The article you’re about to read is from our reporters doing their important work — investigating, researching, and writing their stories. We want to provide informative and inspirational stories that connect you to the people, issues and opportunities within our community. Journalism requires lots of resources. Today, our business model has been interrupted by the pandemic; the vast majority of our advertisers’ businesses have been impacted. That’s why the SC Times is now turning to you for financial support. Learn more about our new Insider’s program here. Thank you.


Everyone should thank the Surfrider Foundation for forcing Southern California Edison (SCE) to warn people about its radioactive discharges into the ocean—something it has been doing in secret for 50 years.

SCE is careful not to claim that the releases are safe. Instead, they say only that they are “allowed” by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a captured regulatory agency, which is funded by the nuclear industry and run for its benefit.

What is allowed is governed by a motivational standard the NRC calls ALARA (Allowable Limits As Low As Reasonably Achievable). The industry calculates dose tolerance with reference to the average statistical adult male, a standard not relevant to women and children who are much more vulnerable. They ignore the human fetus, which is 50 times more vulnerable to low-dose radiation.

The basic problem is that nuclear power plants cannot operate without releasing radioactivity into the environment. They also have absolutely no solution whatsoever about what to do with the enormous amounts of toxic nuclear waste they generate. Zip Code 92672 now has thousands of tons of uranium and plutonium sitting on the beach in thin temporary containers for the indefinite future. We have become the Spanish Nuclear Waste Dump by the Sea.

It is no secret that many radioisotopes remain deadly for hundreds of thousands of years. It is, therefore, important for the industry to confuse the public with misleading PR aimed at trivializing ionizing radiation.

They fail to mention that the effects are cumulative. One exposure sounds harmless, but repeated exposure can damage cell DNA and cause cancer, the No. 1 killer in California. The National Academies of Science (NAS) proposed scientific research to study cancer streaks in the 31-mile radius around San Onofre, but in 2015 the powerful NRC blocked the research before it could begin.

The NAS studied low-dose radiation and in 2006 they published the 422-page, BEIR-VII report (Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII Phase 2). 

It concluded that the risk of cancer from radiation increases in a linear fashion, and there is no threshold below which there is no risk.  This is now widely accepted as settled science by everyone except those in the nuclear industry.

While we await the next 300,000 gallons of radioactive discharges into our ocean, remember the warnings of Jacques Cousteau, the renowned French scientist who said, “A common denominator in every single nuclear accident is that before the specialists even know what happened, they rush to the media saying there is no danger to the public.”

Trustworthy, accurate and reliable local news stories are more important now than ever. Support our newsroom by making a contribution and becoming a subscribing member today.

About The Author Staff

comments (21)

  • It is quite an accomplishment that Surfrider compelled SCE to give the public 48 hours advanced notice before releasing treated but still radioactive waste into the ocean. Now we just need to make sure that word actually gets out. This petition will help San Clemente Green to push for more publicity through city websites, social media and physical posting of signs on beaches and parks up and down the coast. In this instance, we only found out the day of the event, thanks to SC Times. Certainly much more needs to be done. PLEASE Sign our petition at and see more on this issue here
    Email gary@sanclementegreen to get future updates.

  • Great letter–

    One day, and probably not too far off, you will wake up to an almost worthless piece of property in your SC home. Why?

    1. There are thousands of tons of radioactive waste being stored on the beach in the southwest part of town.

    2. It has been revealed that large scale nuclear waste has been regularly and secretly dumped into the ocean from a pipe directly in front of the San Onofre surfing beach. VASTLY more releases are scheduled…

    3. The the industry has dodged the release of a longitudinal study of cancer around San Clemente. We ALL know many folks who have cancer here.

    It’s well past tie to get tough n this issue.

    • Anti-nuke dishonesty leading the blind.

      “One day, and probably not too far off, you will wake up to an almost worthless piece of property in your SC home.”

      Mr. Howard, if you actually believe the above statement and haven’t put your house up for sale, you’re a moron. Assuming you are NOT a moron, I conclude yours is just more dishonest hyperbole from the perpetually alarmed crowd or the usual self-promoting virtue signaling.

      “It has been revealed that large scale nuclear waste has been regularly and secretly dumped into the ocean from a pipe directly in front of the San Onofre surfing beach. VASTLY more releases are scheduled…”

      Revealed by who? It is a matter of record which anyone with a computer could have viewed. This is what happens when you listen to the dishonest claims of those with an ax to grind against nuclear power.
      BTW, we released far more liquid in the past 50 years than we will in the future and ALL of these releases are safe and will have zero effect on the populace. See my response to Roger “Truck bomb” Johnson up above.

      FYI, the NRC canceled the longitudinal cancer study precisely because there was no indication that there was any problem. Lots of people have cancer regardless of their proximity to a nuclear power plant.

      It is well past time to ignore the ravings and dishonesty of those for whom facts and common sense mean nothing.

  • More anti-nuke false claims and hyperbole.

    “…something it has been doing in secret for 50 years.”

    Although he has been corrected on a number of occasions, anti-nuke purveyor of false statements, Roger “truck bomb” Johnson, continues to repeat demonstrably false claims regarding discharges from SONGS. A quick perusal of the NRC website will demonstrate that ALL effluent discharges from any US nuclear plant are documented and more importantly, what the estimated total dose is for the most exposed member of the public for the entire year from said discharges. This value is usually below 1 mRem…for the entire year! For perspective, a friend took his dosimetry on a flight from LA to New Orleans and received 4 mRem on just that 3 hour flight. The sand on Guarapari Beach Brazil (which contains radioactive Thorium) where millions sun themselves each year, will give a sunbather 5 mRem in one hour.

    “SCE is careful not to claim that the releases are safe.”

    The releases ARE safe but feel free to ask SCE officials directly if the releases are safe. Again, on the NRC website, you’ll find information documenting that people receive on average, about 360 mRem per year from natural sources.

    “…a captured regulatory agency, which is funded by the nuclear industry and run for its benefit.”

    What is Roger’s evidence for this flight of fantasy? “Run for its benefit”? Really? When the NRC fines NPs for infractions, is paying these fines supposed to be a “benefit”? Is the EPA founded for the benefit of the auto and chemical industries? NPs fund the NRC because they have no choice, they are forced to by law. The NRC is NOT dependent on the beneficence of the nuclear industry.

    “They ignore the human fetus, which is 50 times more vulnerable to low-dose radiation.”

    As usual, Roger doesn’t have a clue about what he is talking about. NPs are, by law, required to limit the exposure of pregnant females and IF the dose received by these discharges was so dangerous, then why are pregnant females and small children allowed on commercial aircraft where they are exposed to more radiation and in a shorter time span?

    “The basic problem is that nuclear power plants cannot operate without releasing radioactivity into the environment.”

    It is not a problem because the amounts released are infinitesimally small and the dilution is incredibly large. Newsflash, Mr. Johnson, we live in a radioactive world where we are bombarded by radioactive particles from space and the elements in the earth around us. We also consume food containing radioactive elements such as fish and various fruits, vegetables, and nuts. If you have a granite counter top or smoke detectors in your home, you receive radiation from these. In fact, each of us receives radiation dose from the people around us including those in the womb who receive this dose most particularly from their own Mothers.

    “They fail to mention that the effects are cumulative.”

    No, that is again, false. Just as your body repairs itself from other injuries large and small, so the body repairs itself from the damage done, however small, from radiation.

    I trust that Mr. Johnson, in his own profession, was more careful and honest with his statements or he would have lost his license to practice long ago.

  • Mr. Davison?

    “the releases are safe”?

    What century were you born in?
    If the releases are so safe then why is the industry avoiding and blocking a longitudinal cancer study around San Clemente, now the home of America’s largest nuke waste dump site?

    NO extant study globally in ANY of the literature proposes that even low levels chronically don’t add up to cumulative pathological doses. NO STUDY–ANYWHERE– Ever.

    What about people surfing or bathing in or near the secret releases over 50 years?

    I was one of these folks, I have surfed right there for 45 years several times a week. I am a cancer patient.

    I am disgusted with nuke apologists such as yourself.

  • Anti-nukes deliberately engage in falsehoods and hyperbole.

    “What century were you born in?”

    In the century when facts and evidence were taken seriously instead of relying on emotion and hyperbole.

    “If the releases are so safe then why is the industry avoiding and blocking a longitudinal cancer study around San Clemente…”

    The NRC is not blocking any studies. What the NRC has done is recognize the fact that the doses involved cannot conceivably increase the rates of cancer, ie., it would be a waste of taxpayer money. Instead of wasting the rate payers’ money on lawsuits, why don’t the alarmists in the anti-nuclear groups pool their funds and hire experts to do the studies themselves?

    San Onofre is not a nuclear waste dump. Nuclear fuel has been safely stored at the site for the past 50 years. Your statements betray your own animus and inability to be objective.


    No offense but just because you’re ignorant (not stupid) of the developments regarding dose response doesn’t mean the studies and indications haven’t been done…they have.

    “What about people surfing or bathing in or near the secret releases over 50 years?”

    You mean like my co-worker who has also surfed off the plant for 45 years AND worked at the nuclear plant AND performed these releases just prior to entering the ocean to surf? Did you bother to read any of what I wrote above in response to Roger’s baloney? Did you not understand that on average each non-radiation worker receives some 360 mRem just from natural sources and that the effluent reports one can read on the NRC website document that the most exposed non-radiation worker receives an estimated 1 mRem from ALL effluent releases for the entire year? That people who fly in airliners receive far more radiation? Are you able to set your animus aside and put these facts into perspective?

