Studies Show Some Correlation Between Cancer Incidence and Living Near Nuclear Power Plants; However, No Causation Has Been Established

  

     I will first state that I have always been skeptical of these sorts of epidemiological studies that seek to establish correlations between health outcomes and nearness to potential sources of contamination. Several studies like these that studied those who live near oil & gas sites had very slight, probably statistically insignificant, poor health outcomes, failed to show any real connection or causation, although the headlines often seek to imply that causation. I believe the same is true of these studies. For fossil fuel contamination exposure, there is often a real possible exposure pathway. In the case of oil & gas sites, that exposure pathway is mainly increased burning of diesel fuel at the sites where emissions are temporarily accelerated during certain operations. There are often no continuous high emissions found. In the case of nuclear power plants, if such a study is to be considered valid, there needs to be some kind of quantification of local radiation elevated above normal in the areas evaluated. Without such data, these studies are even less valid. I would question the headline by The Cool Down: Study: Living near nuclear power plants increases risk of certain cancers as likely not accurate. While there may be a correlation, there is no proof that it is specifically living near those plants that increases the risk of certain cancers, only that there are increases in those cancers among those who do. Of course, correlation is not causation, but the headline clearly implies that somehow the plants are the cause.

     I will look briefly at three studies here: one for people living near nuclear power plants in Massachusetts, another from the entire U.S. by the same authors, and one from South Korea. 

     The abstract to the first one included the following statement, which does not include a caveat that the connection may not involve causation.

“Residential proximity to nuclear plants in Massachusetts is associated with elevated cancer risks, particularly among older adults, underscoring the need for continued epidemiologic monitoring amid renewed interest in nuclear energy.”

     The abstract of the national study did, however, include that important caveat:

“While our findings cannot establish causality, they highlight the need for further research into potential exposure pathways, latency effects, and cancer-specific risks, emphasizing the importance of addressing these potentially substantial but overlooked risks to public health.”

     The Korean study showed some increase in certain types of cancer incidence, but the types varied by facility, and there was no widespread correlation. The statement below from the paper’s conclusions highlights the uncertainty and the lack of exposure characterization.

“While the role of ionizing radiation remains uncertain, our findings highlight geographic patterns that warrant cautious interpretation and may inform future studies incorporating more detailed exposure characterization and individual-level data on residential history, occupation, and health behaviors.”

  These sorts of studies would be more convincing if there were established exposure pathways enabled by verified increases in ionizing radiation above backgrounds, but this is not the case. These are merely attempts to show correlation.

     The article in The Cool Down notes the following about the Massachusetts study:

“The researchers found that approximately 3.3% (around 20,600) of the cancer cases considered in the study "were attributable to living near [a nuclear power plant], with risk declining sharply beyond roughly 30 kilometers from a facility," according to a press release from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.”

     The obvious question would be: “How are these cancer cases "attributable” to living in proximity to these plants?” That question is not answered, and without it being answered, there can be no meaning to such “attributions.”

     The study’s authors, however, did have some useful suggestions that could both move closer to actual causation (which is not at all certain) and decrease the likelihood of exposures:

"Strengthening emission controls, improving environmental monitoring, and prioritizing research and surveillance within approximately 25-30 km of nuclear plants will be essential for advancing evidence-based protection of nearby communities."

Addendum - April 22, 2026

     In March, Deric Tilson and Adam Stein of the Breakthrough Institute, a group that often advocates for nuclear energy, wrote an article in The Ecomodernist: Two New Papers Are Wrong About Cancer Risk from Nuclear Plants: Poor Research Design and Strong Claims Don’t Mesh Well, which dismissed the papers for the same reason I did, because they did not show causation and did not even make a reasonable case for causation. I give two excerpts of the article below. The first excerpt explains why distance from the plants is not the same thing as the dose of radiation received. The second excerpt is more critical, referring to the dubious, unscientific nature of the paper. 

References:

 

Study: Living near nuclear power plants increases risk of certain cancers. Misty Layne. The Cool Down. April 9, 2026. Study: Living near nuclear power plants increases risk of certain cancers

Residential proximity to nuclear power plants and cancer incidence in Massachusetts, USA (2000–2018). Yazan Alwadi, John S. Evans, Joel Schwartz, Carolina L. Zilli Vieira, David C. Christiani, Brent A. Coull & Petros Koutrakis. Environmental Health. Volume 24, article number 92, (December 18, 2025). Residential proximity to nuclear power plants and cancer incidence in Massachusetts, USA (2000–2018) | Environmental Health | Springer Nature Link

National analysis of cancer mortality and proximity to nuclear power plants in the United States. Yazan Alwadi, Barrak Alahmad, Carolina L. Zilli Vieira, Philip J. Landrigan, David C. Christiani, Eric Garshick, Marco Kaltofen, Brent Coull, Joel Schwartz, John S. Evans & Petros Koutrakis. Nature Communications. Volume 17, article number 1560, (February 2026). National analysis of cancer mortality and proximity to nuclear power plants in the United States | Nature Communications | Springer Nature Link

Cancer incidence near nuclear facilities in Korea (2005–2022): implications of regional socioeconomic status and industrial context. Ga Bin Lee, Kyungsik Kim, Eun-Shil Cha, Soojin Park, Dalnim Lee, Minsu Cho, Sue K. Park & Songwon Seo. BMC Public Health. Volume 26, article number 1012, (February 19, 2026). Cancer incidence near nuclear facilities in Korea (2005–2022): implications of regional socioeconomic status and industrial context | BMC Public Health | Springer Nature Link

New Paper Assesses Groundwater Quantity and Water Table Levels in the U.S.

     I recently posted about a series of studies by researchers at UC Santa Barbara regarding water table levels around the world, the problem of groundwater depletion, and possible solutions. Another recent study maps water table levels in the U.S. In this study, researchers at Princeton University and the University of Arizona took data from about 800,000 wells and applied a machine-learning model to estimate the depth of the water table nationwide. They estimated aquifer freshwater levels down to 1300 feet, much deeper than most groundwater wells.

     One of the problem areas in the U.S. where groundwater is depleting fastest is the Central Valley area, which is our country’s agricultural powerhouse. It is noted that in some areas, like the desert Southwest, the groundwater is considered “fossil water,” and if depleted, it will take years to be recharged without severe interventions. There, when groundwater depletes, it often dries up connections to surface water, such as wetlands and small tributaries.

     According to an article in the LA Times:

“The total quantity of water underground is still immense. The scientists found nationwide there is roughly 250 billion acre-feet, or 13 times the volume of the Great Lakes.”

“Data compiled by lead author Yueling Ma show the Colorado River watershed has about as much groundwater as the volume of the Great Lakes, while California has about 70% of that.”

     The map below shows that the uncertainty level, as exemplified by the inter-quartile range (IQR), is generally lower in the eastern U.S. and higher in the western U.S. 

     The database for California showed 6000 water wells that have dried up since 2013. However, only 13 ran dry in 2025, so the rate has likely slowed.

     The new study utilized a machine learning approach. It emphasizes the need for higher local spatial resolution in order to get a better estimate of groundwater quantities. Therefore, the study utilized a high-resolution (approximately 30 m) approach to calculate groundwater storage. Other studies often utilize a much lower 1 sq. km resolution. 

     One known finding confirmed by the study is that groundwater has large spatial variability, which poses challenges for management. They show that wow resolution estimates systematically underestimate accessible groundwater. This is why higher spatial resolution is important to get accurate estimates. The first graphic below shows the mismatch between the spatial scale resolutions of common remote sensing methods and modeling. The second graphic below shows the loss of detail when the spatial resolution is too low.

     According to the paper:

“Groundwater systems are not a uniform reservoir and have significant spatial variability across multiple scales. Water table depth is often portrayed as a subdued replica of topography, however, groundwater recharging at higher elevations can travel great distances laterally underground to topographic lows, also known as groundwater convergence. Groundwater can maintain shallow water table depth in areas of local convergence during dry conditions, the same way that baseflow supports streamflow. These groundwater-land surface connections are of great importance to both watershed dynamics and ecosystem function often helping to sustain vegetation through drought.”

     The authors note that machine learning sidesteps computational barriers to bridge scales.

“We combine our water table depth product (Fig. 2) with spatially variable estimates of porosity from previous literature to calculate total groundwater storage (see SI S1.3 and Table S1). We estimate a total groundwater storage of 306,500 km3, with an uncertainty range of 291, 850 km3 to 316, 720 km3. This estimate includes all groundwater above a depth of 392 m (this depth is the deepest depth for which we have reliable porosity data, and roughly the limit of active circulation in the hydrologic cycle.”

