4 ms·

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 i

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.

acidburnNSA 7y ago
The way LNT works with radiation is that we knew a death-dose curve from the atomic bombs in Japan at extremely high dose. This was acute radiation poisoning (comparable to chemical poisoning). This response curve is precisely the thing that has been extrapolated down to miniscule doses just above background. The analogy you are critiquing with acute chemical dose is right on. The rifle fired at random in a room analogy is vastly more flawed and does not take into account how the body deals with radiation. There are cell damage events all the time, and there are repair mechanisms that fix them in the body at a baseline rate. These repair mechanisms make radioactive cell damage look a lot like chemical damage at low levels. Radiation has been a part of the universe forever. 50% of the internal heat of the earth is from radiation. Space is radioactive. Cosmic rays rain down on us all day and all night. The body can and does deal with this, up to a point, after which it becomes inundated. Thus, a small boost in radiation, far below natural background, cannot be expected to increase deaths.
08-15 7y ago
> It’s so bad, I would expect it only from right-wing disinformation efforts who are self-parodies of incorrectness. That's not very helpful. It would be helful, if you explained how it is a bad analogy for ionizing radiation. (By the way, that wasn't even the point. I merely explained LNT in a context where everyone immediately recognizes it as ridiculously wrong.) > do not try to impugn the model as stemming from idiots I would never! The guy who came up with LNT ten years after the conclusion of the Manhattan project, Herman Muller, was not an idiot! He was a fraud.

acidburnNSA 7y ago

The way LNT works with radiation is that we knew a death-dose curve from the atomic bombs in Japan at extremely high dose. This was acute radiation poisoning (comparable to chemical poisoning). This response curve is precisely the thing that has been extrapolated down to miniscule doses just above background. The analogy you are critiquing with acute chemical dose is right on. The rifle fired at random in a room analogy is vastly more flawed and does not take into account how the body deals with radiation. There are cell damage events all the time, and there are repair mechanisms that fix them in the body at a baseline rate. These repair mechanisms make radioactive cell damage look a lot like chemical damage at low levels. Radiation has been a part of the universe forever. 50% of the internal heat of the earth is from radiation. Space is radioactive. Cosmic rays rain down on us all day and all night. The body can and does deal with this, up to a point, after which it becomes inundated. Thus, a small boost in radiation, far below natural background, cannot be expected to increase deaths.

08-15 7y ago

> It’s so bad, I would expect it only from right-wing disinformation efforts who are self-parodies of incorrectness. That's not very helpful. It would be helful, if you explained how it is a bad analogy for ionizing radiation. (By the way, that wasn't even the point. I merely explained LNT in a context where everyone immediately recognizes it as ridiculously wrong.) > do not try to impugn the model as stemming from idiots I would never! The guy who came up with LNT ten years after the conclusion of the Manhattan project, Herman Muller, was not an idiot! He was a fraud.