MIT No-Evacuations Study Debunked

MIT No-Evacuation-Study Press Release:
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2012/pr...

MIT Awarded Nuclear Promotion Grant:
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2012/mi...

MIT Plan For 3X More Nuclear Energy:
http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/

Critique of the MIT no-evacuations study:
http://www.simplyinfo.org/?p=6081

The MIT Study:

Olipitz W, Wiktor-Brown D, Shuga J, Pang B, McFaline J, Lonkar P, Thomas A, Mutamba JT, Greenberger JS, Samson LD, Dedon PC, Yanch JC, Engelward BP. Integrated Molecular Analysis Indicates Undetectable DNA Damage in Mice after Continuous Irradiation at ~400-fold Natural Background Radiation. Environ Health Perspect. 2012 Apr 26. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22...

Tanaka et al 2009, find significant genotoxicity at 1/3rd MIT dose:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19...

Calculate number cells required to detect significance in Tanaka at 105 mGy (total dose in MIT study): http://iangoddard.com/cell_detection-...

Google search for Chernobyl-induced genetic damage:
https://www.google.com/search?q=chern...

Fucic et al 2008, meta-analysis of Chernobyl-induced genetic damage:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18...

Geiger counter near Fukushima Daiichi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FoWRV...

Note: data in my graph of Tanaka 2009 are from Dr Tanaka (email).

• Category

  Science & Technology

[arclight2011]

good issue to investigate.. thanks for bring it to our attention..

keep up the good work

[GoddardsJournal]

Thank you for the positive feedback! :-)

[GeorgeAlexanderOz]

Thanks, this is important.

To be honest, I am convinced that the MIT study was tailored along Tanakas study. Somebody at MIT knew what they were doing. But that's only my paranoid opinion.

[GoddardsJournal]

The MIT study even cites Tanaka et al 2009, but erroneously claims Tanaka only found an effect at 20mGy/day, about 10X their dose.

So on May 20 I emailed one of the MIT authors to ask why they said that. I got a reply saying Tanaka's 1mGy/day group was not significant. So I replied citing the group's p values, which are < 0.05, and quoted Tanaka's English statements observing that fact. I asked for an explanation of why they interpreted those p values as not significant. I've never heard back.

[AluminumStudios]

Excellent presentation! Your work is always thorough, detailed, and strongly supported by huge amounts of available evidence.

[freedomwv]

Of course this is supported by the nuclear industry. MIT works for those guys. It gets them money and funds their research.

[misselissisme]

People are so paralyzed by their inflated sense of self-worth, they deny the possibility that "those in charge" may not give a shit about harming those who are not in charge; the fact is, a master is ALWAYS more valuable than his subjects...

[side note- 2yr in on my personal intense bible study.. I got my 1st knock on the door from 2guys w a "burning in their bosom"... I was excited to be to armed with the TRUTH against the false prophet's lies- 1 guy went pale hearing Isaiah

There's hope!

:)

[misselissisme]

did you watch this?

sounds like you missed the whole thing, you know, the entire examination of existing data & conflicting research showing you what an idiot you are to NOT see a conspiracy in any profit-competitive industry wherein liability cost for your projected chemotherapy treatment is a mere Kaldor-Hicks criterion in a cost benefit analysis calculated against profitability of anticipated earnings & stock dividends!

Do you actually think you count more than liability settlement costs?

[fightpollution]

"what better model of humans in nuclear disaster zone than humans in a nuclear disaster zone". Thanks for presenting all this thoroughly and calmly, i know i'd be freaking and yelling if i had to present this info.

[iamgoddard]

And living in an actual nuclear exclusion zone would involve chronic internal exposure, which was not modeled in the study.

In addition to omitting all preexisting contrary evidence, the authors made every effort to minimize the similarity of their model to life in a real exclusion zone. Then they sold the results to the public as a model so exacting we can in good conscience leave families and whole communities stranded in the next nuclear disaster zone and deny them compensation. Monstrous!

[Richard Wood]

Each isotope is assigned a risk factor for the models, and I understand we can extrapolate a lot from that encounter with Iodine. The problem I have with single isotope studies; there is little comparison of the spectrum of fallout from a reactor incident to I131 exposure. I would almost call it bad science, misleading at least to ignore that in todays age of enlightenment.

[iamgoddard]

The source they used was stored below the mice cages and irradiated them externally. In one view, all that matters is that the dose the Iodine-125 delivered is known, and then that dose can be translated to a comparable dose from any other radioactive source.

But it's also the case that I-125 emissions are weak, with a maximum energy of 35 keV, whereas Cesium-137 (the classic nuclear-fallout product) has a maximum energy of 662 keV, and higher-energy impacts may create more severe DNA damage.

[Richard Wood]

How did they get away with using the Iodine source? Why would they not pick something more relevant to a reactor accident like cesium or plutonium? Isn't that the most likely contaminant within the plume and 10 mile zone?

[sentientpsychopath]

I should mention when this first started we had normal background radiation (about 70-80 cpms), and my output would only go up to about 200 cpms, usually in the early evenings. This made me less concerned since it wasn't consistent. Unfortunately, since some new radiation arrived over the last few days, the output still reduces at low periods, but it doesn't stop anymore. I'm also allergic to iodine, so I guess that makes me a good barometer for any local isotopes. Thanks again for responding.