Noted scientist Andrew Bolt assures us that exposure to radioactivity is beneficial. His source is creation scientist Ann Coulter, who in turn relies on all-round scientific expert Tom Bethell, whose Incorrect Guide to Science[1] rejects scientific correctness on radiation, evolution, climate change, DDT, AIDS and many other topics. As far as I know, none of these experts has ever studied any scientific subject at a level higher than high school, which guarantees that they haven’t been infected by the subversive influence of correctness in science (or, for that matter, any other topic).
(Hat tip, Tim Lambert, who points to one of those correct scientists, PZ Myers)
fn1. The full title says “Politically Incorrect”, but this is a bit redundant. No doubt politics are the reason for Bethells incorrectness on science, but that’s true of all his incorrect opinions.
John Quiggin 
Unfortunately, with people like Ann Coulter, even if she knew she was wrong after reading Tim Lambert or P Z Meyers posts, she would simply cry all the way to the bank, to quote Liberace.
I wonder if people like her know they are wrong and whether they even care. Do they look at what they are doing as simply performance art?
Interesting concept. Cardinal Pell, Ian Plimer, Lord Monckton – performance artists.
Or you could read these links. Considerably more authorative than Ann Coulter.
http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com/2009/03/press-release-worth-posting-benefits-of.html
http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com/2010/09/radiation-hormesis-profound-truth-that.html
http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com/2010/11/new-york-times-hyping-unfounded.html
Clearly belief exists in inverse proportion to understanding. For so many people, it is clearly so much easier to believe the most preposterous assertions than to understand anything through empirical evidence and logical exposition.
To put this into perspective, amongst others the American Nuclear Society is supportive of benefits of low level radiation therefore Bolt will be able to access plenty of expert opinion from “sceptics.” However the Academy of Sciences, UNSCEAR and others can find no evidence to support the theory.
I think I might just put my head into the microwave…
@Paul Lindsey
Did you notice that the source was the American Council on Science and Health? . I guess they are a little more reputable than Coulter, but not a source to be relied on.
The study that found a hormetic effect from the Taiwan/Cobalt-60 accident used a bad methodology and was subsequently debunked (see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17178625)
Actually, there is some evidence for a hypersensitivity to low doses of radiation (though the effect is pretty marginal). See this deck of slides from a researcher from the DOE low dose radiation study program: http://www.tricity.wsu.edu/faculty/brooks/WSU%20Radiation%20Safety%20Seminar.ppt
Without endorsing Bolt’s scientific illiteracy the hormesis thesis of toxicology is showing that damage functions for a wide range of so-called poisons are u-shaped. This does include radioactivity and even dioxins. Of course the concentrations over which damages fall are low but such things as mammograms are apparently health promoting.
One has to wonder if the remarkable rash of ‘how I learned to stop worrying and love gamma rays’ and ‘only a a remarkably tiny number of people died as a result of Chernobyl (brackets directly end brackets)’ commentary that seems to have afflicted almost every comments thread on this issue might have anything to do with the systematic online astroturfing Monbiot’s been referring to.
(You might also be amused to know that now’s the right time to be having the Uranium enrichment debate again, according to South Australia’s new minerals minister. Yes, Fukushima notwithstanding and on the same day that a report revealed that despite the minerals boom the actual number of jobs in the industry in SA has slumped from 12,500 in 2007 to 8000 now. Ah, so that’s how we’ll get them all back! Got to give SA Labor points for consistency; this shows him to be about as tone-deaf as the previous incumbent…)
Importantly the nuclear industry, including foot soldiers and camp followers like Bolt, are saying that the media are creating a climate of fear etc etc. I would suggest that Bolt et al go to Japan and demonstrate their confidence by staying at Fukushima, drink the milk, eat the spinach and so on.
Sorry, Monbiot link should be http://www.monbiot.com/2011/02/23/robot-wars/
@hc
An interesting question concerning the ‘u’ shape of the damage function for various toxins and radioactivity is whether once you have the positive ‘bump’ from the cell repair reaction, whether there is no further ‘bump’ when you add more small doses of other toxins.
