The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

Wade Allison tries to push #nuclear power on #Ireland #Fukushima #Chernobyl #ScienceMediaCentre

quote enemy of knowledge hawking We Are Humanity

That world leaders are recognising climate change and have responded with a move towards renewable energy sources should be viewed as positive.

A reduction in carbon emissions, to meet the Paris agreement’s goals, by relying on the nuclear industry, is an abysmal trade-off, considering its disastrous environmental record.

Radioactive waste is a byproduct of the nuclear industry. As you correctly indicate, (Wade Allison, Irish Examiner, June 25) nuclear processes are part of nature, but these natural processes resist being hurried.

Waste takes years to decay. Plutonium has a half-life of about 24,000 years. Where does this not-so-natural waste go?

Low-level waste from hospitals is incinerated before land burial. Waste from reactor decommissioning is deposited in geological repositories.

Waste from nuclear reactors is highly radioactive, often hot, and must be stored in a controlled environment.

At the Sellafield site in the UK, where the stockpiling of nuclear waste has been plagued with leaks, spent nuclear fuel is imported and reprocessed (recycled).

Waste arising from this is highly radioactive, must be encased in glass, and be regularly monitored.

Even with best practice management, monitoring this waste will continue for indefinite years and costs will rise as the stockpiles grow.

A common practice in the nuclear industry is the dumping of low-level nuclear waste into the sea. It is claimed by Greenpeace that the spent-fuel reprocessing plant at La Hague, in northern France, dumps “1m litres of liquid radioactive waste per day” into the ocean. The long-term impact of such dumping remains to be seen.

While population displacement to facilitate hydroelectric schemes is unfortunate, relocation because of radioactive fallout is a tragedy.

The Chernobyl nuclear accident in 1986 scattered 400 times more radioactive material into the Earth’s atmosphere than did the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. The Chernobyl exclusion zone, measuring 2,600sq km (1,004sq miles), is one of the most contaminated areas in the world.

It is larger than Co Wexford, where, in the late 1970s, the Irish government abandoned plans to develop a nuclear plant at Carnsore Point, following opposition and the Three Mile Island nuclear accident in the US, in 1979. The latter’s clean-up operation lasted 12 years and cost $1bn. By 2014, the price for decommissioning at Sellafield had reached £70bn.

However, a nuclear waste clean-up is a contradiction in terms. Contaminated material is simply moved to someone else’s backyard.

The Fukushima nuclear power plant accident in Japan, in 2011, is an ongoing disaster. In February, 2017, six years post-nuclear meltdown, it was reported that radiation levels at the plant were at “unimaginable levels”, following the discovery of new fuel leaks.

Professor Allison asserts that “Nuclear is for life”. Yes, it is. As he is so keen to embrace it, would he be happy take home a share of the industry’s waste?

Allison’s argument that we “must move beyond radiation phobia and accept more relaxed, evidence-based nuclear regulations” is a tall order, considering industry revelations, like the falsification of quality assurance data at Sellafield’s Mox Demonstration facility in 1999.

Undeniably, energy security comes at a cost. For nuclear energy, this is a very long-term mortgage, as both fuel and waste stockpiles create their own health-and-security risks.

There is no denying the contribution that radiation has made to medicine, but physicist Marie Curie, who did pioneering work on radioactivity, died from prolonged exposure to it.

Nuclear energy may look clean, but it is not. The spectre of artificial radioactivity from the nuclear industry looms large in our atmosphere.

Ireland has no room for stockpiles of nuclear waste, nor for the mishaps that have plagued the nuclear industry. Why jeopardise a lucrative tourism industry (€5bn a year) or our food-and-drinks industry (€12bn a year) by poisoning our landscape?

It’s not surprising that countries are refusing to invest in new nuclear plants, apart from those kowtowing to lobbyists with vested interests. Contrary to Wade Allison’s report, nuclear power seems unlikely to be popular tomorrow, given the legacy of waste it bestows on future generations.

Aidan J Collins MA

Brookville Park

Malahide Road


Dublin 5

Source of article;

(Note from Arclight2011 – More information from this blog on Prof Wade Allison )


The Economist: Oxford Professor Says OK to Raise Annual Dose Limit by 1000 Times for the Japanese, But the Reporter Reluctant to Inhale

Dr. Wade Allison is professor emeritus of physics (particle physics) at Oxford University. The event that the Economist’s reporter refers to in the article must be the talk given at American Chamber of Commerce in Japan (ACCJ) on October 3, where the professor, along with another researcher, presented the strong case that the radiation exposure below 100 millisieverts per year was not a problem, if one only gets rid of the unreasonable fear of radiation. He also says the current food regulation, evacuation regulation are “unreasonable” and should be relaxed significantly.

