There is very little correlation between radiation and cancer!

This sounds like a stupid statement.
But if you read the following, you may understand.

As soon as you hear the word radiation – especially if it is associated with nuclear power.
Yes, so it runs shivers down the spine with fear of cancer.

This is the rationale for the following, which consists of four sections:

An attempt for a valuation 


For me, it took a long time before I realized that this fear is almost unfounded.
I came to this conclusion, mainly after assessment of the following:

Survivors of the nuclear bomb attacks were obviously monitored very carefully in order to know the impact of ionizing radiation.

  • After sufficient time had passed and the irradiated people began to be old, it was noted that people who had been exposed to 500 mSv or less had no shorter average life expectation than the general population.
    (500 mSv will cause minor symptoms of acute radiation sickness and is 100 times more than what is normally allowed.)
    More on
  • The few people who barely survived the acute radiation sickness
    (3500 mSv), had an average life that was three years less than the general population.

Source of the above is an article by John B Cologne and Dale L Preston. Published in The Lancet Volume 356 – June 22, 2000
Unlike so much else, articles in The Lancet have been through a very thorough Pear Revue.
Copyright rules prevents me from giving a link.
Still, I dare to say that the information in this highly respected journal is credible.

  • Logically, one can deduce that if there had been a strong link between radiation and cancer,  then a large part of these communities would have got cancer and there would have been many deaths and so a shorter average life.

In a lengthy article published in 2006 by the BBC Chernobyl’s ‘nuclear nightmares’  you can find the following:
“Low doses of radiation are a [very] poor carcinogen,” says Professor Brooks, who has spent 30 years studying the link between radiation and cancer.
Usually, it can be assumed that the BBC is a trusted source.

Dyr ved Tjernobyo I The Guardian (2015) one reads:
“Wildlife Thriving around Chernobyl nuclear plant in spite of radiation”.
Here you get seemingly credible information.
Especially the comments to this article give a good insight into the general reluctance to accept information that goes against what I, very rude, call “the common (blind) trust in the established”.

Not only this

Over the years we have collected much material showing that moderate influence of ionizing radiation is beneficial.
Almost like a vaccination against cancer.

Radon and Cancer
From the United States:
more radon
less cancer.
(Only for radiation below
200 Bq/m^3).

Source of equivalent:
Taipai Cancer

Around 1975: 10,000 people were irradiated by mistake. But had significantly less cancer.


World Nuclear
refers the following regarding survivors of the atomic bomb attacks on Japan:

Radiation - Cancer World Nuclear
Cases of leukemia per million: 
The general population: 273
People irradiated with 20 mSv: 92
People irradiated up to 500 mSv: 398
People irradiated with near lethal dose of 5000 mSv: More than 5,000 per million got leukemia

Source: UNSCR and World Nuclear. (Near the end of the page.)

No matter how it is twisted and turned, these sources, along with much else, can only be dismissed by assuming a very extensive international network of systematic fraud.

All that being said, I would also mention that much more is a real danger.
World’s Most Toxic Waste Material is not associated with radioactivity.


The final example of the above clearly shows that the effect of radiation above about 400 mSv there is an increased risk of leukemia.

By searching on the web for Linear No Threshold (LNT) you will first get a description of the model and further down you can see how almost all ‘public bodies’ relay on this model.

Almost everyone who assesses radiation and damage from radiation uses and accepts the long time accepted LNT hypothesis.
This also applies to well known researchers.

On the internet one can easily find hundreds – perhaps thousands – of pages describing serious hazards associated with ionizing radiation.
Almost all assume as a matter of course that one can use the LNT hypothesis.

Fear of radiation is deep in ‘the public psyche’.
Without reading what I was referring to, I received this very long answer.

An attempt for an Assessment

To avoid any misunderstanding, I already here admit that I, in spite of a desire to be impartial, I can not avoid to convey my personal assessment.

On a another internet page I have tried to give a description of why and how the LNT hypothesis arose and was accepted.
My conclusion is that the development has overtaken the theory.

At times one feels that the LNT hypothesis is maintained, mostly because it opens for the possibility to calculate future damage to larger populations that have been exposed to a low individual load.
In this way, it is possible to come up with predictions that sometimes are absurd, but probably chosen because they fit the message they want to get ahead.

The record will probably be found with “calculated data” relating to injuries in the accident at Chernobyl: A million deaths (already) and seven million future.

At several places populations have lived for generations in areas of relatively high radiation. Yet without the feared harm.
Most pronounced is the area around the Ramsar in Pakistan. 
Natural Radiation EUBut also in Europe people live well in areas where natural background radiation is ten times what is “dangerous” in Japan.

Of course it will be a huge loss of prestige for researchers if they are to stand up and admit that what they had provided in their previous work, unfortunately is not true.
So better run ahead and howl with the wolves one is among.

The fight against everything that just smells of radioactivity or nuclear has been waged for so long, so intensely and so skillfully that politicians and journalists can not imagine anything else.
Or do not dare say anything else.


Not only in war and love.
In the case of ideology, or perhaps religion, it seems that the truth can have dire straits.

Pollution of the ocean at Fukushima
Fukushima Greenpeace If you go to another page, and evaluate the numbers, it will be easy to see that this picture, which should show the widespread pollution of the ocean, do not describe the reality.

The green organizations. 
The “buisenes model ” for the green organizations is that they can appear as those who protect us from danger and then receive contributions to protect against this risk.
If you can not find a factual danger to protect against, radiation and cancer can always be used.
Usually what is written, is written so carefully and so vague that it is difficult to point out factual errors.
But in this case, Greenpeace has come to a slip of the tongue and has come to show that their credibility is a myth.

AIDS in Tanzania
The systematic struggle against self-invented ghosts is thought, not only against radiation:
I was in Tanzania at a time when “God and every man” understood that AIDS was developed by the CIA who had genetically engineered to destroy Africa.
This was supported by countles “scientific papers” in the media, where numerous “independent experts” from named, but probably not existing, universities presented “scientific evidence”.
Later, but with limited success, some rabid Catholics and Muslims tried  to explain that we got AIDS by using condom.

Active Measures
During the cold war – and probably still – there has been a steady flow of systematic misinformation.
If I am not wrong, the above about AIDS originated from the old Soviet affords.
In my country – Denmark – there are strong indications that the demonstrations against nuclear originated from the communist network.

Some people have an inborn ability to persuade and a Ugandan friend told me:
When sitting together with Idi Amin, everything he said was “clear and obvious”. But as soon the door was closed, it was easy to see that it was nothing, but bluff.”


If you, my unknown reader, have factual information that should be added. So I ask you to write to me at
Otherwise, I ask you to consider the above and draw your own conclusion.
Greetings from
Thorkil Søe