Mangano, an epidemiologist and executive director of the Radiation and Public Health Project, opined on nuclear power in late July 2025, but several scientific bodies, government agencies, and some members of the scientific community have criticized the research conducted by Joseph Mangano and the Radiation and Public Health Project (RPHP).
Cooling towers for #4, left, and #3 are seen at the nuclear reactor facility at the
Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Friday, May 31, 2024, in Waynesboro, Ga.
Mike Stewart, Associated Press
Here are some of the key criticisms of this article and others produced by Mangano:
- Lack of scientific credibility: The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has stated that RPHP's studies have little or no credibility with the scientific establishment, and that their claims are not supported by numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies. In 2003, The New York Times also reported that the group's work had little credibility with the scientific establishment.
- Methodological flaws: Small sample sizes and lack of control populations: Critics have pointed to small sample sizes in RPHP studies, such as the one suggesting a link between Strontium-90 levels in baby teeth and cancer, as well as the absence of appropriate control groups for comparison.
- Cherry-picking data: Some critics allege that RPHP studies selectively choose data that supports their predetermined conclusions.
- Ignoring other cancer risk factors: Critics note that other known cancer risk factors are not always considered in RPHP's analyses, potentially leading to incorrect attribution of cause and effect.
- Incorrect half-life for Strontium-90: Some critiques have pointed to the incorrect use of the half-life for strontium-90 in certain RPHP analyses.
- Questionable data validation: For instance, a study on Fukushima fallout and death rates was criticized for inconsistent city selection and lack of a plausible mechanism for immediate death from low-level radiation, according to Wikipedia.
- Confusing correlation with causation: A significant criticism is the tendency to assume that a statistical association automatically implies a cause-and-effect relationship.
- Disputed peer review and journal quality: While RPHP's work has appeared in peer-reviewed journals, some critics, like Sarah Epstein writing in Popular Science, have claimed these publications are inadequately evaluated and refer to the work as "junk science." For example, a 2013 paper published by RPHP was criticized for appearing in a journal accused of being a predatory publisher, according to Wikipedia.
- Absence of supporting evidence from environmental monitoring: The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), in response to the RPHP's "Tooth Fairy Project", concluded that environmental monitoring programs had not found any increase in radioactivity near nuclear facilities, according to GoUpstate.
- Inconsistent findings compared to established scientific consensus: The NRC maintains that there is no excess cancer risk from living near nuclear facilities, despite RPHP's claims, according to Wikipedia.
- Often conflates nuclear power in bombs with nuclear power to generate electicity: This is a typical method of fear pandering to the general public regarding the actual safety of nuclear power for the latter.
[This article has so many unfounded, misrepresented statements, the editors of the I2M Web Portal have rejected reviewing the the details within the article. The author's affiliation with the Bull. of Atomic Scientists and citing some of the professors and research associates at Stanford University further reduces his credibility.]
It is important to note that Mangano and RPHP stand by their research and argue that their work is legitimate and challenging the established scientific consensus on the safety of low-level radiation, according to Seven Days, [whatever that is. (For a well-founded view of radioactivity in context with nuclear power to generate electricity, see Conca (Numerous Years)).
[The Deseret News should be ashamed for publishing this article without checking its verasity. However, reading the subject article, would be a good exercise in exercizing critical thinking.]
Managed & Built by I2M Consulting, LLC | © 2010-