Here’s the screen capture of a page from his presentation slides he used in the ACCJ talk:

Arevamirpal wrote: “Why did the American Chamber of Commerce in Japan invite Professor Allison? What was the purpose? Does anyone know?”
That’s the good question!
I did look in this Allison’s biography.
He’s not a genetician, didn’t work on DNA, he is not a physician either, nor a statistician… His research field is neutrinos (what are these particules?, where are they coming from the sun?, how fast they are, etc.) It’s very theorical physic. Nothing to do with radiations and their effect on human health.
So, this so-called “expert” in nothing of an expert when it’s come to radiations and human health.
So why did he take an interest for this topic?
If you have a look on this page, where he presents his firsts results on neutrinos, you can see who are his sponsors (because you can’t work on neutrinos with only a computer, a microscope and a few tests tubes; it’s costs a lot of big money):
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Ontario Power Generation, Agra-Monenco/Canatom Limited, CVD Manufacturing Inc.
All these companies are in nuclear power.

So, you take the money, and you have to be grateful. You come in Japan (interesting that it’s the chamber of commerce who organized the conference) and you say what your sponsors want you to say. (may be they did the slides).
As you are a scientist, in physics, and from Oxford on top of that, your titles will impress M. Everyman, and the lie has a chance to be swallowed.

But if Mr Allison is an expert in neutrinos, he is nothing but a fraud when discussing human health and radiations.

The question is: has this man something like a conscience, or neutrinos and money did eat all was left of it?


July 10, 2018 Posted by | Uncategorized | 1 Comment

The Professor of Dodgy Pro Nuclear Arguments – Wade Allison

nukefools-dayOxford Professor in Japan: Well so what if Fukushima had triple meltdown? People enjoy effects of radioactive contamination; Sunshine is much more dangerous; Effect of radiation same as oxygen — Former WHO Official: “The man is dangerous… He’s a crank” (VIDEOS)

Wade Allison, Emeritus Professor of Physics at Oxford University, Foreign Correspondents Club of Japan, Dec 3, 2014 (emphasis added):

  • 7:30 — Nuclear protestors have no good arguments for saying that nuclear is dangerousthis is demonstrated by what happened at Fukushima.
  • 19:30 – The scientific question is, ‘Why is radiation so safe?‘ Because it is very powerful and so that’s very surprising… That’s the job biology does… Any life form that did not look after the effects of radiation and oxygen, which does the same kind of thing, would fail.
  • 27:30 — On holiday we should take [children] around a nuclear power station.
  • 31:00 — What can we do to explain… to people and shove under their noses?
  • 39:15 – That excellent film Pandora’s Promise, anybody who hasn’t seen that should.
  • 45:00 — [Bury the used nuclear fuel] anywhere, anywhere… Fission products [have a] half-life is 30 years or so… it quickly becomes the same activity as the stuff that you dig out of the ground. You need a mine or a hole in the ground which is going to contain stuff for 500 years — but it doesn’t have to be perfect. Here in Japan, people go to Onsen, and enjoy the effects of radioactive contamination of groundwatereverybody’s very happy to do that. That’s what they do on holiday.
  • 47:30 — Triple meltdown? Where did you get those words from? Hollywood? What do you mean by a triple meltdown? So what? I’m telling you — so nothing, very muchTriple meltdown, well so what?… It wasn’t a tragedy.
  • 52:45 — The sunshine… that’s much more dangerous… than nuclear radiation.
  • 1:01:45 — We need people’s confidence. We need to talk to children in school.
  • 1:04:45 — The idea that special precautions have to be taken just doesn’t wash,nuclear is not especially dangerous. It’s not as dangerous as fire.

Allison at the Institute of PhysicsNew safety levels for human radiation exposure are suggested… 100 mSv in total in any month; 5,000 mSv as a total of whole-of-life exposure.

Keith Baverstock, head of the World Health Organization’s Radiation Protection Program for Europe (1991-2003), Foreign Correspondents Club of Japan, Nov 20, 2014:

  • 20:00 — Question: My name is Hiroyuki Fujita, [inaudible] Shimbun editor/writer… According to [Dr. Wade Allison], so called low dose radiation, 100 mSv or less, not so bad for human health… all the scientific knowledge is rooted on the experience of the fruit fly.
  • 21:00 – Wade Allison, do you know what his scientific expertise is? Physics… not public health, not medicine, not biology… I did a review of [his] book… I said his book is highly entertaining… it is fiction… We don’t have to rely on fruit flies to know what the effects of radiation are. We know what they are on human health. We have a lot of epidemiological information — which he ignores. I think the man is dangerous, I think you are putting yourself in a dangerous position if you believe him… He’s a crank.

Watch Allison’s FCCJ presentation here | Watch Baverstock’s FCCJ presentation here

December 6, 2014 Posted by | spinbuster, UK | 1 Comment

“Harmless radiation” – the message from Britain’s fake charity Weinberg Next Nuclear

Weinberg Next Nuclear welcomes new Patron January 26th, 2017 Weinberg Next Nuclear, by Suzanna Hinson Weinberg Next Nuclear, the charity !!! promoting the next generation of nuclear energy, is delighted to announce its newest Patron – Professor Wade Allison, Emeritus Professor of Physics and Emeritus Fellow of Keble College. Professor Allison is a leading authority on medical physics, especially the effects of radiation on life……..

In Radiation and Reason (2009) he brought the scientific evidence of the effect of radiation to a wider audience. After the Fukushima accident this was translated into Japanese and Chinese. Nuclear is for Life (2015) is a broad study that contrasts the cultural rejection of nuclear energy with the evidence, at all but the highest levels, for the harmless, and even beneficial, interaction of radiation with life.

Upon his appointment, Professor Allison said:

‘’Fukushima showed that radiation is no threat to life ………

Stephen Tindale, Director of Weinberg Next Nuclear, said:

“Public opposition to nuclear energy on the basis of exaggerated and unscientific fear of radioactivity is a significant barrier to nuclear progress. The world needs more nuclear energy, and addressing the fear factor is a major part of nuclear advocacy. So I am delighted to welcome Wade as a Patron. Wade has immense scientific knowledge and is also extremely well versed in the need for new public communication on nuclear.”

February 6, 2017 Posted by | spinbuster, UK | Leave a comment

Snippets: Nuclear and Climate News

Christina Macpherson's websites & blogs

Christina Macpherson’s websites & blogs

Conferences: Vienna Conference on Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons.  Lima Climate Summit drags on, with rich countries reluctant to help poor.  USA delegate Adam Scheinman at Vienna used bullying tactics to oppose a nuclear weapons ban treaty

USA. Govt’s Department of Energy to give $12.5 billion Nuclear Loan Guarantee  to get new nuclear power projects going. USA resists tightening international safety rules on nuclear reactors.  No utility executive could propose a nuclear reactor ”in good conscience”says  industry executive

UK . Radioactive waste storage ponds in a shocking state of neglect at the UK’s Sellafield nuclear facility. Anglesey Council worried about lack of information on planned Wylfa Newydd power plant plant

Japan. As election day approaches, Japan’s communities deeply divided over the plan to restart nuclear power.

France. Potential for drones to carry explosive devices over nuclear reactors – not detectable by current security monitoring.

Pacific Ocean is still the sewer for the nuclear industry’s wastes

Renewable energy. Wind power success in UK, especially Scotland.  Malaysia now a world leader in producing solar energy equipment.  1,000 MW of renewable energy contracts for South Africa

Research. Study into effects of chronic exposure to radiation in food: Chernobyl wolves as an example

Nuclear lobbyists. One example of their dodgy statements – Wade Allison. 

December 13, 2014 Posted by | Christina's notes | 1 Comment

Effect of Japan’s move to restart nuclear power will ripple globally

Nuclear energy costs still rising, three years on from Fukushima, SMH,  11 Mar 14 “…..,.How Japan proceeds on nuclear will ripple beyond its own borders with nations in Europe and beyond wavering over whether to purse atomic power, Wade Allison, a physics professor at Oxford University, U.K., said during a recent Hamaoka visit.

“The world is looking at Japan and what you do with nuclear energy,” Allison said. “The faster Japan can turn the reactors on the better.”

That’s not the view of Japan’s citizens.

According to this month’s poll published by the Tokyo Shimbun newspaper, 69 percent of respondents said nuclear power should be phased out over time or immediately. The March 1 and 2 poll surveyed 3,000 people with a 58 percent response rate.

As the question of turning reactors back on continues to divide Japan, plant operators face other hurdles.

‘Toughest guidelines’

The Nuclear Regulation Authority was formed in September 2012 as an independent watchdog to replace the previous regulator. Its Chairman Shunichi Tanaka said the agency has “the world’s toughest guidelines” for operating nuclear plants……..

March 11, 2014 Posted by | general | Leave a comment

WHO: Small cancer risk after Fukushima accident say British University Professors

“The additional risk is quite small and will probably be hidden by the noise of other (cancer) risks like people’s lifestyle choices and statistical fluctuations,” said Richard Wakeford of the University of Manchester, one of the authors of the report. “It’s more important not to start smoking than having been in Fukushima.”

“…Wakeford said the increase may be so small it will probably not be observable….”

“…For people beyond the most directly affected areas of Fukushima, Wakeford said the projected cancer risk from the radiation dropped dramatically. “The risks to everyone else were just infinitesimal.”…”

“….David Brenner of Columbia University in New York, an expert on radiation-induced cancers, said that although the risk to individuals is tiny outside the most contaminated areas, some cancers might still result, at least in theory. But they’d be too rare to be detectable in overall cancer rates, he said.

Brenner said the numerical risk estimates in the WHO report were not surprising. He also said they should be considered imprecise because of the difficulty in determining risk from low doses of radiation. He was not connected with the WHO report…..”

“… “On the basis of the radiation doses people have received, there is no reason to think there would be an increase in cancer in the next 50 years,” said Wade Allison, an emeritus professor of physics at Oxford University, who also had no role in developing the new report. “The very small increase in cancers means that it’s even less than the risk of crossing the road,” he said. … ”

“….. Gerry Thomas, a professor of molecular pathology at Imperial College London (UK Thyroid Assoc.), accused the United Nations health agency of hyping the cancer risk.

“It’s understandable that WHO wants to err on the side of caution, but telling the Japanese about a barely significant personal risk may not be helpful,” she said.

Thomas said the WHO report used inflated estimates of radiation doses and didn’t properly take into account Japan’s quick evacuation of people from Fukushima.

“This will fuel fears in Japan that could be more dangerous than the physical effects of radiation,” she said, noting that people living under stress have higher rates of heart problems, suicide and mental illness…. ”

“…..In Japan, Norio Kanno, the chief of Iitate village, in one of the regions hardest hit by the disaster, harshly criticized the WHO report on Japanese public television channel NHK, describing it as “totally hypothetical.”….”


Japan Today

Mar. 01, 2013 – 01:00PM JST


Two years after Japan’s nuclear plant disaster, an international team of experts said Thursday that residents of areas hit by the highest doses of radiation face an increased cancer risk so small it probably won’t be detectable.

In fact, experts calculated that increase at about 1 extra percentage point added to a Japanese infant’s lifetime cancer risk.


Many people who remain in Fukushima still fear long-term health risks from the radiation, and some refuse to let their children play outside or eat locally grown food.

Some restrictions have been lifted on a 20-kilometer zone around the nuclear plant. But large sections of land in the area remain off-limits. Many residents aren’t expected to be able to return to their homes for years……__


WHO report:

See more at:

Another view of this report here
Other UK relevant articles

TEPCO Hires UK Propaganda Chief

“…To be sure, the nuclear issue still divides opinion sharply. Judge admits that a repeat of the Chernobyl disaster would close the industry down for 20 years…”  22 July 2009  –Barbara Judge

Published on Feb 11, 2013

Fukushima: BBC Debunked – Chernobyl: BBC Debunked

A range of other evidence assessed by the ESC included a report showing there have been 6,000 cases of thyroid cancer reported in children and adolescents as of 2005 – with many more expected over the coming decades.‘”

February 15, 2013

And a quick summary of the Q&A panel held after premier screening of ‘After the Apocalypse’. The panel included Baroness Helena Kennedy. Geraldine Thomas (oncology), Steve Wilkinson,

Prof Thomas says that genetic science is not accurate anyway?

Prof Thomas says the doctors in the film are trying to source funding by highlighting deformity etc

Prof Thomas doesn’t comment on the enforced genetic passports?? Everyone else on the panel does.

Prof Thomas says the incidence is of small incremental amounts but doesnt give a percentage..

Any percentage of millions/billions of people are huge numbers of personal distress and loss!!

The director looks harassed.. the film has been taken off You Tube.. Prof Thomas blames alcoholism for the gross defects of bibgul and her mother..

And here is the original list of speakers, no Prof Thomas?


May 5 ’11 After the Apocalypse Premiere

Good Pitch UK 2009 Alumnus After the Apocalypse,

A film about aftermath of soviet era nuclear experiments, is set to premiere in the UK on May 11th at Princes Charles Cinema.

