3 ms·

> there is no study that links low level ionizing radiation to any harmful effect on humans This does not mean much. The direct destruction effect of strong ra

by effie 7y ago

> there is no study that links low level ionizing radiation to any harmful effect on humans This does not mean much. The direct destruction effect of strong radiation on cells is cumulative, the longer you're exposed, the greater harm done. Given the physics and biology knowledge, our best bet so far is that effect of weak but extraordinary radiation is cumulative as well. It will increase probability of cancer and leukaemia. Alpha radiation is lethal too if you get its source into your body.

vonmoltke 7y ago
> This does not mean much. It does in the context of places, like those mentioned above, with naturally elevated levels of background radiation. The absence of studies out of these areas with links to harmful health effects is evidence that such levels are likely safe.
- effie 7y ago
  Again, absence of evidence does not mean much. Nobody is expecting the workers to fall down after minutes of work there, the effects of low level radiation are subtle but given the known mechanism or damage there is no basis for calling such levels safe. Workers working with radioactive tailings may suffer harmful long-term effects. But it is hard to causally connect old age health issues with presence in these areas decades ago. You cannot conclude "likely safe" from absence of information or because the workers seem fine. You would have to do the studies, which as you say, probably were not made.
- freeflight 7y ago
  > The absence of studies out of these areas with links to harmful health effects is evidence that such levels are likely safe. That's such an odd wording, making it sound like there's only an absence of studies showing harmful health effects. When in actuality there's an absence of studies, period. That's why the commentary about the German KiKK study suggests also conducting such studies in the US. If those were already a thing, then there'd be no reason to suggest conducting them?
ChuckMcM 7y ago
"The direct destruction effect of strong radiation on cells is cumulative, the longer you're exposed, the greater harm done." This statement is not actually true in the general case, and that is part of the problem. It, like many others involving the effect of radiation on people, originated in the late 50's when there was little data and it was difficult to experiment. A great article on that is here (https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/03/11/it-sounds-crazy-but-fukushima-chernobyl-and-three-mile-island-show-why-nuclear-is-inherently-safe/#1b4ff45c1688 https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/03/11...) but in a nutshell, the more we learn about DNA the more we discover that having evolved in a "low level radiation" environment it does a really good job of completely repairing/eradicating the damage done by low to moderate levels of radiation. That does not say you can't get more harm faster than your DNA can fix it, which clearly you can. But the level where the damage is "cumulative" (aka permanent) is much much higher than we previously estimated based on our limited data. Given modern tissue engineering it is conceivable could could actually do some solid experimental work in the field with a tunable radiation source and a set of growing tissue samples. Nobody has done that yet that I can find (I don't have access to a wide variety of journals in Biology that I do in some of the other sciences) but if they are please post their research here.
- effie 7y ago
  You've got some points on regeneration, but notice I wrote strong radiation. For weak radiation the issue is complicated, the effects develop over decades. Of course LNT model is under legitimate suspicion due to regenerative capabilities but LNT model is just about probability of cancer. It does not take into account other effects of radiation. The survivors of Chernobyl suffer different harms, for example one interview I read recently reported one survivor of high doses having to go for regular skin transplants. The radiation health effects are complex and the whole issue is just far more complicated than the Forbes biased opinion piece claims (although it does make a good point of taking the immediate death toll in perspective).

by effie 7y ago

vonmoltke 7y ago

> This does not mean much. It does in the context of places, like those mentioned above, with naturally elevated levels of background radiation. The absence of studies out of these areas with links to harmful health effects is evidence that such levels are likely safe.

effie 7y ago
Again, absence of evidence does not mean much. Nobody is expecting the workers to fall down after minutes of work there, the effects of low level radiation are subtle but given the known mechanism or damage there is no basis for calling such levels safe. Workers working with radioactive tailings may suffer harmful long-term effects. But it is hard to causally connect old age health issues with presence in these areas decades ago. You cannot conclude "likely safe" from absence of information or because the workers seem fine. You would have to do the studies, which as you say, probably were not made.
freeflight 7y ago
> The absence of studies out of these areas with links to harmful health effects is evidence that such levels are likely safe. That's such an odd wording, making it sound like there's only an absence of studies showing harmful health effects. When in actuality there's an absence of studies, period. That's why the commentary about the German KiKK study suggests also conducting such studies in the US. If those were already a thing, then there'd be no reason to suggest conducting them?

ChuckMcM 7y ago

"The direct destruction effect of strong radiation on cells is cumulative, the longer you're exposed, the greater harm done." This statement is not actually true in the general case, and that is part of the problem. It, like many others involving the effect of radiation on people, originated in the late 50's when there was little data and it was difficult to experiment. A great article on that is here (https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/03/11/it-sounds-crazy-but-fukushima-chernobyl-and-three-mile-island-show-why-nuclear-is-inherently-safe/#1b4ff45c1688 https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/03/11...) but in a nutshell, the more we learn about DNA the more we discover that having evolved in a "low level radiation" environment it does a really good job of completely repairing/eradicating the damage done by low to moderate levels of radiation. That does not say you can't get more harm faster than your DNA can fix it, which clearly you can. But the level where the damage is "cumulative" (aka permanent) is much much higher than we previously estimated based on our limited data. Given modern tissue engineering it is conceivable could could actually do some solid experimental work in the field with a tunable radiation source and a set of growing tissue samples. Nobody has done that yet that I can find (I don't have access to a wide variety of journals in Biology that I do in some of the other sciences) but if they are please post their research here.

effie 7y ago
You've got some points on regeneration, but notice I wrote strong radiation. For weak radiation the issue is complicated, the effects develop over decades. Of course LNT model is under legitimate suspicion due to regenerative capabilities but LNT model is just about probability of cancer. It does not take into account other effects of radiation. The survivors of Chernobyl suffer different harms, for example one interview I read recently reported one survivor of high doses having to go for regular skin transplants. The radiation health effects are complex and the whole issue is just far more complicated than the Forbes biased opinion piece claims (although it does make a good point of taking the immediate death toll in perspective).