4 ms·

Somehow this is rarely as fast or cheap as planned.

acidburnNSA 4y ago
Often in part because people conflate measurable with hazardous with radiation. If the goal was to allow double the natural dose rates then it would be a lot easier. You need about 20x the natural dose rate for a year before you see an increase in cancer incidence from 42% baseline to 43%. https://whatisnuclear.com/dose-calc.html https://whatisnuclear.com/dose-calc.html
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Given that the goal is 0 and there are plenty of ongoing activities, poorly cleaned up spills, contaminated mining towns, and legacies of carelessness related to the nuclear sector that result in 2-200x background in various pockets, it seems like 0 was a pretty good benchmark and should maybe be reduced a little.
- bayesian_horse 4y ago
  There is no meaningful difference between measurable and hazardous radiation. You never know where the stuff builds up. Some isotopes get enriched in some organs and do damage over a long time. Depending on what the material actually is, it can get into unfortunate places and stay there for a few years, irradiating someone. It can get into the food supply doing some more damage than anticipated. None of that is calculateable, so it is better to treat every radiation as a risk. You also forget that workers may be wearing a dosimeter, but average people don't. They'd never know. You can easily reach the 20x increase if you have a contaminated object in your home or car or whatever, even if that contamination isn't that strong.
  - acidburnNSA 4y ago
    This might be a good read for you. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/resource/11340/beir_vii_final.pdf https://nap.nationalacademies.org/resource/11340/beir_vii_fi...
    - bayesian_horse 4y ago
      If you think this disproves my point, it doesn't. They say there is no minimum dose level for damage, even though the "damage" at common doses may sound acceptable. The biggest problem people forget is time: If people stay in contact with contaminated material, especially if they ingest some, then it really doesn't matter that much how low the radiation is. That's why radioactive material is treated the way it is. As long as you have dosimeters and geiger counters and hazmat suits you have a calculateable risk. With even some of those assumptions broken, there is no calculation.
      - acidburnNSA 4y ago
        Here's the overall radiological impact of Chernobyl. https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/areas-of-work/chernobyl.html https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/areas-of-work/chernobyl.h...

Often in part because people conflate measurable with hazardous with radiation. If the goal was to allow double the natural dose rates then it would be a lot easier. You need about 20x the natural dose rate for a year before you see an increase in cancer incidence from 42% baseline to 43%. https://whatisnuclear.com/dose-calc.html https://whatisnuclear.com/dose-calc.html

Schroedingersat 4y ago
Given that the goal is 0 and there are plenty of ongoing activities, poorly cleaned up spills, contaminated mining towns, and legacies of carelessness related to the nuclear sector that result in 2-200x background in various pockets, it seems like 0 was a pretty good benchmark and should maybe be reduced a little.
bayesian_horse 4y ago
There is no meaningful difference between measurable and hazardous radiation. You never know where the stuff builds up. Some isotopes get enriched in some organs and do damage over a long time. Depending on what the material actually is, it can get into unfortunate places and stay there for a few years, irradiating someone. It can get into the food supply doing some more damage than anticipated. None of that is calculateable, so it is better to treat every radiation as a risk. You also forget that workers may be wearing a dosimeter, but average people don't. They'd never know. You can easily reach the 20x increase if you have a contaminated object in your home or car or whatever, even if that contamination isn't that strong.
- acidburnNSA 4y ago
  This might be a good read for you. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/resource/11340/beir_vii_final.pdf https://nap.nationalacademies.org/resource/11340/beir_vii_fi...
  - bayesian_horse 4y ago
    If you think this disproves my point, it doesn't. They say there is no minimum dose level for damage, even though the "damage" at common doses may sound acceptable. The biggest problem people forget is time: If people stay in contact with contaminated material, especially if they ingest some, then it really doesn't matter that much how low the radiation is. That's why radioactive material is treated the way it is. As long as you have dosimeters and geiger counters and hazmat suits you have a calculateable risk. With even some of those assumptions broken, there is no calculation.
    - acidburnNSA 4y ago
      Here's the overall radiological impact of Chernobyl. https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/areas-of-work/chernobyl.html https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/areas-of-work/chernobyl.h...