Image: It would be nice if all contaminants could be seen 
(This color is actually caused by Manganese and not forever chemicals)  !

Blog Post Sponsor:  Jase Medical 

Grok's Response

We ask Grok to Summarize the Article, "The Ripple Effect of Fraudulent Science " this was the response:

The article, written by Susan Goldhaber MPH and published on September 3, 2025, argues that U.S. regulatory policies on chemical and radiation risks have been fundamentally flawed for over 50 years due to a scientific misrepresentation originating in the 1950s at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

This error led to the adoption of the linear non-threshold (LNT) model, which assumes any exposure to chemicals or radiation increases cancer risk proportionally, over the threshold dose-response model, which posits no increased risk below a certain exposure level.

Key Arguments

• The fraud involved flawed mouse experiments that influenced the 1956 Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation (BEAR) I Genetics Panel, including Nobel laureates, to switch models.

Despite corrections acknowledged by the Department of Energy in the 1990s, agencies like the DOE, National Academy of Sciences, and EPA failed to update policies or publicize the errors.

• Researchers like Dr. Ed Calabrese and whistleblower Dr. Paul Selby have documented this in publications from 2022 and 2025, highlighting how the scientific establishment perpetuated the issue.

• The article calls for the current administration to form an expert panel to correct these policies and commit to "gold-standard science."

Examples:

• Ethylene Oxide Regulations: The EPA's 2024 rule, based on LNT, sets cancer risk thresholds at extremely low levels (e.g., 0.1 parts per trillion), potentially shutting down medical sterilization facilities, despite natural body levels being much higher. 

A threshold model would yield far lower risk estimates.

• CT Scans and Cancer: Predictions of one million excess cancers from CT scans over the next decade rely on LNT, but actual cancer rates have declined despite increased scan usage; the threshold model aligns better with real data. 
  

Note: (added by the Know Your H20 Team - we might suggest a review of the issue of the ozone hole, 2.5 micron Particles, and climate change and CO2).

Conclusions and Implications 

The persistent use of the LNT model has overestimated cancer risks, distorting regulations, harming industries, and eroding public trust in science.

The author urges immediate action to acknowledge the fraud, unwind flawed policies, and base future decisions on accurate data, questioning if agencies like the EPA will finally address this after half a century.

Why?  I think it is critical to not only evaluate and learn how the science is generated, but how data is reviewed, modified, and formed into a message that results in guidelines, standards, recommendations, and laws.  It is clear, if the process is biased, in either direction the result may be a regulation or standard that could under protect a community  or over protect a community that results in huge economic consequences or could generate fear. 

If you have any comments for feedback about this article - please contact us, we would be happy to add the content or add additional blog posts on this content. 

Suggested Readings

The Ripple Effect of Fraudulent Science

CO2 and the Climate Discussion

Particles and Scare Pollution

Plastics  

Forever Chemicals and PFAS - Our Approach

Action Items

Get Tested: PFAS Testing of Your Drinking Water

Drinking Water and Microplastics

Change Lifestyle and Reduce Consumer Product Exposure