Edward Calabrese, Professor of Toxicology at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst: This article summarizes substantial recent historical revelations of the history of low dose radiation exposure, which profoundly challenge the standard and widely acceptable history of cancer risk assessment, showing multiple significant scientific errors and incorrect interpretations, mixed with deliberate misrepresentation of the scientific record by leading ideologically motivated radiation geneticists.
American Nuclear Society, Andrew Klein, President: As I considered how ANS could best forward the interests of nuclear professionals during my term as president (June 2016-June 2017), I was compelled by the idea of identifying the technical nuclear challenges that need to be resolved by 2030 in order to help solve some of the economic, sociological, or political issues that we face as a society. The results are the ANS Nuclear Grand Challenges described in this report.
Robert Hargraves, Physicist. Nuclear power is a green environmental solution. The fuel is cheap and inexhaustible. Green nuclear power can solve the global crises of air pollution deaths and climate change. Cheap energy can help developing nations escape poverty and let industrialized nations improve economic growth. Is nuclear power safe? Yes, the primary obstacle to nuclear power is misunderstanding of radiation health effects.
Bobby Scott, scientist emeritus at Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute, Albuquerque, NM: Findings reported here point out the lack of any solid evidence for cancer induction by low radiation doses (< 100 mGy) such as are received from single or several applications of CT or chest X-rays. Particularly disturbing is the application of the Linear No-Threshold model. The notion that multiple uses of diagnostic imaging, when separated by weeks or months or longer, is cumulative with respect to damage induction, is not supported by the fact that lifetime exposure to ionizing radiation in regions of elevated background radiation does not increase cancer risk. The claims of harm from such exposures are based mainly on seriously flawed epidemiological studies that usually rely on the unscientific and forced LNT default model.