3 ms·

I was referring primarily to reprocessing through IFR, but I can see you point that the proceeding steps carry risk. I think the issue with LNT is that is ISN'

by ch4s3 5y ago

I was referring primarily to reprocessing through IFR, but I can see you point that the proceeding steps carry risk. I think the issue with LNT is that is ISN'T supported by evidence and observationally in real life it seems to be wrong. I would prefer a PRA based approach that is focused on minimizing probable real world risks.

pfdietz 5y ago
LNT is consistent with the evidence. And it's a simple theory, and it makes sense mechanistically. What more do you want? You could concoct a more complicated theory, but Ockham's Razor says no. I also wonder why you think this approach would be a good thing for nuclear. There's an assumption in these pro-nuclear LNT arguments that LNT would be replaced by something (hormesis or whatever) that would make radiation less dangerous. But there's no reason to think that would happen. Radiation is not a criminal defendant that will be presumed innocent until proven guilty. BTW, the NRC recently denied petitions to reconsider LNT. Their responses to the arguments are worth reading. https://www.regulations.gov/document/NRC-2015-0057-0671 https://www.regulations.gov/document/NRC-2015-0057-0671
- ch4s3 5y ago
  I've read most of that report, and I think you could summarize it as saying that LNT critics haven't established scientifically a threshold at which there is 0 tumor risk, and that the state of current research is mixed. I don't buy into hormesis, as the evidence isn't well established. The main issue to me is that ALARA seems overly strict compared to the way small radation exposure is treated across other industries and aspects of daily life. I need to read more about the recent Hiroshima study they mentioned.
  - pfdietz 5y ago
    What was particularly damning was where they pointed out how petitioners were cherrypicking evidence that supported their position, even if later more complete data on the same subjects didn't.
    - ch4s3 5y ago
      I need to dig in more and reevaluate my position. I’m largely informed on this by Rip Anderson and to some extent James Mahaffey. I need to go a bit broader and deeper.

by ch4s3 5y ago

pfdietz 5y ago

LNT is consistent with the evidence. And it's a simple theory, and it makes sense mechanistically. What more do you want? You could concoct a more complicated theory, but Ockham's Razor says no. I also wonder why you think this approach would be a good thing for nuclear. There's an assumption in these pro-nuclear LNT arguments that LNT would be replaced by something (hormesis or whatever) that would make radiation less dangerous. But there's no reason to think that would happen. Radiation is not a criminal defendant that will be presumed innocent until proven guilty. BTW, the NRC recently denied petitions to reconsider LNT. Their responses to the arguments are worth reading. https://www.regulations.gov/document/NRC-2015-0057-0671 https://www.regulations.gov/document/NRC-2015-0057-0671

ch4s3 5y ago
I've read most of that report, and I think you could summarize it as saying that LNT critics haven't established scientifically a threshold at which there is 0 tumor risk, and that the state of current research is mixed. I don't buy into hormesis, as the evidence isn't well established. The main issue to me is that ALARA seems overly strict compared to the way small radation exposure is treated across other industries and aspects of daily life. I need to read more about the recent Hiroshima study they mentioned.
- pfdietz 5y ago
  What was particularly damning was where they pointed out how petitioners were cherrypicking evidence that supported their position, even if later more complete data on the same subjects didn't.
  - ch4s3 5y ago
    I need to dig in more and reevaluate my position. I’m largely informed on this by Rip Anderson and to some extent James Mahaffey. I need to go a bit broader and deeper.