     The authors conclude that their higher-resolution estimates can help with local -scale groundwater management strategies:

“Despite the groundwater challenges we currently face and the anticipation of future challenges, large-scale estimates of the quantity of groundwater can be connected to the local-scale water table depth to provide additional information critical in water management. The accessibility of groundwater under agricultural regions demonstrates the uncertainty in the national water supply used to sustain food production.”

 

    

References:

 

How much water do we have? Scientists map the water beneath our feet. Ian James. Boiling Point Newsletter. Los Angeles Times. April 9, 2026. How much water lies underground? Scientists finally have an answer - Los Angeles Times

High resolution US water table depth estimates reveal quantity of accessible groundwater. Yueling Ma, Laura E. Condon, Julian Koch, Andrew Bennett, Amy Defnet, Danielle Tijerina-Kreuzer, Peter Melchior & Reed M. Maxwell. Communications Earth & Environment volume 7, Article number: 45 (January 2026). High resolution US water table depth estimates reveal quantity of accessible groundwater | Communications Earth & Environment

Aquifer Recoveries Show That Groundwater Depletion is Not Inevitable: New Study

  

      Groundwater supplies drinking water to about half of the world’s population and about 40% of the world’s irrigation water. Roughly a third of the world’s groundwater aquifers are being depleted faster than they are being recharged. Declining water tables exacerbate problems from drought, cause significant land subsidence, and contribute to coastal infiltration of saltwater.

     UC Santa Barbara professor Scott Jasechko details 67 cases of aquifer recovery in a study published in the journal Science. He found that most successes involved multiple intervention categories, and over 80% involved sourcing an alternative water supply. The paper gives insights to address declining water tables.

"The cases in this review are a reminder that groundwater depletion is not inevitable," said Jasechko, a professor at the Bren School of Environmental Science & Management. "They highlight how humans have solved this problem in different places around the globe."

     In a January 2024 paper in Nature, Jasechko and colleagues formed the largest global database of water table levels in aquifers. It includes 1700 aquifers around the world. Below, the graphic from the paper shows aquifers and the status of their water tables. 

     The paper sought to understand where groundwater levels were falling and rising and the reasons for water level recoveries. The three-year study utilized 300 million water level measurements from 1.5 million wells over the past 100 years, and most of the time was spent cleaning and sorting the data. According to Phys.org:

“The work revealed that groundwater is dropping in 71% of the aquifers. And this depletion is accelerating in many places: the rates of groundwater decline in the 1980s and '90s sped up from 2000 to the present, highlighting how a bad problem became even worse. The accelerating declines are occurring in nearly three times as many places as they would expect by chance.”

     As one would expect, groundwater is depleting at higher rates in arid areas.

“Groundwater declines of the 1980s and '90s reversed in 16% of the aquifer systems the authors had historical data for. However, these cases are only half as common as would be expected by chance.”

“This study shows that humans can turn things around with deliberate, concentrated efforts," Jasechko said.

     In a January 2024 article in The Conversation, the authors explained the study’s dual findings and put emphasis on further research into aquifer recovery case studies:

“Our study has two main findings. First, we show that rapid groundwater depletion is widespread around the world and that rates of decline have accelerated in recent decades, with levels falling by 20 inches or more yearly in some locations. Second, however, our research also reveals many cases where deliberate actions halted groundwater depletion. These results show that societies are not inevitably doomed to drain their groundwater supplies, and that with timely interventions, this important resource can recover.”

     They also pointed out that in heavily farmed arid areas, groundwater depletion was accelerated and presented serious concerns about future supply:

“In many locations, especially arid zones that are heavily farmed and irrigated, groundwater levels are falling by more than 20 inches (0.5 meters) per year. Examples include Afghanistan, Chile, China, Peninsular India, Iran, Mexico, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Spain and the U.S. Southwest.”

     In the new study, two-thirds of the case studies of aquifer recovery included more than one replenishment strategy, and 81% included an alternative water source. 

     Some strategies are shown in the graphic below. The second graphic goes into more detail about these kinds of strategies.

     Sometimes, finding alternative water sources just moves the depletion problem to another nearby area, so that needs to be considered.

     Below, Jasechko gives a summary of his findings in ten key themes and insights into groundwater management:

     One example given in the Phys.org article is Beijing, China, where during the period of 1950-2000, groundwater levels dropped by a stunning 20 meters in some places. In 2003, the government began to construct canals and pumping stations. By 2015, it was delivering water to the city and surrounding areas from wetter regions farther to the south. The city also began using more reclaimed water, much of it allocated to environmental uses such as watering trees and grasslands as well as replenishing lakes and rivers. They also banned pumping the aquifers for industrial uses. This is an example of a multipronged approach that was largely successful. Shallow and deep aquifers have recovered, and land subsidence rates have dropped.

     Jasechko and Phys.org point out:

"An important question is: What scope and scale of intervention is required for depleted aquifers to start recovering?" he said. These are important questions for communities and resource managers who would like to improve the situation, but just don't have a sense as to what magnitude of intervention is required.

"This study can help create a menu of options for managers and stakeholders to consider as they develop locally relevant strategies to try to make things better," he said. These examples and analysis, he believes, can provide the activation energy to begin addressing this problem more widely.

"Groundwater depletion is widespread globally. These cases highlight that there are ways to turn things around," Jasechko said. "Globally, there are many more bad news cases than good news cases. Yet, I am somewhat encouraged by the clever ways that certain managers and stakeholders have addressed the problem of groundwater depletion in specific places, because they show that the menu of strategies is longer than I originally anticipated."

 

 

 

References:

 

Why some regions are winning the fight against groundwater depletion. Harrison Tasoff. Phys.org. March 20, 2026. Why some regions are winning the fight against groundwater depletion

Global cases of groundwater recovery after interventions. Scott Jasechko. Science. 19 Mar 2026. Vol 391, Issue 6791. pp. 1218-1228. Global cases of groundwater recovery after interventions | Science

Global groundwater depletion is accelerating but is not inevitable, say researchers. University of California - Santa Barbara. Phys.org. January 24, 2024. Global groundwater depletion is accelerating but is not inevitable, say researchers

Humans are depleting groundwater worldwide, but there are ways to replenish it. Scott Jasechko, Debra Perrone, and Richard Taylor. The Conversation. January 24, 2024. Humans are depleting groundwater worldwide, but there are ways to replenish it

The Positive Environmental and Safety Impacts of Dam Removal: Many Old Low Head Dams Remain to Be Removed

  

     The positive impacts of dam removal are well documented, as are the negative impacts of dam construction. While many dams do provide positive benefits such as flood control and electric power, there are negative effects such as disruption to fish spawning, especially for species like salmon.

     The group Rewilding Europe has begun removing dams on the continent and noting immediate positive impacts. The goal to remove unnecessary river blockages began in 2024 with the removal of five small dams on the Giovenco River in Italy. Since then, the group has restored about 70 miles of rivers to be free of flow restrictions. In Sweden, many dams were constructed long ago to float timber, and those dams no longer serve that function.

     According to an article in The Cool Down:

“Free-flowing waters are cooler, creating optimal conditions for native species to thrive. That helps combat the effects of climate change by encouraging native species to remain in their home habitats rather than migrate to regions where they could become invasive.”

"Removing dams, which really choke rivers, is critical," said one team leader with Rewilding Apennines. "Demolishing these barriers allows rivers to breathe again and better support nature and people. In the face of climate change, we must treat free-flowing freshwater as a precious resource to be cherished."

     The dam removals in Europe were accompanied by releases of native fish.

     In Washington and Oregon, dam removal projects encountered known dams and, unexpectedly, many undocumented dams. Some were found to be buried by vegetation and/or sediment.

     According to an article in Planet Sage:

“Scientists expected changes to unfold over months or years. Instead, rivers began reshaping themselves within hours. Channels widened, sediment shifted, and water pathways reformed as if the rivers remembered their original courses. The speed of this transformation surprised even experienced researchers.”

     One effect of dams is that they hold back sediment, which often accumulates at the dam where it is trapped. That sediment formerly flowed with the river, in some cases to coastal areas where it was deposited and helped to combat the effects of coastal erosion. While sediment flow was restored, there was also a temporary increase in water cloudiness. The response of fish moving into new areas also occurred faster than predicted. Other results included both increased riverbank erosion and increased sedimentation along the banks.  

“Removing old dams often caused water in certain areas to deepen as flow accelerated. Areas that previously resembled shallow ponds transformed into swiftly moving channels again. This deepening helped restore faster-flowing environments that many species depend on.”

“The shift also altered the distribution of nutrients and oxygen within the river. Scientists observed how these deeper channels played a crucial role in reestablishing natural river dynamics.”

