PIKETON, OH – For decades, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has assured communities surrounding its nuclear sites that everything is under control, that radiation levels are "far below health and safety standards." But a bombshell revelation from 2019, coupled with chilling federal lawsuits, paints a far more disturbing picture: one where the very data meant to protect us has allegedly been manipulated, and the science behind "safe" radiation is being exposed as a dangerous farce.
On May 28, 2019, Fluor-BWXT Portsmouth, LLC (FBP), a DOE contractor at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Piketon, Ohio, quietly admitted to a "minor miscalculation." This "minor" error, they claimed, led to the "under-reporting of certain individual dose rates" in annual environmental reports stretching back to 2001. That's nearly two decades of potentially suppressed radiation exposure data, casually dismissed by the DOE as still "far below health and safety standards."
But a growing chorus of independent scientists and whistleblowers says this isn't just a "minor miscalculation." It's a symptom of a deeply flawed system, one designed to downplay risk and protect the nuclear industry at the expense of human lives.
The Dose of Deception: A Systemic Problem?
At the time DOE Under Secretary for Science, Paul Dabbar, penned a reassuring letter to the Pike County Health Commissioner in June 2019, promising immediate notification if data exceeded standards, the reality on the ground appears far more insidious. This isn't the first time the DOE has been accused of playing fast and loose with radiation data.
A damning federal lawsuit, Walburn vs. Centrus, filed in September 2020, alleges a systemic conspiracy to "alter or destroy medical records, suppress information regarding received radiation dose, suppress information regarding the release of radioactive contaminants." This isn't about an accidental spreadsheet error; it's about a deliberate "sanitization" of safety records at the Portsmouth site (PORTS) going back to the Goodyear Atomic days.
The lawsuit claims that dosimetry badges showing high doses were routinely deemed "defective," their readings "assigned to one of 10 random bar codes taped to the wall." This "bucket dose" account effectively laundered high radiation exposures, transferring them to "office staff or other non radiation workers" to fraudulently suppress actual individual doses for security personnel and other highly exposed workers. This isn't just unethical; it's a criminal act that directly impacts sick nuclear workers seeking compensation for their illnesses.
The Flawed Science: Why "Safe" Might Be Deadly
Beyond the alleged cover-ups, independent research is tearing apart the very scientific models the nuclear industry relies on to declare its operations "safe." Dr. Chris Busby, a renowned radiation expert, presented a scathing review in 2019, arguing that the methodology supporting the current radiation risk model for cancer – the Linear No Threshold (LNT) Absorbed Dose model – is "insecure."
Busby contends that the legal limits on internal exposures to common radionuclides are "incorrect by several orders of magnitude." This isn't a minor tweak; it means "hundreds of millions of people will have developed cancer due to internal exposures from atmospheric testing fallout, nuclear accidents, Depleted Uranium and releases from nuclear sites."
His critique strikes at the heart of the "Absorbed Dose" concept itself. Introduced in 1945, this metric, he argues, arbitrarily diluted the localized, intense energy of internal radioactive particles into a kilogram of tissue. The result? The devastating impact of a single alpha decay on a few cells (a staggering 500mSv) is dismissed as "irrelevant" once averaged across a large mass.
Furthermore, Busby details how the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) – the most influential organization in the field – made "arbitrary, capricious and unscientific" decisions in establishing weighting factors for alpha emitters and defining the "size or mass of the tissue" for dilution. These decisions, he asserts, were crucial in allowing the continued expansion of the nuclear industry and military by minimizing perceived risks.
The Unseen Casualties: From Hiroshima to Piketon
The implications are terrifying. Busby and other independent researchers point to discrepancies in studies like the Lifespan Study (LSS) of Japanese A-bomb survivors, the "Gold Standard" for radiation risk. He argues that the LSS failed to account for "black rain" exposures, which delivered significant internal doses of uranium particles, leading to cancer even in those deemed "unexposed" by official metrics. The Japanese government's recent concession to compensate "black rain" victims, despite zero external dose, implicitly acknowledges the LSS's inadequacy.
The evidence doesn't stop there. Increases in childhood leukemia near nuclear sites, baffling cancer clusters around Chernobyl and Fukushima that official bodies dismiss as "unpredictable" by their models, and even increased cancer rates in nuclear workers after adjusting for the "healthy worker effect," all suggest a systematic underestimation of risk.
The data from the 1959-1963 atmospheric weapons test fallout, particularly in Wales, further underscores Busby's claims. Cancer rates in Wales, which received higher Sr-90 fallout, significantly increased years later, directly correlating with the earlier radiation exposure. This suggests a "300-fold" error factor in official dose calculations for internal contamination.
What Now?
The DOE's admission of "miscalculation" in 2019, coupled with the serious allegations of falsified records in federal lawsuits and the growing scientific dissent, should send shivers down the spine of any community living near a nuclear facility. When the very watchdogs tasked with protecting public health are accused of obscuring data and relying on questionable science, trust erodes.
The truth is, the current radiation risk model, built on outdated assumptions and allegedly manipulated data, may be condemning millions to preventable cancers. Until there's a genuine commitment to transparency, independent scientific review, and a re-evaluation of what truly constitutes "safe" radiation exposure, communities like Piketon will remain in the shadow of a deeply dangerous secret. The stakes are too high to keep accepting the official narrative without critical scrutiny.
Add comment
Comments