2 ms·

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 fukush

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.
- replygirl 4y ago
  i find your interpretation about unscear's assertions subjective. unscear as an organization have rejected lnt. it was resolved in assembly about a decade ago that it's just plain unreliable for extrapolating to low and even medium doses. if you look in reports you'll find that conclusions are never based on lnt, and when sources using lnt are incorporated they're always reevaluated against other models and often specifically discredited as overestimating low dose health effects, like this little bit from the 2019 report: 472. Due to the limited statistical power, it is generally difficult to detect a departure from linearity in the dose–response relationship for circulatory diseases. As an alternative to the standard approach based on a single preferred model, Schöllnberger et al. [S2] applied a multi-model inference approach to the dose–response analysis for mortality from cardiovascular disease in the LSS cohort. A combined set of plausible models fitted equally well. With this combined set of models, they found a dose response that was about one third weaker than that with the LNT model at doses below 0.6 Gy. The dose response at higher doses was stronger. More recently, the multi-model inference approach was applied to mortality in the LSS cohort from cerebrovascular and heart disease [S3]. For cerebrovascular disease, the dose–response curve estimated by multi-model inference was below the LNT model at low to medium doses (0–1.4 Gy) while at higher doses, a higher risk was estimated compared to the LNT fit. Similarly, a sublinear dose response was found for heart disease at doses of 0 to 3 Gy. The estimated confidence bounds indicated no conclusive answer for an increased risk below 0.75 Gy for cerebrovascular disease and 2.6 Gy for heart disease.
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    There's nothing there that disagrees with what I said. UNSCEAR did not say LNT was wrong at low doses. They said LNT was not confirmed (vs. other models) at low doses. This should not be surprising at all, since at low doses the signal becomes very weak. There's a difference between "we don't know if LNT is correct" and "we know LNT is incorrect". You are improperly concluding they are saying the latter. They are not.

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.

replygirl 4y ago
i find your interpretation about unscear's assertions subjective. unscear as an organization have rejected lnt. it was resolved in assembly about a decade ago that it's just plain unreliable for extrapolating to low and even medium doses. if you look in reports you'll find that conclusions are never based on lnt, and when sources using lnt are incorporated they're always reevaluated against other models and often specifically discredited as overestimating low dose health effects, like this little bit from the 2019 report: 472. Due to the limited statistical power, it is generally difficult to detect a departure from linearity in the dose–response relationship for circulatory diseases. As an alternative to the standard approach based on a single preferred model, Schöllnberger et al. [S2] applied a multi-model inference approach to the dose–response analysis for mortality from cardiovascular disease in the LSS cohort. A combined set of plausible models fitted equally well. With this combined set of models, they found a dose response that was about one third weaker than that with the LNT model at doses below 0.6 Gy. The dose response at higher doses was stronger. More recently, the multi-model inference approach was applied to mortality in the LSS cohort from cerebrovascular and heart disease [S3]. For cerebrovascular disease, the dose–response curve estimated by multi-model inference was below the LNT model at low to medium doses (0–1.4 Gy) while at higher doses, a higher risk was estimated compared to the LNT fit. Similarly, a sublinear dose response was found for heart disease at doses of 0 to 3 Gy. The estimated confidence bounds indicated no conclusive answer for an increased risk below 0.75 Gy for cerebrovascular disease and 2.6 Gy for heart disease.
- pfdietz 4y ago
  There's nothing there that disagrees with what I said. UNSCEAR did not say LNT was wrong at low doses. They said LNT was not confirmed (vs. other models) at low doses. This should not be surprising at all, since at low doses the signal becomes very weak. There's a difference between "we don't know if LNT is correct" and "we know LNT is incorrect". You are improperly concluding they are saying the latter. They are not.