MIT No-Evacuations Study Debunked





Rating is available when the video has been rented.
This feature is not available right now. Please try again later.
Published on Jun 5, 2012

MIT No-Evacuation-Study Press Release:

MIT Awarded Nuclear Promotion Grant:

MIT Plan For 3X More Nuclear Energy:

Critique of the MIT no-evacuations study:

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:

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:

Fucic et al 2008, meta-analysis of Chernobyl-induced genetic damage:

Geiger counter near Fukushima Daiichi

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


Below is my letter to the editors of Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP) who published Olipitz et l. (2012). My letter below was in response to the author's response to a letter from Peter Melzer that raised some issues addressed in this video.

Letter from Melzer: http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1205595/
Reply to Melzer from Olipitz co-authors: http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1205595r/

However, it turns out that the EHP does not accept replies to a reply by authors to a response letter. Nevertheless the points I raised below are salient to critique of the defense by colleagues of Olipitz against some critiques raised in this video...


Dear editors,

In their response to Melzer, Engelward and Yanch (2012) make an erroneous claim about the methods of Tanaka et al. (2009). They claim:

"In his letter, Melzer correctly points out that data of Tanaka et al. (2009) show a statistically significant increase in chromzosome aberrations in cells from mice exposed to 1 mGy/day up to a total of 1,000 mGy. How­ever, after exposure to that same dose-rate for a longer period (up to 8,000 mGy), there was no statistically significant change in the number of chromosome aberrations."

Even before consulting Tanaka et al. (2009) the careful reader can see a problem. For a dose-rate of 1 mGy per day to accumulate to a total dose of 8,000 mGy requires 8,000 days, or about 22 years. However, mice only live 2 to 3 years. So immediately we can see that their claim cannot be true.

And in fact, consistent with mouse lifespan, Tanaka et al. (2009) only exposed the 1 mGy/day dose group for 615 days for a cumulative dose of 615 mGy. This is stated throughout its text, tables and figures and was additionally confirmed in my personal correspondence with Tanaka.

So Engelward and Yanch rebutted Melzer's report of an error in Oliptiz et al. (2012) with yet another error. Contrary to their portrayal of Tanaka et al. in Oliptiz et al., Tanaka and colleagues did in fact report a statistically significant increase in chromosomal aberrations at an even lower dose-rate than Oliptiz and colleagues used.

The source of Engelward and Yanch's confusion is that Tanaka et al. contains a mathematical model of hypothetical exposure of the 1 mGy/day dose group for 8,000 days. However, while significance disappeared in that model, it did not reflect real empirical data as Engelward and Yanch errantly assert. Given this, perhaps they will consider the recommendation they made (Yanch & Engelward, 2012) in reply to Beyea that "we need to begin relying on data and not on hypothetical models."


Engelward B, Yanch J. 2012. Radiation Dose‑Rate: Engelward and Yanch Respond. Environ Health Perspect. 120:a417--a418. @ http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1205595r/

Olipitz W, Wiktor-Brown D, Shuga J, Pang B, McFaline J, Lonkar P, et al. 2012. Integrated molecular analysis indicates undetectable change in DNA damage in mice after continuous irradiation at ~ 400-fold natural background radiation. Environ Health Perspect 120:1130--1136. @ http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1104294/

Tanaka K, Kohda A, Satoh K, Toyokawa T, Ichinohe K, Ohtaki  M, et al. 2009. Dose-rate effectiveness for unstable-type chromosome aberrations detected in mice after continuous irradiation with low-dose-rate γ rays. Radiat Res 171(3):290--301. @ http://pubmed.com/19267556

Yanch J, Engelward B. 2012. DNA Damage after Continuous Irradiation: Yanch and Engelward Respond. Environ Health Perspect. 120:a383--a384. @ http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1205564r/



  1. 1

    Re: Helen Caldicott: Fukushima's Ongoing Impact

  2. 2

    Background Radiation & Cancer in Children

  3. 3

    ☢ Fukushima ☢ West Coast Impact

  4. 4

    ☢ Fukushima ☢ Fearmongering Debunked

  5. 5

    ⚛ Chernobyl Cancer Study Confirms Risk ⚛

  6. 6

    Is Ebola Airborne? A Literature Review

  7. 7

    Sexual Ethics are Secular Ethics

  8. 8

    Sagan Defended: Absence of Evidence is NOT Evidence of Absence

  9. 9

    Fukushima Health Effects in North America?

  10. MIT No-Evacuations Study Debunked

  11. 11

    ☢ Low-Dose Radiation ☢ NEW A-Bomb Study

  12. 12

    Fukushima Unit 3 Fuel Pool Did Not Explode

  13. 13

    Fukushima Unit 3 Reactor-Well Cap Fractured?

  14. 14

    ☢ Low-Dose Radiation ☢ DOE Study

  15. 15

    Fukushima Radiation Not Safe!

  16. 16

    Fukushima: BBC Debunked

  17. 17

    福島第一 Fukushima Unit 3 Report - Steam-Explosion Model

  18. 18

    福島第一 Fukushima Unit 3 Plume プルーム (HD)

  19. 19

    Fukushima Explosion Measurements 福島第一

  20. 20

    福島第一 Fukushima Unit 3 Reactor Well

  21. 21

    Fukushima Unit 3 ☢ Two Theories - 福島第一原発3号機

  22. 22

    MSNBC ☢ Chernobyl Radiation is Health Elixir!!

  23. 23

    Fukushima ☢ Unit 3 implosion - 福島県 内破 - frame-by-frame

  24. 24

    福島第一 Fukushima ☢ Nuclear Blast?

Sign in to add this to Watch Later

Add to