     Vegetation along riverbanks also changed, reflecting changing water depths. New pools, riffles, and gravel bars were created, which also created new habitats with associated increases in biodiversity. This also happened very quickly.

“The speed and magnitude of the changes forced scientists to reconsider their assumptions about river recovery. Earlier models assumed slow, gradual adaptation, but the real-world changes were far more dramatic and immediate.”

“This realization may influence future restoration planning. Understanding that rivers can react so quickly helps improve forecasts and encourages more accurate, flexible management strategies.”

     In Oregon, hydroelectric dam operators and biodiversity advocates have long been at odds over water levels. According to The Cool Down:

“U.S. District Judge Michael Simon recently ruled that Oregon hydroelectric dams keep their current reservoir levels and increase the spill at eight dams to allow salmon to pass over dams rather than through their turbines, which puts the animals at risk.”

Industry groups argued that more spill dissolves more nitrogen in the water, which can be harmful to fish downstream.

"The order increases the risk of harm to infrastructure, listed species, and public safety while failing to demonstrate that there will be benefits to listed salmon and steelhead," said the Inland Ports and Navigation Group.

     They also argued that the injunction negatively affects river transportation, which pollutes less than trucking.

     As noted, dams can have positive effects as well, such as flood control and conserving water for irrigation. These effects, however, are countered by the negative impacts on ecosystems.

     Sediment flow of the Leitzaran River affected by the Olloki Dam in the Basque region of Spain was studied recently by a group of fluvial geomorphology geographers. According to another article in The Cool Down:

“The research group monitored 1,800 stones in the Leitzaran River between 2016 and 2022, embedding a code inside the stone samples. They distributed them at three points in the river: upstream, downstream, and at a control site. They then scanned the river from bank to bank with a detector.”

"When the device detects a code, it informs us which stone it is and gives us the GPS coordinates," Ibisate explained.

“The process enables researchers to understand the function of rivers and their sediment flow, providing a better prediction of the demolition of dams. The researchers discovered that some stones in the river traveled over 5 miles.”

"We didn't think the sediments would move so much," Ibisate stated, "and the other experts in the field were also surprised."

     The scale of outdated low-head dams in the U.S. is huge. I know here in Ohio that the Ohio EPA has a low-head dam removal program, and that is likely the case all over the country.

“There are roughly 500,000 dams in the United States, and 85% are over 50 years old and no longer serve a purpose. However, around 900 dams were removed by 2015, and an additional 50 to 60 per year thereafter.”

     Progress is being made, and dams that cause the most damage should be high graded for removal. At the current rate of dam removal, it would take over 7500 years to remove all of the dams that are no longer necessary.

 

Dam Removal Can Sometimes Improve Safety

     There is a place here close to where I live, along the Hocking River, where there used to be a historic mill, where the water flow was altered for the mill, which creates effects similar to a low-head dam. A handful of kayakers drowned while going over the mill site as they became trapped by undercurrents. One fatality happened just a few years ago. Low-head dams are known to be hazardous because they create a recirculating current downstream. This current can trap people and debris, leading to accidents and fatalities. That is what happened at the mill site and also what happened at a low-head dam along the Little River in Tennessee. The site is also an old mill site, and is known as Peery’s Mill Dam, with four drownings over the past two decades. Others trapped were able to be rescued.

“The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' National Inventory of Dams explained that many low-head dams have "outlived their initial purpose" and their original owners, and noted that nearly 800 fatalities have been linked with the obsolete structures.”

"For this reason, low-head dams have also been called 'drowning machines,'" the Army Corps acknowledged.”

“Moreover, the barriers impede the local ecosystem from thriving. The Army Corps also stated that dam removal was necessary to restore the river and protect endangered aquatic wildlife.”

“Outdated dams withhold nutrients from native wildlife and prevent fish from migrating. Removal projects across the country have yielded promising results, with animal populations rebounding.”

