4 ms·

Oh yeah I didn't mean to imply that the fringe group numbers are not published. There are a few groups who have published very high numbers. They are very fring

Oh yeah I didn't mean to imply that the fringe group numbers are not published. There are a few groups who have published very high numbers. They are very fringe. For these big-science things you have to look at meta-analyses. An idea with a few publications should not be weighted evenly alongside one with thousands. That's my beef with the show. The assumptions you have to believe to believe those numbers run into big trouble when you compare low natural background radiation areas with high background ones. For example, Ramsar, Iran has ~100 mSv/year background, compared to 3 mSv/yr in the USA. And Guarapari, Brazil has up to 30 mSv/yr. And smaller variations exist throughout the world. Yet we don't find statistically significant differences in cancer rates as a function of dose rate at any of these levels. So taking a dose rate far lower than these values, using a unjustifiably conservative dose-to-death conversion factor, and multiplying by large numbers of people is not a great method. This is what the UNSCEAR people came out and said in their recent reports. See section 3.1.f in the 2012 UNSCEAR report [1]. The UNSCEAR team also stopped saying their own 4000 and 9000 numbers because they also relied upon using the unjustifiable method of multiplying low doses by large populations too. [1] https://www.unscear.org/docs/publications/2012/UNSCEAR_2012_Report.pdf https://www.unscear.org/docs/publications/2012/UNSCEAR_2012_... EDIT: Adjusted dose rates in Iran below absolute peak (200 mSv/yr) via input in comment below. And correction section reference in UNSCEAR report