    Sorry you contracted cancer, seriously, but your cancer is not from or because of the plant anymore than my Father’s cancer (who lived 60 miles away) was due to the plant.

    I am disgusted with alarmists who refuse to take facts and evidence seriously…such as yourself.

    PS, I posted the relevant web pages and quotes from the NRC website and from sites demonstrating (because of the vastly larger doses involved) that the anti-nukes are propagating falsehoods and hokum to hoodwink the public…but the SCT did post it. Perhaps they will now.

  • Mr. Davison,

    I’ll be brief.

    The NRC IS the industry, I’ve read their contributions to the literature, some cogent and plenty of pro industrial b s.

    You have no idea where my Ca. came from and neither does anyone else. But I do know that the NRC killed the cancer study for San Clemente, I was there. I surfed in that particular water for the entire lifetime of the operation, all of it, weekly. Wouldn’t you think I’d be curious to see if there was a connection between my Ca. and the involuntary exposure to radioactive waste I endured for 5 decades?

    Google Ca. and chronic radiation exposure– plenty of good science which demonstrates cumulative dosing and illness. In fact some studies relating to power plant discharges.

    Re your buddy who actually discharged the toxic waste into the surf zone and then rushed out there to surf in it. First, did your friend win a Darwin Award for his stupidity? You do realize that the primary and fundamental principle of human toxicology is it’s variable nature between patients, right? You know that just because your pal did’t contract Ca. from his multiple exposures that another person with the exact same exposure could have, right?

    I have been i town here since before the plant. They told us it would be operated safely, it was not, there were dozens of safety violations published regularly.

    They told us it would not leak, it did many times. It even leaked into the ground under a containment a few years back.

    They told us it wouldn’t effect the beach and then of course several times we watched in horror as dump trucks full of radioactive beach sad were removed in the 80’s…

    They said it would not discharge, it did, both routinely and by accidents and unplanned discharges. It was often published in the Times and Register. Now thanks to Surfrider Foundation, we find out that they have discharged out of the public eye for 50 years!

    All of this and much more public record SONGS discharge and leaking info. makes one wonder why the NRC and the utility were so strong against the study when other plants have been studied and higher childhood cancer rates were confirmed. Thats why I asked you the rhetorical question, “what century were you born in”? Because of course before about 1950 most people trusted that just about anything the government or a big business said was true, we have all learned that this of course is often not true and that when public health is at stake, we verify.

    America’s largest industrial post power plant nuke waste pile. Thousands of tons of radioactive material right on the beach and bluff……what could possibly go wrong?

    Welcome to San Clemente.

    • Fear and deception goes hand in hand and the anti-nukes provide plenty of both.

      “But I do know that the NRC killed the cancer study for San Clemente, I was there.”

      Yeah, so were most of us and apparently, you’re not paying attention. Did you see and comprehend my statement above? Here it is again: “The NRC is not blocking any studies. What the NRC has done is recognize the fact that the doses involved cannot conceivably increase the rates of cancer, ie., it would be a waste of taxpayer money.”

      The below is the link to the NRC and their stated reasons for ending the study. You’re still free to conduct your own study but the NRC isn’t going to waste taxpayer dollars to alleviate your unfounded paranoia. BTW, a study of this kind was already performed in the early 1990s and they verified there is NO increase in cancer incidence due to the plant.

      From the 2012 SONGS effluent report we learn that the most exposed member of the public received less than 1 mRem of radiation dose for the entire year from ALL plant related sources. Furthermore, we read:

      The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established environmental radiation protection standards for nuclear power plants in 40CFR190. These limits are applicable to the sum of both liquid and gaseous effluents and direct radiation. As discussed in the 2012 SONGS Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report, the dose to a member of the public as a result of the operation of SONGS are a small fraction of the dose standard established by the EPA.
      To put that number in perspective, the NRC says the average individual receives 30 mRem per year just from the food they eat, ie., 30 times more radiation from just their food than the nuclear plant. Dose from a chest x-ray is about 700 mRem and a full body about 1000 mRem.

      See here from the NRC:

      “On average, Americans receive a radiation dose of about 0.62 rem (620 millirem) each year. Half of this dose comes from natural background radiation. Most of this background exposure comes from radon in the air, with smaller amounts from cosmic rays and the Earth itself. (The chart to the right shows these radiation doses in perspective.) The other half (0.31 rem or 310 mrem) comes from man-made sources of radiation, including medical, commercial, and industrial sources. In general, a yearly dose of 620 millirem from all radiation sources has not been shown to cause humans any harm.”

      “First, did your friend win a Darwin Award for his stupidity?”

      No, apparently that award is permanently reserved for YOU.

