4 ms·

The radiation hormesis theory[1] isn't widely accepted and shouldn't be used as a policy mechanism until there is much more known about its legitimacy and limit

The radiation hormesis theory[1] isn't widely accepted and shouldn't be used as a policy mechanism until there is much more known about its legitimacy and limitations. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis

pfdietz 8y ago
Also, if one abandons the idea that dose response is linear, there is the possibility that the slope is even larger in the low dose regime than LNT would predict. The conservative approach would then be to adopt stricter limits, not looser ones.
- sandwall 8y ago
  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6043938/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6043938/
  - pfdietz 8y ago
    Nothing there contradicts what I wrote. The notion seems to be the alternative to LNT is "radiation is not as bad at low doses as LNT". But there are many alternatives, all consistent with the evidence, and some would have the effect at low doses be worse. Radiation is not a criminal defendant that requires proof beyond reasonable doubt to be regulated.
    - acidburnNSA 8y ago
      Expensively regulating something well below any detectable effect could have negative consequences regardless of whether or not it is a criminal defendant. For instance, nuclear power plants are very nearly carbon free, yet they're expensive in part because of the Linear No-Threshold model of radiation dose at very low doses. If they were cheaper and we were fully decarbonized in 1995, we could avoid the other more detectable effects of global warming.
- sandwall 8y ago
  Airline workers are exposed to more radiation than "radiation workers." No regulations, and no alarmist theories of risk. -- Not saying it shouldn't be regulated, just that the regulations are inordinately strict and out of line with the evidence.
  - pfdietz 8y ago
    It's weird you think you're making an argument there. The problem is that radiation effects at low doses are very difficulty to detect. They could be very bad per unit of radiation and we could not now rule that out.
    - sandwall 8y ago
      You're assuming that an unknown risk is _worth_ spending money on to regulate. Don't know if there are boogey men, better protect against them. Costs be damned.
      - pfdietz 8y ago
        Your mindset is that the risk has to proven, as in a court of law, before it can be regulated. This is Lawyer Science, not actual science.
        sandwall 8y ago
        Science is not the regulation of the unknown. So, I dont understand your position at all. And not court of law, by evidence and observation, i.e. science.
        sandwall 8y ago
        LNT is lawyer science, low dose radiation risk (cancer induction) is stochastic. There is already a high prevalence of cancer in society. To protect against possible litigation we eliminate sources as a possible induction points. However, iff you developed a radiation induced cancer there's very little way to determine if your (mulitple) DNA errors were induced by cosmic rays or that time you walked past a bucket of naturally occurring radiation or due to those flights you took from Colorado to Brazil. The dose makes the poison, we protect (and waste inordinate amounts of time and money) against low levels -- because we're ignorant to the precise pathways of cancer induction.

pfdietz 8y ago

Also, if one abandons the idea that dose response is linear, there is the possibility that the slope is even larger in the low dose regime than LNT would predict. The conservative approach would then be to adopt stricter limits, not looser ones.

sandwall 8y ago
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6043938/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6043938/
- pfdietz 8y ago
  Nothing there contradicts what I wrote. The notion seems to be the alternative to LNT is "radiation is not as bad at low doses as LNT". But there are many alternatives, all consistent with the evidence, and some would have the effect at low doses be worse. Radiation is not a criminal defendant that requires proof beyond reasonable doubt to be regulated.
  - acidburnNSA 8y ago
    Expensively regulating something well below any detectable effect could have negative consequences regardless of whether or not it is a criminal defendant. For instance, nuclear power plants are very nearly carbon free, yet they're expensive in part because of the Linear No-Threshold model of radiation dose at very low doses. If they were cheaper and we were fully decarbonized in 1995, we could avoid the other more detectable effects of global warming.
sandwall 8y ago
Airline workers are exposed to more radiation than "radiation workers." No regulations, and no alarmist theories of risk. -- Not saying it shouldn't be regulated, just that the regulations are inordinately strict and out of line with the evidence.
- pfdietz 8y ago
  It's weird you think you're making an argument there. The problem is that radiation effects at low doses are very difficulty to detect. They could be very bad per unit of radiation and we could not now rule that out.
  - sandwall 8y ago
    You're assuming that an unknown risk is _worth_ spending money on to regulate. Don't know if there are boogey men, better protect against them. Costs be damned.
    - pfdietz 8y ago
      Your mindset is that the risk has to proven, as in a court of law, before it can be regulated. This is Lawyer Science, not actual science.
      - sandwall 8y ago
        Science is not the regulation of the unknown. So, I dont understand your position at all. And not court of law, by evidence and observation, i.e. science.
        sandwall 8y ago
        LNT is lawyer science, low dose radiation risk (cancer induction) is stochastic. There is already a high prevalence of cancer in society. To protect against possible litigation we eliminate sources as a possible induction points. However, iff you developed a radiation induced cancer there's very little way to determine if your (mulitple) DNA errors were induced by cosmic rays or that time you walked past a bucket of naturally occurring radiation or due to those flights you took from Colorado to Brazil. The dose makes the poison, we protect (and waste inordinate amounts of time and money) against low levels -- because we're ignorant to the precise pathways of cancer induction.