Another Example of Misinformation from Experts and How Mainstream Media Journalists Fail to Do Their Job

Blue Light Special

On Wednesday I wrote about a pattern that makes my skin crawl: "agenda driven narratives based on misinformation, a pattern that keeps repeating itself more and more the longer I live." The day before I wrote about how the Eugenics movement was spawned by "experts" who bought into Social Darwinism, pushing it to the degree that more han 30 states legalized sterilization of those these experts deemed to be misfits. 

Countless examples can be found, but when this one here came to my attention I felt obligated to bring it to yours.  

A research paper published in February in the journal Nature Communications claimed that people living in U.S. counties near nuclear power plants have higher cancer death rates. The authors — a Harvard doctoral student and his professor — estimated that about 115,000 extra cancer deaths occurred over a 19-year period because of proximity to these plants. When the study came out, many news outlets ran big headlines about it. But there’s a major problem with the study: the researchers never actually measured any radiation from the nuclear plants. 

Eric Meyer, Founder and Executive Director of Generation Atomic, didn't just roll his eyes at this absurd assertion. Meyer assembled three real experts to dissect the study in order to see whether there was even a shred of merit in it. The investigators were Philip Hult, a nuclear engineer at Generation Atomic; DJ LeClear, a health physicist with nearly two decades of field experience; and Jim Smith, a professor of environmental science who has studied Chernobyl since 1990.

The article Meyer wrote includes the link to a YouTube video in which he interviews Hult, LeClear and Smith.

Writes Meyer, "The study uses geographic distance as a stand-in for radiation exposure. Closer to a plant means more radiation, the authors assume. Talk to anyone who actually measures this stuff for a living and the premise falls apart. DJ LeClear has spent years taking readings outside nuclear facilities, and he put it plainly: the doses are so low they’re barely detectable. The NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) puts the dose of living within 50 miles of a plant at about 0.01 millirem a year. You get the same dose from eating a banana." [EdNote: Link to U.S. NRC FAQ page.]

Here's a summary of the rest of Meyer's article in The Kernel:

Every time a scary headline about nuclear power plants and cancer pops up, the same panic happens: people hear the word “radiation” and immediately assume danger. In this faulty Harvard study the researchers never actually measured any radiation at all. They just looked at how far counties were from plants and compared cancer statistics.

That’s not a radiation study — it’s a geography study pretending to be science.

Nuclear plants are usually built near rivers, coasts, and cities for practical reasons. Those same areas also tend to have more factories, traffic, and urban stress — all things that can affect health. The study tried to account for other factors, but the experts Meyer spoke with said it’s nearly impossible to do cleanly.

Real-world evidence tells a very different story. Large, rigorous studies that actually tracked radiation doses on hundreds of thousands of nuclear workers show that the tiny amounts of radiation the public gets from normal plant operations cause virtually zero extra cancer risk.

The real danger here isn’t radiation — it’s fear itself. Scary, poorly done studies like this fuel “radiophobia,” which can hurt communities, shut down clean energy, and push us toward dirtier power sources that actually do kill people through air pollution.

Bottom line: Bad science isn’t harmless. When it attacks one of our cleanest sources of electricity without solid evidence, it becomes a public health problem in itself.

* * * * *

Today I am adding radiophobia (fear of radiation) to the list of phobias I've recently written about including yesterday's story on Trypophobia.

For what it's worth, I'm wondering if we can coin a word for another phobia that seems prevalent in our time: Fear of Common Sense. If you have a suggestion, leave it in the comments. Thanks for reading.

Related Links

The Banana Stand: How a Piece of Fruit Became a Symbol for Nuclear Advocacy

How Do You Blame Nuclear Power for 115,000 Deaths? Don't Measure the Radiation.

The Banana Stand: How a Piece of Fruit Became a Symbol for Nuclear Advocacy

At first glance, a banana stand might not seem like a tool for climate action. But for Generation Atomic, a grassroots organization advocating for nuclear energy, the humble banana has become a powerful — and even radioactive — symbol.

The idea originated at the 2017 Climate Talks, where Eric Meyer, founder of Generation Atomic, attended a pro-nuclear, pro-environment event but was not allowed to actively participate. Out of that frustration came a creative workaround: use a banana to tell the story that couldn’t be told. The message was simple yet profound: “A banana is radioactive. Nuclear is carbon-free.”

Bananas contain potassium — and all potassium is naturally radioactive. It’s a safe, everyday reminder that radiation is a part shut down. Their volunteers use a standard script designed for intentional advof life. Generation Atomic began handing out bananas at major environmental events to start conversations that might otherwise beocacy, gently reframing nuclear skepticism into curiosity.

It starts with a question:
“Do you know why we’re giving out bananas?”
“What mineral is in bananas?” (Answer: Potassium.)
“Did you know that all potassium is naturally radioactive?”
And finally: “You don’t need a license to eat bananas.”

This playful approach introduces the Banana Equivalent Dose (BED) — a unit scientists use to explain radiation exposure in familiar terms. Living near a nuclear power plant over the core of a year, for instance, exposes you to about the same radiation as eating a few bananas.

The banana stand has since become an icon at climate gatherings, featured in the documentary Atomic Hope. It’s more than a stunt — it’s a strategy. In a world divided over nuclear power’s role in the green transition, Generation Atomic’s message cuts through with wit and warmth: sometimes, the path to understanding starts with something as simple as a piece of fruit.

Related Links
Why Generation Atomic Isn't Marching
Five Minutes with Joe Heffernan on Nuclear Energy
Joe Miller Discusses the Power Grid: Where Are We Now and Where Are We Going?Introducing Your Friendly Neighborhood Nuclear Energy Facility