As P K Meyer explains it, I would hypothesize that “most likely mechanism [of] an upregulation of cellular defenses that overcompensates for the damage the agent is doing” only occurs for a body that is not already dealing with other toxins (or radiation). This, of course, could be tested empirically. If this is so, then once a small dose of radiation, for example, had triggered this up regulation, the body would, therefore, be more susceptible to any other toxins assaulting the body. To this extent, the greater susceptibility incurred as a result of even a small dose of ‘beneficial’ radiation might not be desirable.
Of course, the preceding might be too subtle for a “FoxNews” audience or John Howard’s “common sense pub test”.
Yes, Bill got it right as to astroturfing- the version Qiggin refers to is amusing because it has dropped an overt denial as to cigs, that its honeyed apologetics on other issues have more credibility.
Yeah, I know. I spelt Quiggin’s name wrong- typo.
If Bolt seriously believes a good dose of Strontium 90 does him good I’m all for it, I’ll try, too, provided he doesn’t catch cancer in the longish interim I’ll be employing to see how he goes with it.
I prefer my sources to come from people like Helen Caldicott who right state “Nuclear energy is a destroyer of worlds.” (and of lands and of lives – and not only that its unsustainable – we thought we were just plain scared but then we woke to a nightmare to find they have been storing decades of spent fuel rods near mamma bear reactor because its cheap and they havent git a clue what else to do with them and disposing of them is more than nuclear firms want to pay).
Jeez – from justifiable rational fear to gob smacking horror – but this industry stinks to high heaven doesnt it? Nothing Andrew Bolt or other names who you know is going to change this.
The best think we could ever have done after discovering nuclear fission is to send the lot into outer space along with all the idiots who recommend (have recommended) it.
We knew it would be trouble in 1945.
Alice am put in mind of the Rosenbergs and McCarthyism, with last.
@paul walter
Did Mccarthyism die yet Paul??…..I have seen lots I would call McCarthyism. Bloody nusiance those zealots still around, still fighting for corporate vested interests, still robbing labour and transferring to capital (praise be the great entrepeneurs of our society for they create all jobs etc – trouble is they are coming up mighty short on the jobs numbers – but still we ignore our unemployed youth, and still we ignore unemployment and pretend its not happening – its all supposedly “free choice leisure” and all the while inflation is the media demon – except its not – unemployment is.
The Phillips curve is alive and while – fight inflation and sacrifice unemployment but the latter is now dragging us down. Oh for a bit of deflation so we can shoot the central banks false enemy to pieces.
There is no inflation. Inflation is not the threat.
What happened to good old fashioned trust busting.?? I am over worshipping at the alter of the great entrepreneurs…
Yes, they definitely got their talking points memo and are working them hard.
Some fellow called Geoff Strong had a ripper in The Age online today: Hydro Dams Kill More People Than Nukular!
Earlier it was directly above Ian Lowe’s piece about Five Reasons Nuclear Is Dead, but that one has dropped down the hole.
@ Freelander
As PZ Myers states there’s probably an upreglation of cellular defenses, in my mind this is most likely DNA repair enzymes that repair mistakes during DNA replication or damage from other mutagens (mainly chemical and radiation). Assuming the radiation does increase these enzymes then people may overall get lower amounts of cancer due to the body being able to repair DNA damage that occurs during the normal course of life.
However, why would upregulation of DNA repair enzymes cause you to be more susceptible to other forms of toxins? Take alcohol for example, alcohol is a toxin and you need alcohol dehydrogenase to break it down, why would an increase in other cellular defences decrease your alcohol dehydrogenase activity?
Also to quibble with PZ Myers, he says “Radiation is always harmful” – this is an oversimplification. UV beta radiation for example may increase your risk of skin cancer but it also helps to generate vitamin D. 🙂
Back to Bolt I think it was a clumsy post but I take that he is implying radiation coming from the actual plant (gamma, alpha, beta rays etc) won’t hurt any members of the public and I would say he is correct. However, the iodine-131 (half life of 8 days and emits beta particles during decay) is something you probably wouldn’t want to be exposed to (via ingestion) even in low doses. (Apologies if I’m insulting anyone’s IQ here) This is because most iodine-131 will be taken up by the thyroid and decay there potentially giving that organ a high specific dose even if your overall dose is low.