      If you have a granite counter top you’ll receive more radiation dose from it than you will from any plant activities. This is a fact by direct measurement, not hyperbole. Furthermore, your smoke detectors contain radioactive Americium 241 and if you fly, you’ll receive far more dose due to your elevation than from the plant, again, conclusions drawn from direct measurements. You can see this demonstrated on Youtube by searching for those who have taken their dosimetry onto the aircraft. Airline crews have received more dose in a three month period of flying than you have from San Onofre in your entire life! As a radiation worker, I’ve received more radiation in a two-hour trip into containment than you have from the plant in your entire life!

      The plant has operated safely; your dump trucks of radioactive beach sand is a dump truck of BS, and not only were you NOT told there wouldn’t be any discharges to sea, it has all been meticulously documented and open to the public to view. See the NRC website, effluents, pick San Onofre (all US nuclear plants are listed) and then choose the year you wish to see. Each report is some 100 pages long detailing every aspect of the topic.

      These are all facts and sources you can continue to ignore in favor of your uninformed alarmism, it’s YOUR choice.

    • Here is a partial answer I gave to Roger “truck bomb” Johnson on the same topic a few years ago:

      Some residents in Ramsar Iran receive as much as 26,000 mRem/year and that is from naturally radioactive springs. 17,500 mRem a year on Guarapari Beach Brazil due to the natural Thorium in the sand. BTW, their cancer incidence is actually less than those who receive significantly lower amounts of radiation dose.

      So when YOU claim San Clemente residents should be terrified about less than 1 mRem/year from the nuclear plant, you are branding yourself a crack-pot. Indeed, releases to the environment are not publicly announced because they pose zero danger and just because I don’t tell my neighbor every time I fire up my BBQ, it doesn’t mean it is a secret particularly if my BBQ times are a matter of public record.

      See here for doses when taking inter-continental flights, think of the flight crews:

      Guarapari Beach Brazil and the radioactive sands people sun themselves on:

      Radioactive places around the globe:

      From the NRC website:

      NRC regulations strictly limit the amount of radiation that can be emitted by a nuclear facility, such as a nuclear power plant. A 1991 study by the National Cancer Institute, “Cancer in Populations Living Near Nuclear Facilities,” concluded that there was no increased risk of death from cancer for people living in counties adjacent to U.S. nuclear facilities.

  • Mr. Davidson–

    Rather than post cut n paste links from articles

    (like this one…

    I will just say this–

    If anyone reading this simply Googles ” health danger of cumulative effects of low level radiation”….

    They will find pages and pages of papers and literature on the morphology of Ca…..that lays out current science, which is this—- It is accepted and consensus science that the cumulative impact of repeated low dose exposure is cancer causing similar to high dose exposure in the LONG RUN….We can argue about dose sizes….. but most folks just don’t want to play that game because, they’re smart….

    Good luck
    Have a nice swim at San O
    One hopes that you’re not swimming during a radioactive release…..
    But, thats up to you I guess?

    PLEASE—-enjoy the last word……

  • Anti-nukes are deceivers and deliberately spread lies and falsehoods.

    We both know why YOU won’t address the points I make nor the information found at the links I posted, because you can’t refute the accurate and factual information provided.

    Did you bother to read the article YOU posted? From your article we read this:

    “Though the results appear to show an excess risk for leukemia with increased cumulative radiation exposure, the wide statistical margins in the paper do make false positives possible, Blettner writes in a comment accompanying the paper.”

    And this:

    “But the exposure from ‘normal’ nuclear work is in her opinion not more dangerous than in other industrial jobs, she said.”

    In addition, the average dose they listed was for 1,600 mRem, not the less than one received by the most exposed member of the public from ALL radiation sources at San Onofre. That “less than one” amount is more than 600 x LESS than what that same individual receives from other sources.

    “It is accepted and consensus science that the cumulative impact of repeated low dose exposure is cancer causing similar to high dose exposure in the LONG RUN…”


    “The Health Physics Society advises against estimating health risks to people from exposures to ionizing radiation that are near or less than natural background levels because statistical uncertainties at these low levels are great.”


    “Due to large statistical uncertainties, epidemiological studies have not provided consistent estimates of radiation risk for effective doses less than 100 mSv. Underlying dose-response relationships at molecular levels appear mainly nonlinear. The low incidence of biological effects from exposure to radiation compared to the natural background incidence of the same effects limits the applicability of radiation risk coefficients at effective doses less than 100 mSv (NCRP 2012).”

    The above two quotes are from the Health Physics Society link.

    “*The Health Physics Society is a nonprofit scientific professional organization whose mission is excellence in the science and practice of radiation safety.”

    In an article published in the January 2017 issue of The Journal of Nuclear Medicine, researchers assert that exposure to medical radiation does not increase a person’s risk of getting cancer. The long-held belief that even low doses of radiation, such as those received in diagnostic imaging, increase cancer risk is based on an inaccurate, 70-year-old hypothesis, according to the authors.

