Viewpoint: Why nuclear expansion should not be held hostage to oudated science and imagined health risks

Screenshot 2026-01-08 at 3.14.12 PM

With the return of nuclear energy to the public square and serious efforts among policymakers to commercialize a new generation of reactors in the United States and Europe, familiar claims about the risks of nuclear reactors have returned as well. In a recent Bulletin article, Joseph Mangano and Robert Alvarez call for a new national cancer study focused on communities near nuclear power plants before any further expansion of nuclear power is undertaken in the United States. The authors are long-time opponents of nuclear energy ….

However, the scientific consensus on this question is clear: The United States does not need a national cancer study near nuclear reactors.

Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.

Routine reactor emissions … pose no meaningful health risk. Even if some vanishingly small effect existed, it would be statistically indistinguishable from the background cancer rate and would be lost in the noise of lifestyle, environmental, and biological risk factors.

How do we know this? Because large sample studies have tracked the health of millions of workers exposed to routine ionizing radiation and found no definite link to increased risk of cancer at low effective doses ….

This is an excerpt. Read the original post here

{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.singularReviewCountLabel }}
{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.pluralReviewCountLabel }}
{{ options.labels.newReviewButton }}
{{ userData.canReview.message }}

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosate—the world's most heavily-used herbicide—pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

ChatGPT-Image-May-7-2026-12_16_37-PM-2
Viewpoint: Are cancer rates ‘skyrocketing’ as RFK, Jr. and MAHA claims? The evidence says mostly the opposite
Screenshot-2026-04-13-at-1.39.26-PM
Viewpoint: ‘Safer for children?’ Stonyfield yogurt under fire for deceptive organic marketing
Screenshot-2026-04-22-at-10.46.29-AM
Viewpoint: How to counter science disinformation? Science journalist offers 12 practical tips
png-pill-omega-Supp-fish-oil
Millions take omega-3 fish oil for brain health. New research suggests it may do the opposite.
Screenshot-2026-04-23-at-11.00.36-AM
Regulators' dilemma: Thalidomide, Metformin, and the cost of getting drug approvals wrong
ChatGPT Image May 14, 2026, 09_51_35 PM
Facebook swamped by hundreds of thousands of scam ads for illegal or dangerous medical products
ChatGPT Image May 12, 2026, 01_21_30 PM
How big health brands are funding online medical misinformation 
ChatGPT-Image-May-12-2026-08_39_41-PM
GLP podcast: Big Pharma, Big Ag, Big Food—health harming industries or life-saving innovators?
Picture1-1
Cooling the planet with balloons: Could a geoengineering gamble slow global warming?
ChatGPT-Image-May-13-2026-12_43_37-PM-2
Longevity: Is cellular rejuvenation even possible?
Screenshot 2026-05-12 at 11.01
Viewpoint: Can this California pediatrician and Congressional hopeful quell anti-vaccine extremists?

Sorry. No data so far.

glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.