Today: 24.Mar.2017
About Us

Our People

Go Nuclear, Inc. is a non-profit organization based in Denver, Colorado, USA.

We work with professionals in nuclear energy, nuclear medicine, and low-dose radiation around the world. We also work with advocates outside these fields from students up to retired professionals in other fields.

The professionals and advocates are key to helping the public worldwide understand and appreciate clean, environmentally friendly, safe, reliable, affordable nuclear energy, radioisotopes for nuclear medicine, agriculture and industry and most of all overcome their fear of beneficial low-dose, low-dose rate radiation.

We build relationships around the world. Currently, we have connections with over 4,200 professionals and advocates in 111 countries, who can help us with global public education.

There are links to many websites about nuclear energy, nuclear medicine and low-dose radiation.

We have a five person Board of Directors in the United States, a ten person Board of Advisors in Canada, India, New Zealand, South Africa, and the United States, and a two person staff in Norway and the United States. Everyone is dedicated to helping you the public around the world learn about and appreciate the fascinating aspects of nuclear energy and nuclear science.

Topics We Cover

Nuclear Energy Today

Go Nuclear, Inc. believes nuclear energy today is awesome! Our current technology is robust, safe and economical. Unfortunately, it is usually perceived by the general public as something to be feared rather than revered. Our goal at Go Nuclear is to help alleviate those fears by offering up-to-date facts and expert information, in place of the over-exaggerated, ill-informed, and out-right fictional presentations in the media and on the web.

To understand where we are now and to realize our future we must first understand our history. One of the reasons nuclear energy gets a bad rap is its association with the atomic bomb. The atomic bomb was the first practical use of nuclear fission and a remarkable force of extremely frightening proportions. It led to a great fear of nuclear power as a source of energy, and at the same time spawned similar fears of radioactivity and associated radiation.

This legacy, and the perception that nuclear energy is like an atomic bomb just waiting to go off, have helped to enhance fears and sensationalize negative aspects of nuclear energy that are unfounded. Often, the ill-informed media have unwittingly scared the general public and an equally ill-informed government.

Watching news reports about anything nuclear makes it easy to understand why people are afraid, and how governments have taken drastically over-zealous measures to protect their citizens. As we professionals in the nuclear industry reveal to our neighbors where we work, we are often met with a surprised combination of concern and curiosity. People are concerned for our safety, and curious about any health conditions caused by working at a nuclear plant.

Then the glow-in-the-dark jokes begin…..

Most of us in the nuclear industry think these comments about nuclear radiation causing us (or our descendants) deformities are hilarious.

We can laugh and joke about it because we know how ridiculous it is. However, what is not funny is the real fear and genuine misconceptions behind the joking.

While we in the nuclear industry may “get” the ridiculousness of the jokes, we have come to realize that many do not. Misconceptions about nuclear energy and the radiation hazards it presents are plentiful. To make matters worse, the nuclear industry’s own efforts to help ease these fears have backfired.

The superior economics of nuclear power plants have been tempered by the high cost of providing extraordinary designs and operations. Instead of easing fear, our attention to safety only reinforced unwarranted fears in the public sector.

Perhaps the greatest challenge faced by supporters of nuclear energy today is the need to set misconceptions straight and eliminate unfounded fear. The articles on this web site attempt to do just that by offering up-to-date information on issues from professionals who have working knowledge, factual data, and extensive skills that make them an authority in their field.

Nuclear is the energy source of the cosmos, and it should grow as a principal energy source in the present and be the energy of our future.

Nuclear Energy Tomorrow (Future)

Nuclear power is an awesome energy source, and by comparison, most other energy sources are backward and primitive. Unless we allow fear and backward thinking to get in the way, nuclear energy is the answer for cheap, reliable, self-sustainable energy for all.

New design concepts offer the promise of even better nuclear energy which will be more economical with inherent safety and convenience built-in. As a society we are still grappling with the issue of nuclear waste, with siting a repository being one of the political footballs of the century. We can provide enhanced, safe, temporary storage and depend on new reactor concepts in the future to burn today’s “spent fuel” and produce energy for many decades.

New design concepts will move us into thorium technology which will supplement uranium technology and offer a virtually inexhaustible energy supply with inherent safety and superior economics. Under Nuclear Energy Future you will find articles and presentations that discuss these new designs and concepts as well as the inherent safety aspects of existing designs, and learn how they will be used to ramp up nuclear power for future generations.

Nuclear energy is a plentiful, inexpensive energy source that will help the world advance out of its current socio-economic imbalance.


One of the unfounded accusations hurled at the nuclear industry following our nuclear bomb legacy is that radioisotopes are dangerous, unnatural and in no way beneficial. People who have had their lives saved by medical radioisotopes would disagree. Radioisotopes are all around us in natural forms. Even natural plutonium exists. Radioisotopes and radioactivity have always been a pervasive part of our environment and would continue to be even without any nuclear technology. The articles under the Radioisotopes heading deal with the nature and use of radioisotopes.

Radiation, Low Dose and Low Dose Rate

There is evidence that we actually cannot live without a little radiation.

Historically it was believed that any amount of radiation was bad for people. All research was aligned with this idea and the first model created to gauge a person’s heath risk due to radiation exposure was the Linear, No-Threshold model. This model supposes a linear relationship between the likelihood of developing health effects (e.g. latent cancers) where this likelihood starts at zero for zero exposure and rises in linear proportion to exposure thereafter. Out of this grew the design and operational concept of ALARA, As Low as Reasonably Achievable.

What ALARA failed to take into account was the fact that we are all exposed to radiation everyday via natural sources such as cosmic rays, natural isotopes in the soil or rock, and even gases from uranium deposits. Most of us have been subjected to radiation in X-rays and other diagnostic procedures which adds to this constant low-level exposure. Furthermore, there is considerable evidence that the Linear, No-Threshold model is incorrect.

The possibility of meeting anyone who has worked in the nuclear industry who was diagnosed with cancer due to radiation exposure at a nuclear plant, or a doctor who has treated such a patient, is slim to none. However, there are many nuclear professionals and others who will confirm that they were cured of cancer using radiation.

As nuclear energy and nuclear medicine move forward we must reject the notion of Linear, No-Threshold radiation effects. Articles and presentations under the Radiation Low-Dose heading offer insights that will explain the justification of rejecting ALARA.

  • Latest
  • Dax Contreras, digital Director, Editor and contributor…
  • Amelia Frahm holds a Public Relations degree…
  • Fritz Vahrenholt, PhD Chemistry: Is the program…
  • James Kennedy, Political Economics and Public Policy,…
  • Michael Shellenberger, Founder & President of Environmental…