    “We have shown that the claim made by Hermann Muller during his 1946 Nobel Lecture that all radiation is harmful, regardless of how low the dose and dose rate—known as the linear no-threshold hypothesis (LNTH)—was a non sequitur unrecognized by the radiation science community,” states Jeffry A. Siegel, PhD, president and CEO of Nuclear Physics Enterprises, Marlton, New Jersey. “Since then, it has repeatedly been shown that the dose-response relationship may reasonably be considered to be linear but only down to a threshold, below which there is no demonstrable harm and even often benefit.

    The below link is a biologist explaining why the theory YOU claim is settled science, is wrong.
    “Dr. Ron Mitchel is a Canadian scientist with a PhD in biochemistry who has been studying the biological effects of low dose radiation on living creatures for the past 35 years.”

    “There is no doubt that Dr. Mohan Doss, a medical physicist and associate professor at the Fox Chase Cancer Center, accepts the hypothesis that low doses of ionizing radiation stimulate the human immune system and result in an overall health benefit. He has published a number of peer-reviewed, heavily sourced papers explaining why.”

    “Slowly but inexorably, radiation scientists are recognizing that the LNT hypothesis – at one time administratively useful in regulating radiation exposures during the infancy of radiation science — has in its maturity become scientifically illegitimate and ethically indefensible.”

    The above is a statement by:

    Margaret N. Maxey, Ph.D.
    Professor, Biomedical Engineering, College of Engineering
    The University of Texas at Austin

    Scientists for Accurate Radiation Information (SARI) is yet another professional, scientific organization dedicated to the study of the biological effects of radiation. They too, disagree with YOUR assertion.

    In addition to an unfamiliarity with the truth, perspective is utterly lacking in the anti-nuke community. Anti-nukes happily consume fruits & vegetables that give them an internal radiation dose, have no hesitation to fly (more dose), enjoy their dose giving granite counter tops and install the required dose producing smoke detectors, and possibly even smoke (huge internal dose that dwarfs any plant related activities), yet they choose to flaunt their virtue signaling radio-phobia in an attempt to give their lives meaning. They do a great disservice to the communities that never asked for their advice nor appreciate their claimed representation.

  • Oh Lord Mr Davidson! I have to apologize– I said I’d offer you the last word and now I’m betraying the offer!

    Well, your unhinged response forced me to briefly respond.

    Yes, I read the article I cut and pasted for you. And yes, I saw the comment about the notion of potential false positives.

    My guess is that you have zero training in science? Maybe not. If the possibility of trying to use datum I gave YOU honestly admitting a width issue and potential is the BEST you can do….well… lost that argument my friend. Such potential for error is common across almost all of the literature even in the most fundamental science.

    I can see that you’re afraid to confront the overwhelming data in the literature that supports the conclusion that chronic low dose rad. is Ca. producing and serious. You cherry pick outliers and try to argue the safety of chronic exposure? Wow. Sleepy.

    Your letter reveals your approach to science. Be honest, you’re a climate change denier too, right? Be honest. For whatever political reason you like nuke power and your’e an advocate for it. I mean, why not just admit it? Except for the potential for danger, the impossibility of waste storage due to politics and the proven health dangers from the leaky discharging nukes, Nuclear power generation “carbon wise” is clean. I mean, there’s your honest argument, why not have the courage to make it? Instead, knuckleheads from the nuke chamber of commerce often argue against reality, well, like you are here.


    SONGS is and was a leaky safety mess.
    Worldwide many plants have had the exact same issues and way more.
    There is plenty of science support the Ca. danger. (you won’t even Google it, lol)
    The industry has blocked a longitudinal cancer study in San Clemente.
    It has just been discovered that SONGS has been secretly ocean discharging for 50 years.

    The “Precautionary Principle”, a bedrock of science and technology is easily ignored….. until you get cancer.

    Google that too…….

  • The left always demand we share their alarmism and paranoia.

    “Well, your unhinged response…”

    Unhinged is what anti-nukes and other leftists do, I just calmly relay the facts.

    “And yes, I saw the comment about the notion of potential false positives.”

    And you just ignored this salient fact?

    “My guess is that you have zero training in science?”

    And your guess, like everything else you say, would be wrong. Apparently, you didn’t clue in to the fact that I work at the plant. In fact, adding US Navy nuclear experience, I’ve worked in the industry over 40 years during which I have trained in and practiced radiation safety.

    “If the possibility of trying to use datum I gave YOU honestly admitting a width issue and potential is the BEST you can do…”

    I have no idea what you’re trying to communicate, do you?

    “You cherry pick outliers…”

    The Health Physics Society is an outlier? Scientists for Accurate Radiation Information (SARI) is an outlier? This is why people shouldn’t listen to you, you aren’t even aware of the professional organizations you casually dismiss.

    I am pro-nuclear because per MWHr of electricity produced, nuclear power has the least impact on the environment.