 

References:

 

Officials celebrate incredible recovery of crucial waterways: 'Those days are long gone'. Kate Saxton. The Cool Down. December 7, 2025. Officials celebrate incredible recovery of crucial waterways: 'Those days are long gone'

Nobody Knew These Dams Existed. Removing Them Changed Entire Rivers Overnight. Barrie Davenport. Planet Sage. December 3, 2025. Nobody Knew These Dams Existed. Removing Them Changed Entire Rivers Overnight

Tennessee residents celebrate state's plans to remove river dam: '[They are] drowning machines'. Daysia Tolentino. Newsbreak. Tennessee residents celebrate state's plans to remove river dam: '[They are] drowning machines' - NewsBreak

Officials spark backlash with concerning pla

ns for US dams: 'Increases the risk of harm'. Simon Sage. The Cool Down. March 10, 2026. Officials spark backlash with concerning plans for US dams: 'Increases the risk of harm'

Scientists point to unexpected side effects of knocking down river dams. Nicole Westhoff. The Cool Down. April 1, 2026. Scientists point to unexpected side effects of knocking down river dams

Natura Resources and NGL Water Solutions Team Up to Utilize Small Modular Molten Salt Nuclear Reactors to Run Permian Basin Water Treatment Plants: Synergies Help

     Natura Resources, a company developing small modular reactors (SMRs) utilizing molten salt, is teaming up with NGL Water Solutions, a water treatment company, to develop nuclear-powered produced water treatment in the Permian Basin region of West Texas. Natura is currently developing a demonstration reactor at the Abilene Christian University campus. In addition to providing power for the water treatment plants, the reactors can also provide high-temperature process heat for industrial applications and isotopes for medical applications. The companies are working in collaboration with the Texas Produced Water Consortium.

     The Permian Basin produces more than 6 million barrels of oil a day. Along with each barrel comes about five barrels of produced water. That is 30 million barrels per day or 1.26 billion gallons per day of saltwater. However, the official number is somewhere above 20 million barrels per day.

“Chris Harich, senior director of technical operations at NGL Water Solutions, said his company has been cleaning produced water in Wyoming for 15 years. California, he said, is using treated water on crops. The difference is that Permian Basin produced water is far saltier than seawater, making removal of the solids a challenge.”

“Locating energy sources alongside treatment plants and using Natura’s waste heat could drive costs as low as 50 cents a barrel, and that’s key, Harich said.

     In January, Natura secured an enriched molten salt allocation from the DOE’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory. According to Natura:

“The coolant salt, known as FLiBE, contains 99.99% enriched lithium-7 (Li-7), and it is essential for Natura’s 1-MW reactor to achieve criticality next year, keeping the project on track to become one of the first Gen IV nuclear reactor deployed in the United States.”

“The efficiency and design of Natura’s 100-MW reactor will also make it an ideal solution for produced water desalination, a critical issue for the Permian Basin and other areas of the U.S. with significant oil and gas production.”

     Natura’s 100 MW reactors are set to provide power for the thermal desalination of Permian Basin produced water. NGL Water Solutions currently transports, treats, recycles, and disposes of more than 3 million barrels per day of produced and flowback water from the Permian Basin. The treated water from the project is expected to be used for data centers, agriculture, and as a new water source for other industries. Doug Robison, Founder and CEO of Natura Resources, noted:

"Our molten salt reactor combined with thermal desalination can provide a sustainable, competitive solution by generating clean, economic power; treating industrial water for beneficial use; and freeing up natural gas supplies for higher value applications. Collaborating with NGL allows us to advance the application of our breakthrough nuclear technology where it can make a measurable difference for industry, communities, and the environment."

     Molten Salt reactors are liquid-fueled, operate at atmospheric pressures, and are considered much safer than more common light water reactors. Even so, I was a bit surprised when it was noted that the demo reactor at Abilene Christian University would be guarded by campus police.

     Permian Basin water management is a huge issue that needs solutions. Large-scale treatment is one of the best options. Some issues with Permian water management include the huge problem of disposal wells pressuring up local groundwater to the point where blowouts and sinkholes are forming. Induced seismicity is another issue. I wrote about these in a March 2025 post on Wastewater Disposal Well Woes in the Permian Basin.

 

      

References:

 

Nuclear energy could be part of produced water treatment efforts. Mella McEwen. Midland Reporter-Telegram. April 10, 2026. Nuclear energy could be part of produced water treatment efforts

Natura Secures Enriched Molten Salt Allocation from Department of Energy. Natura Resources. January 5, 2026. Natura Secures Enriched Molten Salt Allocation from Department of Energy | Natura Resources

Natura Resources Partners with NGL Energy Partners to Enable Large-Scale Produced Water Treatment with Small Modular Nuclear Reactors in the Permian Basin. NGL energy Partners. Press Release. February 3, 2026. News Release

The Linear No-Threshold (LNT) Radiological Health Model: Is it Too Cautious? Yes, Probably

    

     According to Wikipedia, the Linear No-Threshold Model is as follows:

 “The linear no-threshold model (LNT) is a dose-response model used in radiation protection to estimate stochastic health effects such as radiation-induced cancer, genetic mutations and teratogenic effects on the human body due to exposure to ionizing radiation. The model assumes a linear relationship between dose and health effects, even for very low doses where biological effects are more difficult to observe. The LNT model implies that all exposure to ionizing radiation is harmful, regardless of how low the dose is, and that the effect is cumulative over a lifetime.” 

