: “Radiation exposure following the accident at Fukushima Daiichi did not cause any immediate health effects. It is unlikely [that there will be] any health effects among the general public and the vast majority of workers.”

And in an April, 2014 follow-up, UNSCEAR reported that, “Overall, people in Fukushima are expected on average to receive less than 10 mSv due to the accident over their whole lifetime, compared with the 170 mSv lifetime dose from natural background radiation that most people in Japan typically receive.”

Finally, in October, 2015, UNSCEAR confirmed that none of the new information accumulated after the 2013 report “materially affected the main findings in, or challenged the major assumptions of, the 2013 report.” However, despite these positive reports, as of November, 2016, most of the 150,000 people who were forced to evacuate still lived in temporary housing.

Dr. Jane Orient, who practices internal medicine agreed: “The number of radiation casualties from the meltdown of the Fukushima nuclear reactors stands at zero. In Fukushima Prefecture, the casualties from radiation terror number more than 1,600… The U.S. is vulnerable to the same radiation terror as occurred in Japan because of using the wrong dose-response model, which is based on the linear no- threshold hypothesis (LNT), for assessing radiation health risks.”

The number of radiation casualties from the meltdown of the Fukushima nuclear reactors stands at zero.
Dr. Jane Orient

The following is an excerpt from Whole-body Counter Surveys of over 2700 babies and small children in and around Fukushima Prefecture from 33 to 49 months after the Fukushima Daiichi NPP accident:

BABYSCAN – Peekaboo – Looking for Radiation

“The BABYSCAN, a whole-body counter (WBC) for small children, was developed in 2013, and units have been installed at three hospitals in Fukushima Prefecture. Between December, 2013 and March, 2015, 2702 children between the ages of 0 and 11 have been scanned, and none had a detectable level of cesium-137.” (The anti-nuclear crowd had been obsessing about exposure to cesium-137.)

Extensive radiation study finds no internal cesium exposure in Fukushima children

Positive reports like this rarely appear in our American press, which frustrates professionals like Leslie Corrice, a former nuclear power plant operator, environmental monitoring technician, health physics design engineer, public education coordinator and emergency planner who writes the informative and highly respected blog, The Hiroshima Syndrome.

In Radiation: The No-Safe-Level Myth, Corrice writes,

“As long as the LNT theory is maintained, our fear of radiation will continue to damage the psyche of all humanity, restrict the therapeutic and healing effects of non-lethal doses of radiation, limit the growth of green nuclear energy, and needlessly prolong the burning of fossil fuels to produce electricity.

“In 1987, when I was frustrated because it seemed like the major news outlets bent over backwards to broadcast negative nuclear reports while seemingly ignoring anything positive, a former Press manager with a major news outlet in Cleveland took me aside and gave me the facts of life.

“He first explained that the Press is a moneymaking venture. The ratings determine advertising income; the lifeblood of the business – and the surefire money-makers were war, presidential elections, natural disasters and airline crashes.

…the surefire money-makers were war, presidential elections, natural disasters and airline crashes.
Cleveland press manager

“Turning to Three Mile Island, he said the ratings sky-rocketed and stayed that way for the better part of two weeks. In the years that followed, the media found that negative reports caused an increase in ratings, and positive stuff didn’t. This trend slowly dwindled, but Chernobyl re-ignited the ratings impact of nuclear accident reporting and proved that broadcasting the negative was better for business…

“He added that the media might someday entirely ignore the positive and only report the negative in regard to nuclear energy, and he speculated that all it would take was one more accident. Unfortunately, he was right. Fukushima has pushed the world’s Press into the journalistic dark side. My Fukushima Updates blog has lashed the Japanese Press and the world’s news media outside Japan severely for primarily reporting the negative…. A recent example concerns the child care thyroid study in Fukushima Prefecture during the past four years.

“On October 5, 2015, four PhDs in Japan alleged in the Tsuda Report that the Fukushima accident had spawned a thyroid cancer epidemic among the prefecture’s children, which contradicted the Fukushima Univ. Medical School, Japanese Research Center for Cancer Prevention and Screening, and National Cancer Center, which all found that the detected child thyroid precancerous anomalies in Fukushima Prefecture cannot be realistically linked to the accident. Regardless, the Tsuda Report’s claim made major headlines in Japan, then spread to mainstream outlets outside Japan, including UPI and AP.

“Here’s the problem. In December 2013, a scientific report was published on a comparison of the rate of child thyroid, pre-cancerous anomalies in Fukushima Prefecture with the rates in three prefectures hundreds of kilometers distant: Aomori, Yamanashi and Nagasaki.

“The Fukushima University medical team studying the issue had discovered that there was no prior data on child thyroid cancer rates in Japan, so there was nothing to compare the 2012 results to.

“Because of the furor caused by the original release of their findings in 2012, the team decided to take matters into their own hands and offer free testing to volunteer families in the distant prefectures. Nearly 5,000 parents took advantage of the opportunity and had their children screened.

“What was found was completely unexpected. The abnormality rates in Aomori, Yamanashi and Nagasaki Prefectures were actually higher than that discovered in Fukushima Prefecture, which conclusively indicated that the radiation from the Fukushima accident had no negative impact on the health of the thyroid glands in Fukushima’s children. Just one Japanese Press outlet mentioned the 2013 discovery at the very end of an article about a few more children being found to have the anomalies in Fukushima….

…no negative impact on the health of the thyroid glands in Fukushima’s children.
Fukushima University

“On the other hand, when a maverick team of four Japanese with PhDs publish a highly questionable report – full of so many holes that it should be tossed into the trash – alleging a severe cancer problem caused by the Fukushima accident, it gets major coverage inside Japan and significant coverage by the world’s mainstream press!

“It is important to emphasize that the Tsuda Report fails to acknowledge the fact that Prefectures unaffected by the Fukushima accident had the higher anomaly rates. (Which is why the Tsuda Report is worthy of the trash heap.)

“The media might not make money off sharing the good news about Fukushima, but they are committing a moral crime against humanity by not doing it.”

Fukushima’s Children Aren’t Dying, New American, October 20, 2014

Tritiated Water From Fukushima To Be Discharged Into Pacific, Andrew Karam, Ph.D., CHP, April 23, 2021

Fukushima’s Children Aren’t Dying

Coming up next week, Episode 12 – The Dismay of Radiophobia

Links and References

1. Next Episode – Episode 12 – The Dismay of Radiophobia
2. Previous Episode – Episode 10 – Hormesis: How Radiation is Good for You
3. Launching the Unintended Consequences Series
4. Dr. George Erickson’s Website, Tundracub.com
5. The full pdf version of Unintended Consequences
6. https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/glossary/alara.html
7. https://www.thefreelibrary.com/LNT+Has+Been+TNT+to+Humanity.-a0677253825
8. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/05/04/cancer-and-death-by-radiation-not-from-fukushima/
9. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2663584/
10. https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Contamination_dropping_in_evacuation_zone_0706131.html
11. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/gallery/2014/mar/10/fukushima-children-play-indoors-earthquake-tsunami-nuclear-in-pictures
12. https://www.ibtimes.com/new-fukushima-radiation-study-looks-ahead-future-cancer-risks-1557613
13. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-daiichi-accident.aspx
14. https://www.drjaneorient.com/
15. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26460321/
16. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/10/09/national/science-health/extensive-radiation-study-finds-no-internal-cesium-exposure-fukushima-children/
17. https://www.linkedin.com/in/leslie-corrice-49a8b230/
18. https://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com/
19. https://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com/radiation-the-no-safe-level-myth.html
20. https://thenewamerican.com/fukushima-s-children-aren-t-dying/
21. https://www.acsh.org/news/2021/04/23/tritiated-water-fukushima%C2%A0-be-discharged-pacific-15496

#GeorgeErickson #UnintendedConsequences #Fukushima #ALARA #BABYSCAN

March 24, 2022