    Your facts are all crap. The industry has not blocked a longitudinal cancer study as I’ve already described. It is illustrative that you keep repeating debunked claims. No comment on the fact that a cancer study was already done? No comment on the fact that I provided you with the NRC link where they answer why they decided it was unnecessary to do the study, ie., they haven’t blocked anything, they’re just not going to do it.

    “It has just been discovered that SONGS has been secretly ocean discharging for 50 years.”

    Maybe YOU just discovered this long established fact but the information has been readily available and meticulously documented on the NRC website.

    Your charge that I won’t look up information is daffy because I read the entire article YOU posted and quoted the parts that conflicted with the narrative you wish to push.
    In addition, I did a search just as you suggested (using your exact words), and here is what I found:

    “Epidemiological data provide essentially no evidence for detrimental health effects below 100 mSv, and several studies suggest beneficial (hormetic) effects. Equally significant, many studies with in vitro and in animal models demonstrate that several mechanisms initiated by low-dose radiation have beneficial effects. Overall, although probably not yet proven to be untrue, LNT has certainly not been proven to be true. At this point, taking into account the high price tag (in both economic and human terms) borne by the LNT-inspired regulation, there is little doubt that the present regulatory burden should be reduced.”

    “While it is important to understand that any exposure carries some risk, it is equally important to remember that nearly all radiation exposures from diagnostic tests and interventional procedures are well below the exposures that have a proven association with cancer development.”

    “However, the effective dose of radiation from medical procedures is very small, and any increased risk of cancer is difficult to measure.”


    “The health risks from medical x-rays are so minimal that it is difficult to study them.”

    From the above professional study:

    “Thus, the linear-no-threshold (LNT) hypothesis for cancer risk is scientifically unfounded and appears to be invalid in favour of a threshold or hormesis. This is consistent with data both from animal studies and human epidemiological observations on low-dose induced cancer. The LNT hypothesis should be abandoned and be replaced by a hypothesis that is scientifically justified and causes less unreasonable fear and unnecessary expenditure.”

    The below from the above:

    “Adaptive protection preventing only about 2–3 % of endogenous lifetime cancer risk would fully balance a calculated-induced cancer risk at about 100 mSv, in agreement with epidemiological data and concordant with an hormetic effect. Low-dose-risk modeling must recognize up-regulation of protection.”

    Here is a couple of my own:

    Finally, regarding the “Precautionary Principle”, that principle in the guise of the radio-phobia that swept Japan in the wake of Fukushima, resulted in more than a thousand, unnecessary deaths.

  • Mr.Davidson–

    Be honest with me.

    Did you really think I was not aware that your are in the nuke industry? I have lived here for over 50 years. I have known many employees at SONGS and have heard the BS PR from the best of them. Your talking points are just that.

    6 of your cut and pastes are from PURE industry sources.

    Your points are not worth the dignity of a response. Except for this….

    Please tell me how the “precautionary Principle” killed ANYone in Japan.

    Or– anywhere else in the world ever?

    Of course the NRC/industry blocked the SOGS study. Why are you denying this? It’s a well reported fact, more Trumpy alt reality?? We all know this, and the NRC IS the industry, although I am aware you have to live in the darkness of denial because you’ve taken a paycheck from these polluters.It’s ok…..

    Your cut and paste oversimplification of the extant controversy about radiation hormesis is very typical of the approach of nuke apologists such as yourself– shame on you dude.

    Hey — by the way……negligent carbon climate change and denials? You’re a denier, right? You know why Im asking, don’t you??

  • “Did you really think I was not aware that your are in the nuke industry?”

    Mr. Eckles, I don’t know you from Adam so I can only judge you by your misinformed statements. If you knew I was a nuclear worker, why did you “guess” that I had “zero training in science”? Perhaps you just mistakenly “guessed” that those who work with radioactive materials have had no training in handling said material and/or in radiation protection and are indeed, just as ignorant of the subject as yourself. I’ll let you clarify.

    “…have heard the BS PR from the best of them. Your talking points are just that.”

    If they’re just simple “talking points” why do you militantly refuse to address them? Is it that when you’re confronted with inconvenient, and empirically verified facts, because you can’t refute them you just casually dismiss them?

    “6 of your cut and pastes are from PURE industry sources.”

    Since YOU claimed that “The NRC IS the industry” and I didn’t have 6 posted links from the NRC, you’re either lying or your personal and uninformed definition of what the nuclear industry is expands and contracts depending on what false notion you’re pushing at the time. In addition, you’re always free to address the points made in these links just as I read and addressed your link YOU posted. That’s how it should be done.

    “Please tell me how the “precautionary Principle” killed ANYone in Japan.”

    You want me to answer YOUR questions when you dismiss my points and the facts contained in the links I post? Here, more information you can just ignore in favor of your uninformed drivel:
    “More people have now died because of the Fukushima evacuation process than were killed in the region by the 2011 Japanese earthquake and tsunami which caused the displacement, a survey said.
    “A survey by popular Japanese newspaper Mainichi Shimbun said Monday that deaths relating to this displacement – around 1,600 – have surpassed the number killed in the region in the original disaster.”
    “Causes of death in the aftermath have included “fatigue” due to conditions in evacuation centers, exhaustion from relocating, and illness resulting from hospital closures. The survey also said a number of suicides had been attributed to the ordeal.”

    You didn’t bother to read the NRC’s statement on why they (the NRC) declined to do the study, ie., they won’t waste time and money on it but anyone else is free to conduct the study themselves. The NRC did NOT block the study, you are again, wrong! Any comment on the fact that a similar study had already been completed? I didn’t think so.

    “You know why Im asking, don’t you??”

    No, as I said up above, I don’t know you but it appears that because you can’t defend your own narrative on nuclear power, you wish to shift the conversation to a topic you may feel you’ll have more luck on. Good luck on that.

  • Wow– I am actually concerned that you had anything to do with handling fissionable material at all.

    Again, you fail to explain how the “precautionary principle” killed ANYone, Anywhere. Remember that crazy claim you made?
    Do you even know what the principle is? Your paragraph above struggling to make a coherent answer to this is, to be frank, ah…..gibberish. I’m sure you have other skills.

    This is one of several reasons I question what little training in science you may have.

    Do you realize that your sources are industry sources?

    Do you know who runs the NRC and their backgrounds?

    Are you aware of who the Hiroshiyma Syndrome group is? You know the author of the piece you cite is 100% nuke industry, right?

    You must be aware that the Springer Link thing you cite is written from the POV of the nuclear medicine industry right?

    I could go on but I think you are catching on—- Do what I suggest— keep your mind open, Google this issue and read the opposing views, you’ll find alot you clearly don’t know.

    In conclusion— That you buy in to the NRC’s position that a good longitudinal study in San Clemente isn’t worth the money and time, I’m astonished.
    Do you know how much such a study would cost?

    My guess is that you have no idea. Were the several French studies now widely available worth the time and money? I mean, do you bloviate an opinion on that?
    Or is your claim to fame just that you once worked with a clown who bragged about discharging radioactive waste into the ocean at San o and then allegedly surfed in it?

    I think you know why I asked you if you are a so called climate change denier? Obviously you won’t answer. While it certainly is specifically irrelevant to the SONGS radiation discharge issue, it sure would speak volumes about how you view science.

  • More false claims and hyperbole from the anti-nukes…they cannot be trusted.

    “I am actually concerned that you had anything to do with handling fissionable material at all.”
    Words cannot describe how little respect I have for what you think or are concerned with.
    “Again, you fail to explain how the “precautionary principle” killed ANYone…”
    Apparently, you simply failed to understand.  The people of Fukushima prefecture were, due to the “precautionary principle” regarding radio-phobia, evacuated and remained in an evacuated state for far too long.  This led to over a thousand deaths.  See the following, which you will, if past practice is any predictor of the future, ignore in favor of your own opinion.
    As of 27 February 2017, the Fukushima prefecture government counted 2,129 “disaster-related deaths” in the prefecture.[18][16][19][20] This value exceeds the number that have died in Fukushima prefecture directly from the earthquake and tsunami.[21] “Disaster-related deaths” are deaths attributed to disasters and are not caused by direct physical trauma, but does not distinguish between people displaced by the nuclear disaster compared to the earthquake / tsunami. As of year 2016, among those deaths, 1368 have been listed as “related to the nuclear power plant” according to media analysis.[22] Reports have pointed out that many of these deaths may have been caused by the evacuation period being too long, and that residents could have been allowed to return to their homes earlier in order to reduce the total related death toll.[23]


    The following from the above article:
    “For the past seven years they have struggled with cramped conditions, money troubles, bullying at school, depression, lack of purpose and the insidious fear of a death sentence from radiation exposure. “Psychologically we were wrecked,” says Mr Yamauchi.”
    “…it is becoming increasingly clear, say experts, that the evacuation, not the nuclear accident itself, was the most devastating part of the disaster. It reaped a terrible toll in depression, joblessness and alcoholism among the 63,000 people who were displaced beyond the prefecture; of those, only 29,000 have since returned.”
    “That is prompting a shocking reassessment among some scholars: that the evacuation was an error. The human cost would have been far smaller had people stayed where they were, they argue. The wider death toll from the quake was 15,895, according to the National Police Agency.”
    “The question is rather whether people should have been kept away for weeks, not years. “With hindsight, we can say the evacuation was a mistake,” says Philip Thomas, a professor of risk management at the University of Bristol and leader of a recent research project on nuclear accidents. “We would have recommended that nobody be evacuated.”
    Here is another article:

    From the above we read,
    “Other serious health issues include deaths during evacuation, collapse of the radiation emergency medical system, increased mortality among displaced elderly people and public healthcare issues in Fukushima residents. The Fukushima mental health and lifestyle survey disclosed that the Fukushima accident caused severe psychological distress in the residents from evacuation zones. In addition to psychiatric and mental health problems, there are lifestyle-related problems such as an increase proportion of those overweight, an increased prevalence of hypertension, diabetes mellitus and dyslipidaemia and changes in health-related behaviours among evacuees; all of which may lead to an increased cardiovascular disease risk in the future.”