     This model is commonly used to set public policy regarding radiation exposure. However, the validity of the model is disputed, and detractors say it should not be used to set public policy. Other models suggest that low-dose radiation is not harmful and may actually be beneficial. It has also been argued that the LNT may have created an irrational fear of radiation. That fear has been termed radiophobia. No one disputes the harm of high levels of radiation. The issue of debate is basically lower levels. However, it has yet to be determined whether low levels of radiation are harmful, beneficial, or neutral.

“In 2005 the United States National Academies' National Research Council published its comprehensive meta-analysis of low-dose radiation research BEIR VII, Phase 2. In its press release the Academies stated:

“The scientific research base shows that there is no threshold of exposure below which low levels of ionizing radiation can be demonstrated to be harmless or beneficial.”

     A 2005 report by the French Academy of Sciences stated:

“The LNT concept can be a useful pragmatic tool for assessing rules in radioprotection for doses above 10 mSv; however since it is not based on biological concepts of our current knowledge, it should not be used without precaution for assessing by extrapolation the risks associated with low and even more so, with very low doses (< 10 mSv), especially for benefit-risk assessments imposed on radiologists by the European directive 97-43.”

     Ted Nordhaus, writing for The Ecomodernist, recently wrote about the LNT based partly on an article in Scientific American by Katy Huff, Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy at the Department of Energy during the Biden Administration, and professor of nuclear engineering at the University of Illinois. The article is paywalled so I can’t access it, but she argues against the Trump administration’s recent executive order to reconsider the use of the LNT. The EO announced on May 23, 2025, explains that the use of the LNT has been a strong factor in hampering the deployment of nuclear energy in the U.S. since 1978:

“Between 1954 and 1978, the United States authorized the construction of 133 since-completed civilian nuclear reactors at 81 power plants. Since 1978, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has authorized only a fraction of that number; of these, only two reactors have entered into commercial operation. The NRC charges applicants by the hour to process license applications, with prolonged timelines that maximize fees while throttling nuclear power development. The NRC has failed to license new reactors even as technological advances promise to make nuclear power safer, cheaper, more adaptable, and more abundant than ever.”

“This failure stems from a fundamental error: Instead of efficiently promoting safe, abundant nuclear energy, the NRC has instead tried to insulate Americans from the most remote risks without appropriate regard for the severe domestic and geopolitical costs of such risk aversion. The NRC utilizes safety models that posit there is no safe threshold of radiation exposure and that harm is directly proportional to the amount of exposure. Those models lack sound scientific basis and produce irrational results, such as requiring that nuclear plants protect against radiation below naturally occurring levels. A myopic policy of minimizing even trivial risks ignores the reality that substitute forms of energy production also carry risk, such as pollution with potentially deleterious health effects.”

     Nordhaus describes and critiques Huff’s position regarding the LNT and low-dose radiation:

“Huff has published a scathing critique of the reset, arguing that in the absence of new research proving that there are no negative health effects at low doses, and extensive public input into any proposed new standard, changing the NRC’s health standards “effectively demands that NRC’s decision-making be political rather than scientific” and is hence “unethical.”

“Huff insists that she is defending science over politics. But her position is, in fact, no less political than that of the Trump administration and far more extreme. She argues for a strict precautionary approach to radiological health risk while insisting that any change to this approach requires new research to falsify a hypothesis (LNT) that is both unproven and likely unfalsifiable. Meanwhile, she obfuscates the actual consequences of changes to public dose standards, which are minimal even accepting the LNT hypothesis, and claims, without evidence, that doing so will result in the loss of public confidence in nuclear energy.”

     Thus, he, correctly in my opinion, explains the issue as one where the Precautionary Principle has long prevailed over other ways of looking at low-level radiation. He says that changing the LNT and the unnecessary hampering of nuclear energy development are long overdue. He argues that humans are already exposed to low-dose radiation from the sun, radon, and anthropogenic sources such as X-rays and CT scans, and that cumulatively, these sources exceed levels that the public and workers at nuclear plants, even with occasional accidental exposure, are exposed to.