throwaway_pdp09 7y ago
> Oh yeah I didn't mean to imply that the fringe group numbers are not published "they disagree with me so they must be fringe" > Ramsar, Iran has ~200 mSv/year background from wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsar%2C_Mazandaran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsar%2C_Mazandaran "Record levels were found in a house where the effective radiation dose due to external radiation was 131 mSv/a, and the committed dose from radon was 72 mSv/a.[8] This unique case..." Note the word unique. So your claim for that area is in fact higher than the highest single location they found (one house), as I read it. > See recommendation 1e I would if I could find it. "1e" doesn't appear in that document. Could you quote it for us? Thanks. > The UNSCEAR team also stopped saying... Specifically, where?
- acidburnNSA 7y ago
  > "they disagree with me so they must be fringe" That is not what I am saying. I am saying that they disagree with vast institutions of scientists who explain quite clearly in the above-linked report why they are wrong. Regarding different background levels, I'm sorry if my numbers were not precise (I was reading them off of this DOE chart [1]), but the point remains that there are variation across at least 1 and almost 2 orders of magnitude in the world's natural radiation at dose rates far higher than what Greenpeace has used to make shocking Chernobyl estimates that can be used to robustly throw out the high-number estimates anti-nuclear institutions have used for years to scare people. Does that make sense? Greenpeace is literally taking dose rates lower than US average background and saying that any increment even below that level will cause more Chernobyl deaths. This is unjustifiable by any stretch of any imagination. Happy to quote. Sorry about not being specific enough about where it was. I even got the section wrong. The quote is from page 10 in the report (pg 18 in the pdf). Section 3.1.f: "In general, increases in the incidence of health effects in populations cannot be attributed reliably to chronic exposure to radiation at levels that are typical of the global average background levels of radiation. This is because of the uncertainties associated with the assessment of risks at low doses, the current absence of radiation-specific biomarkers for health effects and the insufficient statistical power of epidemiological studies. Therefore, the Scientific Committee does not recommend multiplying very low doses by large numbers of individuals to estimate numbers of radiation-induced health effects within a population exposed to incremental doses at levels equivalent to or lower than natural background levels; " [1] https://i.imgur.com/TDaZI08.jpg https://i.imgur.com/TDaZI08.jpg Dose chart (sourced from https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2018/01/f46/doe-ionizing-radiation-dose-ranges-jan-2018.pdf https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2018/01/f46/doe-ioni...)
  - throwaway_pdp09 7y ago
    Thank you for clarifying.
  - Retric 7y ago
    People have a ~50% chance of developing cancer and a ~20% chance of dying from cancer in their lifetimes. This means there are vast numbers of people very close to getting cancer at any time and there is no population wide safe exposure level. To actually disprove the theory you need an experiment that can detect changes in cancer rate on the order of 40k per billion or 0.004% which have simply not been preformed. Saying ‘we can’t measure it therefore it does not exist’ might be acceptable if it where the oldest theory. Except it’s not, people want to overthrow the existing idea with zero direct supporting evidence which is simply unscientific. If you want to supplant a theory then it’s on you to provide evidence that the existing theory is wrong, otherwise I can say low exposure levels are more dangerous because high levels result in multiple indecent cancers at the same time in some people. Therefore the risks increase at lower levels do to probability theory and we already agreed no evidence was needed. PS: I am not saying my example is correct, just the argument your making is faulty.
08-15 7y ago
> In the published estimates shown, studies have utilised a methodology termed the ‘linear no-threshold model’ (LNT). LNT is neither a method, nor is it a model. It is an assumption, which happens to be convenient for regulatory purposes. Let me quickly explain how it works. Caffeine is poisonous with an LD50 of around 15g or about 100 cups of coffee. If two people each drink 100 cups of coffee, one of them is expected to die. If we now apply the "method" of LNT, it follows that if 200 people each drink one cup of coffee, one of them is expected to die. Moreover, since 85% of adult Americans consume on average 164mg of caffeine daily, which is roughly 30t in total, we can conclude that caffeine kills one million Americans every single day. Now you can evaluate for yourself whether LNT makes any sense.
- jhayward 7y ago
  This is a ridiculously bad analogy. It’s so bad, I would expect it only from right-wing disinformation efforts who are self-parodies of incorrectness. There is no correspondence between an acute chemical poisoning mechanism and the mechanism of ionizing radiation induced illness for longer-term effects. A more correct analogy for LNT, indeed, a “model”, would be a rifle fired at random in to a room. If there is one person in the room, there is say a 1 in 5,000 chance the bullet will hit them. If they are hit, there is a 1 in 10 chance they will die. If you fire the rifle a million times in to a million rooms, you get a linear scale-up and expect 200 people to be hit, and 20 of them to die. It scales linearly, with no threshold below which the mortality rate declines. If you pack the room with more people the probability of hitting someone goes up, etc. Now there are indeed well-based arguments to say that there are indeed thresholds of effects of ionizing radiation, including studies where low ambient levels are present in populations, to studies attempting to show radiation hormesis effects. Those studies have not displaced LNT thus far because they are not clearly conclusive in understanding what they are saying. LNT has been the standard for 70 years not because it was promulgated by idiots, but rather because it is a conservative protective measure designed by the best minds of the time, using the best information that was reliably known. So please, discuss hormesis, show alternative models, etc., but please do not try to impugn the model as stemming from idiots - the Manhattan-era physicists were certainly miles smarter than anyone reading HN today - and has not been displaced yet because no one understands a better model of how to protect people from injury and death.

throwaway_pdp09 7y ago

> Oh yeah I didn't mean to imply that the fringe group numbers are not published "they disagree with me so they must be fringe" > Ramsar, Iran has ~200 mSv/year background from wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsar%2C_Mazandaran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsar%2C_Mazandaran "Record levels were found in a house where the effective radiation dose due to external radiation was 131 mSv/a, and the committed dose from radon was 72 mSv/a.[8] This unique case..." Note the word unique. So your claim for that area is in fact higher than the highest single location they found (one house), as I read it. > See recommendation 1e I would if I could find it. "1e" doesn't appear in that document. Could you quote it for us? Thanks. > The UNSCEAR team also stopped saying... Specifically, where?