Screening followed by a Q&A with key Genetic and Ethical specialists – Baroness Helena

Kennedy, the former Head of the Human Genetics Commission; Professor Yuri Dubrova –

Professor of Genetics at the University of Leicester and Steve Wilkinson – Professor of Medical

Ethics at Keele University.

Saturday, October 8, 2011

The Economist: Oxford Professor Says OK to Raise Annual Dose Limit by 1000 Times for the Japanese, But the Reporter Reluctant to Inhale

Dr. Wade Allison is professor emeritus of physics (particle physics) at Oxford University. The event that the Economist’s reporter refers to in the article must be the talk given at American Chamber of Commerce in Japan (ACCJ) on October 3, where the professor, along with another researcher, presented the strong case that the radiation exposure below 100 millisieverts per year was not a problem, if one only gets rid of the unreasonable fear of radiation. He also says the current food regulation, evacuation regulation are “unreasonable” and should be relaxed significantly.

Here’s the screen capture of a page from his presentation slides he used in the ACCJ talk:

March 1, 2013 Posted by | Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Two Thirds of All Scientific Publications and Research Retracted Found to Be Fraudulent and Prof C Busby on academic dishonesty (Video)

“However, all of these peer-reviewed publications can exert great influence on decisions and the attitudes of many people, therefore the public should in no way tolerate such an epidemic.”


“Chris Busby calls for the development in Society of legal mechanisms to investigate issues of scientific dishonesty like those in Denmark. Such issues, he argues, can be seen in the same category as perjury in criminal court cases for which serious sanctions exist.”

Written by Andrew Puhanic

2 October 2012

Biomedical and life-science research publications retracted because of fraud by country

N astonishing two-thirds of all biomedical and life-science research publications and research articles that have been retracted from the public domain have been retracted because of fraud.

An article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America reviewed more than 2000 scientific articles for reasons why they were retracted from public scrutiny and discovered that67.4% of retractions were attributed to misconduct, of which includes fraud or suspected fraud (43.4%)duplicate publication (14.2%) and plagiarism (9.8%)

“Also, the number of articles retracted from circulation has increased 10 times since 1975.”

The top three publications that had the most retracted entries were:

Continue reading

February 12, 2013 Posted by | Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Scientific dishonesty and nuclear power – Article by Chris Busby

Posted January 20th, 2012 


“….Following up his 2007 book “Wolves of Water” Chris Busby calls for the development in Society of legal mechanisms to investigate issues of scientific dishonesty like those in Denmark. Such issues, he argues, can be seen in the same category as perjury in criminal court cases for which serious sanctions exist. The essay has been published in Iraq-Silent Death edited by Chris Scherrer (University Sains Malaysia 2011) and is also to be found, (together with several examples of possible scientific dishonesty) presented on the website of the Low Level Radiation Campaign The matter is one of democracy and goes to the core of expert evidence on Policy to governments. It is argued that scientists (like those who talk down the Fukushima catastrophe) or those like Prof Wade Allison who advise people to move into radioactive areas because doses of up to 100mSv a month are harmless, should be investigated in a court or law and if found guilty of knowingly giving bad advice (rather than being stupid or careless) suffer penalties….”


The Royal Society and  Depleted Uranium
Prof. Brian Spratt FRS and Prof William Bonfield FRS

But why did the Royal Society set up such a committee?
The WHO, IAEA, EURATOM, the UN, the military, the NRPB, all said DU was safe. 

Did someone at the RS wake up one morning and think: what a good idea?
Or were they asked to by the government?

To use the good name of the RS to reassure the veterans.?

To reassure the public that the UK was not responsible for all the dying children in Iraq?

more on video link above


And here a link to enable you to do something about this dishonesty here

deadline for petition 31 august 2012




August 27, 2012 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Risks of nuclear radiation are indeed real

The risks of nuclear energy are not exaggerated Most scientists in this field agree that there is danger even in small doses of radiation The Guardian, Ian Fairlie20 January 2010 You [The Guardian] reported the view that radiation risks are exaggerated, but left out vital information on radiation protection (Radiation health threat overstated – Oxford professor, 11 January). The article relied upon and extensively cited a retired ­professor of particle physics, Wade ­Allison, who is neither a radiation ­biologist nor an epidemiologist, and is not in my view an expert in radiation risks. Continue reading

January 20, 2010 Posted by | media, UK | , , , , , | Leave a comment