“Everybody is exposed to background radiation that is significantly higher than low dose exposures that they might be exposed to from nuclear reactors. And large numbers of people will die from cancers caused by other factors. As a result, even when tracking very large populations exposed to low doses of radiation over a very long time period, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to identify a statistically significant increase in cancer incidence or mortality above the background rate experienced by populations that have not been exposed to excess low dose radiation.”

     Huff calls for more research, as those wedded to the Precautionary Principle often do, but Nordhaus argues that more research is not likely to solve the epidemiological issue.

“Science simply can’t resolve the uncertainty about radiological health effects at low dose exposures. The decision to regulate low dose effects that are unavoidably speculative is no less political than the decision not to do so. Huff prefers a more precautionary approach than the Trump administration. But that is a conflict over social and political values, not science.”

     He argues that the Chernobyl disaster was an extreme outlier due to a poor nuclear energy design by the Soviets and a very poor response by them as well – for instance, iodine tablets were not given to many workers exposed to keep the meltdown under wraps. Even in those lights, the deaths and later cancers have been lower than would be expected by the LNT model.

     Nordhaus thinks the U.S. will likely raise the maximum allowable dose from nuclear plant operations that the public could be exposed to from 1 mSv to 5 mSv, twenty times lower than the 100mSv threshold for observable radiological health effects.

“Given the low dose and extreme uncertainty that there is any effect at all, there is no appreciable difference between a 1 mSv maximum dose and a 5 mSv maximum dose. Both doses are far higher than anything that any nuclear reactor would likely expose the public to in anything other than a worst-case accident and yet are still de minimis in relation to a dose that one might reasonably expect to have significant public health consequences.”

     Nordhaus also argues, as other nuclear advocates such as climate scientist James Hansen have also argued, that the air pollution from fossil fuels definitely kills people, and replacing some of that fossil fuel generation with nuclear generation will eliminate some of those deaths. Thus, more nuclear energy would likely result in overall better health outcomes for people. That is a reasonable argument that is difficult to argue against ands yet another situation where precaution might cause more harm than good. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that raising thresholds for low-dose exposure could actually help to save lives. He notes that Huff and others argue that raising exposure limits will undermine public confidence is simply a self-fulfilling prophecy, not based in reality. One might argue why we should accept deaths from fossil fuel pollution and not accept possible but not likely very slight increases in future cancers due to ionizing radiation exposure.

“The public confidence game, in these ways, is circular and well past its sell date. We are over fifty years past the era when the radiological risk norms that both Democrats and much of the nuclear industry continue to adhere to were established. The anti-nuclear movement is dead. The soft energy path is a fantasy. Fear of the unknown when it comes to nuclear energy and radiation may still be around, but new research suggests that it has substantially attenuated.”

“Arguing about speculative cancer deaths from speculative future low dose radiation releases that may not even exist, when verifiable harm is still being caused by fossil fuels, does not serve the public good.”

“Bottom-line, there is simply no reasonable basis for the claim that the changes to radiological health standards currently being discussed by the Trump administration and the NRC will be material to the public’s health. Nor that updating those standards will spark a backlash from the general public. It’s time to get on with the business of reform at the NRC and building a globally competitive 21st-century nuclear industry.”

     I wholeheartedly agree with Nordhaus that our nuclear energy industry has been so hampered by regulations, slow approvals, and unsubstantiated safety and public health precautions that it has been rendered wounded and dysfunctional, raising costs to unnecessarily high levels and increasing timelines for deployment unnecessarily. The raising of the exposure limit is both reasonable and a step in the right direction, but there are many other hurdles to overcome before the U.S. might see a real renaissance in nuclear energy.

References:

 

The Public Confidence Game: How Extreme Radiological Precaution Undermines Both Public Health and Public Confidence in Nuclear Energy. Ted Nordhaus. The Ecomodernist. February 9, 2026. The Public Confidence Game - by Ted Nordhaus

Loosening radiation exposure rules won’t speed up nuclear energy production: Relaxing radiation safety standards could place women and children at higher risks of health issues. Katy Huff. Scientific American. January 23, 2026. Weaker radiation limits will not help nuclear energy | Scientific American

Linear no-threshold model. Wikipedia. Linear no-threshold model - Wikipedia

Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission: A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 05/29/2025. Federal Register. Federal Register :: Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission