John,

"Bronwyn’s statement was general: that nuclear industry workers suffer increased risk of cancer, heart attack, and stroke. That’s a claim about population-level patterns, supported by multiple studies and medical bodies over time."

Okay, so where are these studies and what is the current stance of overseeing bodies like nuclear associations? My understanding is that nearly all studies show the workers suffer no health risks from radiation exposure.

So where is all this evidence that you speak of? If you think the claim valid then you would have evidence seeing as you have such a deep understanding of the scientific method.

Thanks, Fester. I thought you’d never ask. Here’s a small sample to get us started:

INWORKS study - the largest pooled study of nuclear workers to date (308,297 individuals across France, UK, US) found a clear linear association between low-dose radiation exposure and cancer mortality:
http://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26487649

UNSCEAR - their reports have long acknowledged that occupational radiation exposure, especially in the mid-20th century, led to increased cancer risks. They’ve never claimed the risk is zero.
http://www.unscear.org/docs/publications/2000/UNSCEAR_2000_Report_Vol.I.pdf

IARC - confirmed that ionising radiation is classified as a Group 1 carcinogen - the highest category. That includes low doses over time. This isn’t disputed.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK570341

BEIR VII Report (National Academy of Sciences, 2006) - concluded that no safe threshold of ionising radiation has been established, and risk accumulates over time:

“The committee concludes that the risk of cancer proceeds in a linear fashion at lower doses without a threshold and that the smallest dose has the potential to cause a small increase in risk to humans.”
http://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/11340/health-risks-from-exposure-to-low-levels-of-ionizing-radiation

So no, Bronwyn’s statement wasn’t “grubby” or dishonest. It was consistent with the findings of every major body that studies occupational radiation risk. The Lucas Heights cohort is an outlier, not a disproof.

And let’s not forget - you claimed “nearly all research” shows nuclear workers live longer, then tried to walk it back when it didn’t hold. That wasn’t science. That was spin.

John,

"And let’s not forget - you claimed “nearly all research” shows nuclear workers live longer, then tried to walk it back when it didn’t hold. That wasn’t science. That was spin."

Yes, nearly all research does show lower mortality rates and longer lives for nuclear industry workers than the general population. That is true. It isn't spin. What the research suggests is that radiation is not a great risk to health and that other factors like diet and lifestyle factors are far more significant. As a point of interest you might have looked at the latest UNSCEAR report. It included this observation:

"71. In the years since the UNSCEAR 2013 report, no adverse health effects among
Fukushima residents have been documented that are directly attributable to radiation
exposure from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station accident. The updated
estimates of doses to members of the public have either decreased or are comparable
with the Scientific Committee’s previous estimates. The Committee therefore
continues to consider that future health effects directly related to radiation exposure
are unlikely to be discernible.14"

So in effect, the doses are so small as to have no measurable effect except for small groups of workers with very high exposures (this would not happen in current times). That makes Bronwyn's scaremongering statements false.

You never quantify things, John.

Fester,

So… after demanding studies, you’re now ignoring the largest one in the world (INWORKS), downplaying findings from BEIR and the IARC, and citing a single paragraph from UNSCEAR about Fukushima residents - not workers residents specifically.

Let’s be clear: “no adverse health effects among Fukushima residents” is not a blanket statement about all radiation exposure. It doesn’t refute Bronwyn’s point. It doesn’t refute the INWORKS study, which explicitly found a dose-response relationship between cumulative exposure and cancer mortality in nuclear workers. And it certainly doesn’t undo decades of data on early nuclear industry risks.

You keep invoking “lower mortality” among workers as if it’s radiation that’s keeping them healthy. It’s not. It’s called the Healthy Worker Effect - a well-known statistical phenomenon where employed populations, especially in high-screening environments like nuclear facilities, tend to have lower mortality than the general population regardless of exposure. You know this - or you should.

As for your claim that I “never quantify” - I listed cohort sizes, risk relationships, publication years, and institutions. You replied with a single paragraph, stripped of context, and no data. If anyone’s being vague, it isn’t me.

Bronwyn’s comment was consistent with documented occupational risks across decades of research. You responded by misrepresenting that history, cherry-picking studies, and declaring victory over an argument no one had even made.

At this point, your replies are less about facts - and more about protecting a narrative. But if the narrative were that solid, you wouldn’t need to keep dodging the data.

John,

What a silly rant. More befitting a medieval cleric decrying heresy, and like a medieval cleric based on upholding the faith, in your case the linear non-threshold model. As a workplace health and safety measure I am all for it, but as a predictor of harm it tends to fail below annual exposures below 100 millisieverts. You might also note that the average radiation exposure of nuclear industry workers is now often less than background radiation (about 2.4 msv), and has fallen by about 99% since the late 1940s. Fukushima provides yet another example of the failure of the model for low dose exposures.

Bronwyn's lies are based on the lnt model. They are not supported by real world observation.

Fester,

Resorting to “medieval cleric” analogies might sound clever, but all it shows is that you’re out of counterarguments and now lobbing metaphors instead of facts.

Let’s unpack what you’re trying to do here.

You’re claiming that Bronwyn’s point - and decades of occupational health research - is invalid because it relies on the LNT model. That’s the same model still used by:

The International Commission on Radiological Protection

The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission

The World Health Organization

The National Academy of Sciences

These institutions continue to apply LNT not out of faith, but because it remains the most evidence-aligned framework for managing uncertain risk at low doses. Even critics of LNT don’t deny that radiation causes harm - they just argue over dose thresholds and risk curves, which doesn’t erase the documented historical risks Bronwyn referred to.

Your other move - saying exposures today are lower than in the past - isn’t the “gotcha” you think it is. No one said nuclear workers currently face the same risks as in the 1950s. Bronwyn referred to increased risks full stop, not “in 2024 at Lucas Heights.” Pretending that current safety standards erase past health impacts is like saying lead poisoning is a myth because we don’t put it in petrol anymore.

So no - Bronwyn didn’t lie. You just keep redefining the context so that whatever she says becomes “false” by your own shifting standard.

And when the evidence doesn’t cooperate, you swap the subject, attack the model, or accuse people of religious fervour.

That’s not a rebuttal. That’s deflection in a lab coat.