3 ms·
Good article, until they ask the usual suspects and get this answer: no2nuclearpower says, "there is no such thing as an absolutely safe level of radiation: al
by 08-15 6y ago
Good article, until they ask the usual suspects and get this answer:
no2nuclearpower says, "there is no such thing as an absolutely safe level of radiation: all exposures no matter how small entail some risk - even background radiation."
This is absolute nonsense. If an increase in exposure at these low doses mattered, we'd see a correlation between background exposure and cancer rates, but we don't. More importantly, accidental experiments like the Taiwanese radioactive apartment buildings show, that an increase of exposure at low dose rates is actually beneficial.
That BBC quotes antinuclear SIFs uncritically, as if they had any actual expertise or were scientists, in my opinion invalidates the whole article. It's probably "for balance", but really, talking to the village idiot doesn't balance anything.
- matthewmacleod 6y agoThis is absolute nonsense No, it’s not. It might not be accurate, but to my knowledge the linear-no-threshold model is still subject to support and opposition from various bodies.
- 08-15 6y agoYes, regulatory and activist bodies. And calling something that is basically religious dogma a "model", is an insult to models.
- pmiller2 6y agoIf you want to get right down to it, there might even be a benefit to being exposed to certain levels of ionizing radiation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis
- pfdietz 6y ago> If an increase in exposure at these low doses mattered, we'd see a correlation between background exposure and cancer rates, but we don't. No, because the marginal increase at low doses, as seen in the natural background, under LNT is so low that it's not statistically visible. The evidence we have is even consistent with models in which the effect/dose at low exposures is HIGHER than in LNT (for example, if there are repair mechanisms that are induced at sufficiently high doses.) Advocates of hormesis don't point out that a concave downward curve at low doses that this sort of effect might produce would increase the number of cancers from a nuclear accident, vs. what the LNT would predict.