4 ms·

zero deaths tmi, zero deaths fukushima, what am i missing here?

by replygirl 4y ago

pvaldes 4y ago
Better information, probably. And the will to search for it.
- replygirl 4y ago
  where am i wrong
pfdietz 4y ago
This claim ignores the statistical deaths from cancer from radiation released by Fukushima. These deaths cannot be detected, but that doesn't mean they can be legitimately asserted to be zero.
- replygirl 4y ago
  by "statistical" are you referring to LNT-based predictions?
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    Yes. And before you go off on the nuclear-stan argument against LNT (which the NRC has soundly rejected, btw), realize that LNT helps nuclear. Without it, regulation would not be "we can't detect the effect, so we'll assume it's zero", but rather "we can't detect the effect, so we'll go with the maximum effect not ruled out by evidence". That would increase the projected cancer deaths vs. what LNT would predict. NRC denial of petition on LNT: https://www.regulations.gov/document/NRC-2015-0057-0671 https://www.regulations.gov/document/NRC-2015-0057-0671
    - replygirl 4y ago
      unscear rejects lnt and this is what they have to say about fukushima: (q) No adverse health effects among Fukushima residents have been documented that are directly attributable to radiation exposure from the FDNPS accident. The Committee’s revised estimates of dose are such that future radiation-associated health effects are unlikely to be discernible. The Committee believes that, on the balance of available evidence, the large increase, relative to that expected, in the number of thyroid cancers detected among exposed children is not the result of radiation exposure. Rather, they are the result of ultrasensitive screening procedures that have revealed the prevalence of thyroid abnormalities in the population not previously recognized. An increase in the incidence of cancers is unlikely to be discernible in workers for leukaemia, total solid cancers or thyroid cancer. The Committee has insufficient information to reach an informed judgement on the risk of cataracts;
      - pfdietz 4y ago
        That is not a rejection of LNT.
        replygirl 4y ago
        sorry for the confusion, i'm not saying it is, i'm saying unscear as an organization have rejected lnt, and this is their conclusion on health effects in fukushima, i.e. i don't accept your claim that analyses disregarding lnt necessarily overproject cancer deaths i would also say that unscear is a more credible organization than the nrc when it comes to measuring and predicting effects of radiation, and that their conclusion ought to be the canonical one, as should be their position on lnt
        pfdietz 4y ago
        Here's what that NRC document I linked says about that claim: > Also, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) has recently published a review of cancer risk due to low dose rate radiation from environmental sources. (116) UNSCEAR concluded that “the results of the studies of cancer risk due to radiation exposure at low dose rates from environmental radiation do not provide strong evidence for materially lower risks per unit exposure than in studies of high radiation doses and dose rates.” (117) So, no, UNSCEAR has not rejected LNT. UNSCEAR is in fact asserting that the evidence does not support rejection of LNT.

zero deaths tmi, zero deaths fukushima, what am i missing here?

pvaldes 4y ago

Better information, probably. And the will to search for it.

replygirl 4y ago
where am i wrong

pfdietz 4y ago

This claim ignores the statistical deaths from cancer from radiation released by Fukushima. These deaths cannot be detected, but that doesn't mean they can be legitimately asserted to be zero.

replygirl 4y ago
by "statistical" are you referring to LNT-based predictions?
- pfdietz 4y ago
  Yes. And before you go off on the nuclear-stan argument against LNT (which the NRC has soundly rejected, btw), realize that LNT helps nuclear. Without it, regulation would not be "we can't detect the effect, so we'll assume it's zero", but rather "we can't detect the effect, so we'll go with the maximum effect not ruled out by evidence". That would increase the projected cancer deaths vs. what LNT would predict. NRC denial of petition on LNT: https://www.regulations.gov/document/NRC-2015-0057-0671 https://www.regulations.gov/document/NRC-2015-0057-0671
  - replygirl 4y ago
    unscear rejects lnt and this is what they have to say about fukushima: (q) No adverse health effects among Fukushima residents have been documented that are directly attributable to radiation exposure from the FDNPS accident. The Committee’s revised estimates of dose are such that future radiation-associated health effects are unlikely to be discernible. The Committee believes that, on the balance of available evidence, the large increase, relative to that expected, in the number of thyroid cancers detected among exposed children is not the result of radiation exposure. Rather, they are the result of ultrasensitive screening procedures that have revealed the prevalence of thyroid abnormalities in the population not previously recognized. An increase in the incidence of cancers is unlikely to be discernible in workers for leukaemia, total solid cancers or thyroid cancer. The Committee has insufficient information to reach an informed judgement on the risk of cataracts;
    - pfdietz 4y ago
      That is not a rejection of LNT.
      - replygirl 4y ago
        sorry for the confusion, i'm not saying it is, i'm saying unscear as an organization have rejected lnt, and this is their conclusion on health effects in fukushima, i.e. i don't accept your claim that analyses disregarding lnt necessarily overproject cancer deaths i would also say that unscear is a more credible organization than the nrc when it comes to measuring and predicting effects of radiation, and that their conclusion ought to be the canonical one, as should be their position on lnt
        pfdietz 4y ago
        Here's what that NRC document I linked says about that claim: > Also, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) has recently published a review of cancer risk due to low dose rate radiation from environmental sources. (116) UNSCEAR concluded that “the results of the studies of cancer risk due to radiation exposure at low dose rates from environmental radiation do not provide strong evidence for materially lower risks per unit exposure than in studies of high radiation doses and dose rates.” (117) So, no, UNSCEAR has not rejected LNT. UNSCEAR is in fact asserting that the evidence does not support rejection of LNT.