Book Review:
Dirty Secrets of Nuclear Power in an Era of Climate Change by Doug Brugge and Aaron Datesman (copyright 2024). Forward by Dr. Helen Caldicott
Reviewed by Sharon and Ace Hoffman
Dirty Secrets of Nuclear Power in an Era of Climate Change summarizes a wide range of evidence regarding the dangers of nuclear power. The authors (Doug Brugge and Aaron Datesman) explain why nuclear power is not a solution to climate change, why it has never been cost-effective (and will never be), why more -- and possibly worse -- nuclear accidents are inevitable, and why the continued accumulation of nuclear waste is foolhardy and irresponsible.
"Dirty Secrets" also examines the social impacts of nuclear power and nuclear weapons proliferation, including exploitation of indigenous communities throughout the nuclear fuel cycle – from uranium mining to nuclear waste storage.
Both authors are scientists, and their rigorous evaluation of evidence highlights the flaws in various pro-nuclear arguments. Each chapter concludes with summary points of the more detailed analysis in the chapter, and includes references for readers interested in learning more.
A recurring theme in Dirty Secrets is that "science" and "regulations" are not the same thing. For example, Linear No Threshold (LNT) is a well-established scientific assumption that there is no safe level of radiation. However, regulations that purport to be based on LNT invariably allow some level of radiation to be added to the environment. Making matters worse, the standard definition of “background radiation” has expanded to include fallout from nuclear testing, emissions from nuclear power plants, and medical radiation exposures.
Dirty Secrets makes a distinction between the environmental and medical concerns regarding background radiation in order to clarify an important point: The environmental portion of background radiation is unavoidable, but that doesn’t mean it's harmless. For example, none of us can avoid naturally-occurring radioactive Potassium-40 (about 0.012 percent of total Potassium), because our bodies require Potassium. But as the authors explain, the unavoidable Potassium-40 doesn’t mean regulations should allow comparable releases of other radioactive isotopes such as Strontium-90.
Readers will find clear information in every chapter of Dirty Secrets. For example, chapter 6 (Three Mile Island:An Unresolved Paradox) reexamines data collected in the wake of the Three Mile Island (TMI) meltdown.
Dirty Secrets points out that if official estimates of radiation releases are accurate, two additional cancer deaths would be expected from TMI. Residents near TMI tell a different story – people getting cancer at an early age, miscarriages and birth defects for humans and animals, and deformed plants. The book explicitly considers the official position that any excess health effects to humans were caused by panic and asks the obvious question: how could panic impact plants?
In the wake of TMI, two groups of respected epidemiologists looked at the same data and drew completely different conclusions. One group was headed by Dr. Mervyn Susser from Columbia University, and found excess cancer deaths, but did not attribute those deaths to radiation from TMI.
The other group was headed by the late Dr. Steven Wing from the University of North Carolina (to whom Dirty Secrets is dedicated). Dr. Wing’s team analyzed Dr. Susser’s data and came to a completely different conclusion: that TMI might have been responsible for observed increases in lung cancer.
Dirty Secrets suggests several reasons for the different conclusions, including the willingness of Dr. Wing’s team to consider anecdotal evidence of individual radiation exposure. For example, some residents reported symptoms such as sunburn-like skin damage, a metallic taste in their mouth, and/or nausea in the immediate aftermath of the accident (these are well-known effects of exposure to high radiation doses).
In attempting to resolve the paradox of the different epidemiology conclusions, the authors of Dirty Secrets became interested in cytogenic studies (examination of chromosomes for failed DNA repairs). Cytogenic studies of people potentially exposed to radiation from TMI were proposed by the Pennsylvania Department of Health in 1979, but the authors found no evidence the studies were ever done.
Some cytogenic analysis was done in the mid-1990s by a group headed by a Russian scientist, Dr. Vladimir Shevchenko. Because chromosome aberrations are stable over time, the authors of Dirty Secrets are currently (2024) participating in an investigation that looks at cytogenic results for people who lived near TMI in 1979.
Delving even deeper into potential causes for observed medical effects from radiation exposure, Chapter 7 (Protracted Exposures May Be Misunderstood) proposes the “shot-noise” hypothesis. This hypothesis offers a possible mechanism for the observed supra-linear response to low-level radiation (see below).