Apologies for the long post JQ, I will try keep it shorter next time.
@Chumpai
It is not the up-regulation I am suggesting that would make you more susceptible. It is that the initial up-regulation benefit is a one off, which you have used up, and you have the toxin or effect of the radiation causing it in your body. If you add other toxins you have the original toxin or radiation plus the new toxins and you would therefore be already on the ‘u’ shaped damage curve, but without the benefit of the initial up-regulation. Ultimately, the question would be answered empirically. Theories, however well motivated, are simply pure speculation without empirical testing.
Put it this way. If you have a dagger sticking out of you already, even if that was somehow beneficial in making your body’s reaction to it, you still might be less able to handle the blow you receive with a baseball bat.
@Megan
Wait for it Megan – we are bound to hear it sooner or later..
“you have more chance of dying by lightening strike than you have of a nuclear accident” OR “the chance of an attack by a great white is greater than risk of dying fromm a nuclear accident” (Bolt, Piers next? or will it be Barry the Bozo from bravenewblunders ?) so everyone get back to work, eat the spinach and drink the milk, we may lose a few hectacres o producing land for the unforseeable eternal future buts thats a small price to pay for your neon signs now.
There is some really heavy censorship going on at Bravenewblunders (deletes, moderations and excessive use of the “unsubstantiated personal opinion deleted” button. Must be copping some pressure and decided increased regulation is in order)…
Freedom is only granted there unless you are in complete agreement re the positives of the nuclear industry.
@Freelander
Yes in terms of your dagger/baseball bat analogy there is a line of thought in the published cancer therapy literature that using low dose chemo in combination with low dose radiation may have a synergistic effect on killing cancer cells. (While hopefully less side effects on the rest of the body). So I think there may be some empirical evidence 😉
I would also agree with you that you the up-regulation of DNA repair enzymes cannot be endlessly increased (my memory says there are negative feedback mechanisms to stop too much of a certain protein being produced). I think what you are saying is that if you add radiation you increase DNA protection mechanisms, but, if in addition to radiation you also add another mutagen (e.g. chemicals from smoking) then the repair enzymes can’t cope with all the extra damage? If that was your argument then we are in agreement.
International expert, Andew Bolt, has reassured the people of Fukushima that he is safe and well in Melbourne.
I suppose some saw Media Watch and the shlockjocks last night?
Tell me!
Did I really see and hear what I saw and heard?
Attacking a well founded scientific theory seems to be a new form of McCarthyism if it challenges a preferred world view. In the currently fashionable model of political correctness climate change is ‘in’ while radiation hormesis is ‘out’. I think both theories have merit. On the latter I defer to the real experts on the subject
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis
No doubt the long term health of the Fukushima repair crew will be monitored and analysed in conjunction with lifestyle factors and genetics. A decade hence it may well be some ill health can be attributed to exposure. So far the death toll seems to be radiation 0 tsunami 10,000+.
@Stretch
If I didnt read the name first Stretch’s joke is classic Freelander..and thats an honour.
For those that haven’t seen it the 2006 BEIR VII report from the US National Academy of Sciences reviewed all available studies and submissions on this matter and concluded? The higher the dose the higher the risk! And it’s turtles all the way down; they specifically rejected both the idea of a threshold benign – or even ‘beneficial’ – level, saying this was unsupported in the literature AND the reverse (some submissions argued that lower doses were disproportionately damaging.)
Interesting to see Monbiot going waaaay out on the nuclear limb on this one too. If it were me I’d be inclined to wait until the smoke had actually stopped rising from the stricken reactors before proclaiming that everything was just fine as this was the worst that could happen. And then there’s the subsequent health of the genuinely heroic plant workers and inevitable corruption/incompetence investigations to consider…
However, it does seem that nuclear advocates generally – at least of the type inclined to see the Fukushima disaster as a mere pothole on the road to perfection – are missing the part of the mind I’d refer to as ‘Healthy Self-Doubt’ which enables the thinker to STFU for a while if the evidence is apparently running against them. Ziggy Switkowski was more rational on 4 Corners last night!
Nice attack on the anti science behaviour of Andrew Bolt. He returns fire at the anti science behaviour of shock jock Kerry OBrien.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/four_corners_gets_a_bad_case_of_nuclear_hysterics/
Not really Terje.
You seem to be suffering from Catallaxyitis
Did Bolt say that Fukushima had been out of control?
Give it up, Terje. You’re smart enough to know that Bolt is wrong on all counts, but unwilling to break ranks with the tribe. A very poor performance in my view.
JQ – I broadly agree with your repudiation of Coulter and Andrew Bolts reliance on her. But his article about 4 Corners makes similar valid criticisms of who others rely on for their science.
I think Andrew Bolt got it wrong on his hydroelectric article as I imply in comments here:-
http://catallaxyfiles.com/2011/03/22/dangerous-stuff-that-hydroelectric-power/
p.s. I’m smart enough to know that Bolt is not wrong on all things just as you are not wrong on all things. And both of you are wrong on many things.
Bolt relies on the opinion of the WNA – hardly an unbiased opinion. The IAEA maintain that the situation remains very serious.
Yes Terje,
Kerry O’Brien does not organise what goes on in a Four Corners program.
He introduces it and then may interview people to add to the program.
Interviewing someone who challenges your understanding and letting him fully explain his position is not what ‘shock jocks’ do.
you are wrong on this
@bill
job numbers have dropped in SA?
they have dropped in WA as well.
Bolt calls the response to Fukushima ‘hysterical’ as the IAEA announce that radiation levels are currently x1600 @ 20kms from the centre and the French authority are warning that contamination by radiation will be an issue for decades.
Hysterical is not the right term – angry, afraid, despairing, fearful, dismayed would closer. What a mess this cheap green nuclear has made!
TerjeP, you’re equivocating on the meaning of “wrong”. In Bolt’s case you agree with his opinions on many things, but, as we both know, he routinely and recklessly gets his facts wrong. In my case, you think my opinions are wrong, but you can rarely point to factual errors, and when someone does, I correct them.
Jeepers – giving air time to a bunch of unscientific cranks is no better than quoting an unscientific crank. Note that Bolt quoted Coulter but did not say if she was right / wrong / qualified or unqualified. If you think it is crap he has a comment section where you can say so.
<If you think it is crap he has a comment section where you can say so
Not true, he has comments section where his moderators determine what is said.
John – in general I find you to be sincere with the facts. I won’t say you are perfect and I often disagree with your judgment and perspective but you are usully sincere. I think Bolt is at times careless but I have seen nothing to suggest he is anything other than sincere also. At times he straight quotes others without much checking, but as with the Coulter quote he does not try and own the position. Generally when he is making an argument of his own he puts more effort into getting the details right.
Your constant charge of tribalism is predictable but boring.
That is called hand waving. This empty two sentances can be rolled out for any generic situation where you have no sensible comment to make. Pure mindless word mash.
@TerjeP
TerjeP, more words, same lack of substance. Here are some concrete examples to get your teeth into: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/politics/bolt/
@jakerman
Well I’m buggered then since I bought a short wavelength UV light from the stamp shop to look at scorpions, toadstools and bits of rock from Olympic Dam. Some lovely fluorescent colours but I think the real damage comes from the UV.
Did we all remove our smoke alarms containing a speck of plutonium? (actually the derivative Am 241)
Jackerman – in spite of what you may believe Tim Lambert is not a neutral arbiter of the truth. He is a protagonist in many of these debates.
You can’t be “sincere” about facts, only right or wrong. If you’re consistently careless, and your errors always go in the direction of favoring your own case, and aren’t corrected when they are pointed out, you’re a liar.
@TerjeP
Again, neutrality is not to the point here, except to someone with a tribal view of the truth. Facts are facts – Lambert gets them right, Bolt doesn’t and you still side with Bolt.
@Hermit
No idea what your comment refers to,
@TerjeP
Same hand waving and same lack of concrete points to back your case. Let me emphais the empty nature of your defense of Bolt and attempt to liken his actions to those those of others (by avoiding concrete examples). I could may a show of diverting criticism of Gaddafi by using your last three posts and swaping his name with Bolt’s.
“I’m smart enough to know that Gaddafi is not wrong on all things just as you are not wrong on all things. And both of you are wrong on many things.”