The Dangers of Radiophobia

Nov 22, 2016 by


Related Posts


Share This


  1. 1. I find the way you present this article quite unpleasant. I think you should write your own views about it and then offer a link to the original so that people can judge.
    2. I do not appreciate Ropeiks piece very much. He ignores the source of the radiophobia, which is science or scientists sticking to the LNT, be that science or not. The phobia is not there because people think the wrong things, but because science says the wrong things.
    3. Ropeik tries to replace radiophobia, with fine-particle-phobia and with globalwarming-phobia, both non-problems based on a completely similar drawing table extrapolation as the LNT.
    4. What I find strange is that in the aftermath of Chernobyl a wave of abortions (200.000 is mentioned) is supposed to have taken place, whereas in Fukushima nobody mentions it. Have I missed anything?

    • Mark Miller

      Thanks for your comments, well said! I posted them without exhaustive critical review, hence the “vanilla” link to it. Perhaps YOU would like to join SARI ( It’s not affiliated with any formal organization, but is simply a bunch of like-minded folks doing what we can to stem radiophobia, etc. Since we ALL do what you see on a volunteer basis (no dues or anything), it’s not overly fancy, but we synergistically learn a lot from one another and hope to make a difference.

      Chernobyl & Fukushima happened to have DRASTICALLY different source terms following the accidents. Chernobyl had EVERYTHING that went on for a LONG time. Fukushima had ONLY short-lived noble gasses and volatiles released for a very brief period. Hence, there was very little risk (once the initial fear and understandable uncertainty) subsided.
      Mark Miller

Leave a Reply to Mark Miller Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *