Grant Meadows, student at University of Wisconsin, Madison - The current safety regulations of low-dose ionizing radiation exposure are erroneous. The linear no threshold model (LNT), proposed in the 1950s and accepted as the science behind regulation protections, now serves as an obstacle towards progress, rather than a tool of the nuclear community. The LNT model should be replaced by the more accurate model, called hormesis. By adopting hormesis, a threshold model of acute and chronic radiation exposure can be instituted, leading to immeasurable gain for millions of people.
Jerry Cuttler, James Welsh - A world-wide radiation health scare was created in the late 1950s to stop the testing of atomic bombs and block the development of nuclear energy. In spite of the large amount of evidence that contradicts the cancer predictions, this fear continues. It impairs the use of low radiation doses in medical diagnostic imaging and radiation therapy. No predictions of excess cancer risk should be made for an acute exposure below 50 rem, or 0.5 Sv until there is scientific evidence to support the LNT hypothesis.
Mark Miller, Bobby Scott, Bert Morales, Mohan Doss - In 2013, in response to the harm caused by the misinformation propagated regarding radiation effects in Fukushima, following the initiative of Dr. Bobby Scott of Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute, a group of about 20 scientists formed a new group known as Scientists for Accurate Radiation Information (SARI). Mission: To help prevent unnecessary, radiation-phobia-related deaths, morbidity, and injuries associated with distrust of radio-medical diagnostics/therapies and from nuclear/radiological emergencies through countering phobia-promoting misinformation spread by alarmists via the media.
Leo Gomez, Davie Brenner, Otto Raabe - The United States is projected to spend $350 billion cleaning up radioactive contamination and waste derived from nuclear activities over a period of several decades. The difficulty in obtaining scientific data at the EPA’s current ionizing radiation cleanup standards is that these standards are set at a small fraction above naturally occurring back-ground levels. Conclusion - Establishing an improved scientific basis for setting an ionizing radiation standard has the potential to save more than $200 billion in the cleanup of radiation sites nationwide. It will also save money in nuclear power and improve services in nuclear medicine.