The shot-noise hypothesis focuses on the timing of radioactive decays from internal (inhaled or ingested) beta-emitters and how that timing may impact the resulting biological response. Aaron Datesman, who is the primary author of Chapter 7, provided additional context in his excellent talk for Nuclear Energy Information Service’s (NEIS:
https://neis.org/) “Night With the Experts” on November 21, 2024. (We’ve summarized our own understanding of the shot-noise hypothesis below.)
Brugge and Datesman make it clear that the shot-noise hypothesis for low-level radiation is currently unproven. In his NEIS talk (which will be made available at the NEIS website), Datesman suggested an experiment that could disprove the shot-noise hypothesis. In doing so, Datesman is adhering to the standard scientific method of attempting to disprove a hypothesis as a tool for determining whether it deserves additional study.
The authors applied similar scientific reasoning to their analysis of other aspects of nuclear power. Throughout the book they made rigorous attempts to evaluate all of the evidence even if it did not support their conclusions.
Dirty Secrets contains a lot of information that can be used to counter people who promote nuclear power as a solution to the climate crisis. In addition, it presents new theories that might explain some of the biological impacts of radiation, and provides important information about lesser-known studies concerning radiation damage in the wake of the TMI accident.
We highly recommend reading Dirty Secrets and using the book’s information to counter arguments from people who believe nuclear power has a role in slowing climate change.
The digital version of
Dirty Secrets of Nuclear Power in an Era of Climate Change is available at no charge through Springer:
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-59595-0
Shot-noise Hypothesis (as interpreted by Sharon and Ace Hoffman)
The shot-noise hypothesis proposes that the supra-linear response to low doses of radiation from internal beta-emitters occurs because of several related factors:
Each beta decay is a high-energy event that lasts for approximately 1 nanosecond. The length and energy of beta emissions can help explain the mechanism for the shot-noise hypothesis.
OH radicals (aka HO or hydroxyl radicals) are one of the primary mechanisms for damage from internal beta emissions.
The shot-noise hypothesis theorizes that timing ("temporal effects") might account for the supra-linear response at very low levels of radiation exposure. According to Dirty Secrets, it takes the human body about two hours to repair a double-strand DNA break. If multiple beta decays occur in a small area during this period (which can occur when radionuclides are inhaled or ingested) the damage might not be repaired before another beta decay causes more damage.
The phrase “shot-noise,” used to describe this hypothesis, is based on the concept of shot-noise in electronics, where it describes random fluctuations in electrical flow that are observed in Direct Current (DC) circuits. These fluctuations result because electrons are actually discrete charges, and therefore, DC does not produce a continuous flow of electricity. Shot noise was discovered by Walter Schottky in 1918. Beta particles are high-energy electrons or positrons.
The shot-noise hypothesis relies on data from studies done immediately after the TMI accident, as well as the biological response to OH radicals, and specifics concerning how Xenon concentrates in the body.
Background on the Supra-Linear Response to Low-Level Radiation
A single radioactive decay can destroy or damage cells, which indicates there is no lower threshold for radiation damage. The supra-linear response to radiation at very low dose levels does not negate LNT at higher levels. Early researchers disagreed about whether there was a supra-linear response at low levels of radiation. Most notably, in 1969 former Manhattan Project scientist Dr. John W. Gofman disagreed with Dr. Ernest Sternglass about the extent of low-level radiation damage. (One of the authors of this review (Ace) spoke extensively with Gofman and also with Sternglass (and many other radiation experts) beginning in the 1970s.)
In 1969, Sternglass wrote an article asserting that fallout from bomb tests was responsible for 400,000 excess infant deaths in the United States during the 1950s and early 1960s. When asked to review Sternglass’s results, Gofman and his colleague Dr. Arthur Tamplin calculated 4,000 excess infant deaths from fallout. The Atomic Energy Commission tried to convince Gofman and Tamplin to refute Sternglass’s results without publishing their own estimate, which Gofman and Tamplin refused to do.
Over the next few decades, as more and more evidence about low-level radiation exposures became available, Gofman changed his mind about the supra-linear response. In an interview, he said: “I’ll say today—ten years later—the new evidence coming out suggests to me that Sternglass may have been right.” (
https://ratical.org/radiation/inetSeries/nwJWG.html)
In his 1990 book, “Radiation-Induced Cancer From Low-Dose Exposure” Gofman wrote: “The new A-bomb evidence shows, when all ages are considered together, that the cancer-hazard per dose-unit is more severe at LOW doses than at intermediate and high doses; the dose-response curve is supra-linear.” (
https://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/RIC/chp3F.html)