acidburnNSA 7y ago
> "they disagree with me so they must be fringe" That is not what I am saying. I am saying that they disagree with vast institutions of scientists who explain quite clearly in the above-linked report why they are wrong. Regarding different background levels, I'm sorry if my numbers were not precise (I was reading them off of this DOE chart [1]), but the point remains that there are variation across at least 1 and almost 2 orders of magnitude in the world's natural radiation at dose rates far higher than what Greenpeace has used to make shocking Chernobyl estimates that can be used to robustly throw out the high-number estimates anti-nuclear institutions have used for years to scare people. Does that make sense? Greenpeace is literally taking dose rates lower than US average background and saying that any increment even below that level will cause more Chernobyl deaths. This is unjustifiable by any stretch of any imagination. Happy to quote. Sorry about not being specific enough about where it was. I even got the section wrong. The quote is from page 10 in the report (pg 18 in the pdf). Section 3.1.f: "In general, increases in the incidence of health effects in populations cannot be attributed reliably to chronic exposure to radiation at levels that are typical of the global average background levels of radiation. This is because of the uncertainties associated with the assessment of risks at low doses, the current absence of radiation-specific biomarkers for health effects and the insufficient statistical power of epidemiological studies. Therefore, the Scientific Committee does not recommend multiplying very low doses by large numbers of individuals to estimate numbers of radiation-induced health effects within a population exposed to incremental doses at levels equivalent to or lower than natural background levels; " [1] https://i.imgur.com/TDaZI08.jpg https://i.imgur.com/TDaZI08.jpg Dose chart (sourced from https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2018/01/f46/doe-ionizing-radiation-dose-ranges-jan-2018.pdf https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2018/01/f46/doe-ioni...)
- throwaway_pdp09 7y ago
  Thank you for clarifying.
- Retric 7y ago
  People have a ~50% chance of developing cancer and a ~20% chance of dying from cancer in their lifetimes. This means there are vast numbers of people very close to getting cancer at any time and there is no population wide safe exposure level. To actually disprove the theory you need an experiment that can detect changes in cancer rate on the order of 40k per billion or 0.004% which have simply not been preformed. Saying ‘we can’t measure it therefore it does not exist’ might be acceptable if it where the oldest theory. Except it’s not, people want to overthrow the existing idea with zero direct supporting evidence which is simply unscientific. If you want to supplant a theory then it’s on you to provide evidence that the existing theory is wrong, otherwise I can say low exposure levels are more dangerous because high levels result in multiple indecent cancers at the same time in some people. Therefore the risks increase at lower levels do to probability theory and we already agreed no evidence was needed. PS: I am not saying my example is correct, just the argument your making is faulty.

08-15 7y ago

> In the published estimates shown, studies have utilised a methodology termed the ‘linear no-threshold model’ (LNT). LNT is neither a method, nor is it a model. It is an assumption, which happens to be convenient for regulatory purposes. Let me quickly explain how it works. Caffeine is poisonous with an LD50 of around 15g or about 100 cups of coffee. If two people each drink 100 cups of coffee, one of them is expected to die. If we now apply the "method" of LNT, it follows that if 200 people each drink one cup of coffee, one of them is expected to die. Moreover, since 85% of adult Americans consume on average 164mg of caffeine daily, which is roughly 30t in total, we can conclude that caffeine kills one million Americans every single day. Now you can evaluate for yourself whether LNT makes any sense.

jhayward 7y ago
This is a ridiculously bad analogy. It’s so bad, I would expect it only from right-wing disinformation efforts who are self-parodies of incorrectness. There is no correspondence between an acute chemical poisoning mechanism and the mechanism of ionizing radiation induced illness for longer-term effects. A more correct analogy for LNT, indeed, a “model”, would be a rifle fired at random in to a room. If there is one person in the room, there is say a 1 in 5,000 chance the bullet will hit them. If they are hit, there is a 1 in 10 chance they will die. If you fire the rifle a million times in to a million rooms, you get a linear scale-up and expect 200 people to be hit, and 20 of them to die. It scales linearly, with no threshold below which the mortality rate declines. If you pack the room with more people the probability of hitting someone goes up, etc. Now there are indeed well-based arguments to say that there are indeed thresholds of effects of ionizing radiation, including studies where low ambient levels are present in populations, to studies attempting to show radiation hormesis effects. Those studies have not displaced LNT thus far because they are not clearly conclusive in understanding what they are saying. LNT has been the standard for 70 years not because it was promulgated by idiots, but rather because it is a conservative protective measure designed by the best minds of the time, using the best information that was reliably known. So please, discuss hormesis, show alternative models, etc., but please do not try to impugn the model as stemming from idiots - the Manhattan-era physicists were certainly miles smarter than anyone reading HN today - and has not been displaced yet because no one understands a better model of how to protect people from injury and death.