    Here, from the National Academy of Sciences who was to do the study anti-nukes wanted done:

    “In the late 1980s, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) initiated an investigation of cancer risks in populations near 52 commercial nuclear power plants and 10 Department of Energy nuclear facilities (including research and nuclear weapons production facilities and one reprocessing plant) in the United States (Jablon et al., 1990).”

    “No differences in cancer mortality or incidence rates were observed between study and control counties. The authors of the study concluded that “if nuclear facilities posed a risk to neighboring populations, the risk was too small to be detected by a survey such as this one” (Jablon et al., 1991).”

    “The statistical power of an epidemiologic study of cancer risks in populations near nuclear facilities is likely to be low because…”

     “Do you realize that your sources are industry sources?”
    I realize you’re an idiot and no amount of evidence and common sense will make any difference to you.  You have also failed to address anything stated in any of these sources You complain about…no surprise there.
    “Do you know who runs the NRC and their backgrounds?”
    Is that a serious question?  It’s not Humpty Dumpty if that is what you were thinking. 
    “…isn’t worth the money and time, I’m astonished.”
    I’m not surprised that you’re “astonished”, watching gravity at work astonishes you.
    “Do you know how much such a study would cost?”
    According to the National Academy of Sciences, the first phase cost 8 million $$. You could have looked that up at the link I posted but you dismissed it as an “industry source”.
    Why don’t you and the rest of your tin-foil hat buddies fund the study yourselves? Those who are clamoring for a study should pay for it not those who realize it is a waste of money.
    “Or is your claim to fame just that you once worked with a clown…”
    I don’t recall ever working with you so no, I have not worked with a clown.
    “I think you know why I asked you if you are a so called climate change denier?”
    Thinking is not your strong suit…nor is grammar.
    We’re done here, you can return to the circus.   

  • LOL– So now you’re the grammar police? And you’re citing Wikipedia for a source? That’s how I know you’re done.

    The way you’ve cherry picked your sources and quotes you make it sound like the folks in the Fukishima area were darn lucky to have a huge nuclear accident! You must’ve been a flak at Songs.

    To equate the evac protocols with the precautionary principle is bad junior high debating. i don’t need to respond as you’ve demonstrated my point; you have no idea what it is!

    8 million for a cancer study— I am glad you finally Googled it. That’s my point. You folks don’t have enough respect for common sense and human life and health to even see the value in such a small expenditure. for the advancement of health science How many cancer cases in town would be worth spending 8 million on? Any idea?

    I know you don’t respect my comments, it’s clear and you didn’t need to tell me. Once I heard your story abut your nuclear discharging co worker and the fun story he tells about surfing in the radioactive discharge I knew I was dealing with an industry guy who has zero respect for the community that we live in— you have proved that with that story more than I can tell you. If I or my kids had been surfing with that clown any of those days he made the choice of surfing in nuclear waste for us with no consultation.

    Could there possibly be any more disrespect shown by a SONGS employee than that?

    I am so glad our community won and SONGS is shuttered, Now we just need to remove the waste and the plant…

    PLEASE hurry and check my work for typos lad, you’ve show that’s about all you’re good for.

  • Fear, uncertainty, and alarmism, the hallmarks of the deceptive.

    “I am glad you finally Googled it.”

    Thanks for confirming that in addition to being ignorant of the facts, you’re also a hypocrite.
    Newsflash, I didn’t need to Google it and neither did you, it was in the link I posted for your benefit, the one YOU refused to review…hypocrite!
    Had you actually read it, you would have discovered that the 8 Million $$ was just for the first pilot project, not the entire study. Next time read first before putting your foot in your mouth, an activity you seem to do regularly.

  • So you never Googled it to find that link?

    I guess you went down to the library and looked it up. Bully for you little buddy! Libraries are nice….

    Arrogance, Ignorance and falsehoods…….Are these the “Hallmarks” the of the nuke power industry or was SONGS eventually going to reveal that they have been ocean duping radioactive waste for 50 years before The Surfrider Foundation made them do it?

    Of course you never answered my question….par for this course.

    So I’ll try again since you represent SONGS here…. Me and my kids and fellow citizens are not worth 8 million bucks for the scoping of a cancer study due to the radiation you and your fun work buddy dumped for 50 years onto my beach?

    I mean, you have THAT little respect for your fellow citizens? Or is it that you have unilaterally decided as our Nanny that it’s too expensive given that it’s just us……

comments (21)

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>