5 ms·

Thanks for posting this, I will check it out. As a Midwesterner with a basement I had once looked into those claims about radon as the second-highest cause of l

Thanks for posting this, I will check it out. As a Midwesterner with a basement I had once looked into those claims about radon as the second-highest cause of lung cancer with concern and found the evidence much weaker than I expected. Even by EPA estimates[0] almost 90% of the lung cancer deaths attributed to radon are smokers (i.e. who have already weakened lungs), and there didn't seem to be good evidence of damage from basement radon for non-smokers. [0]https://www.epa.gov/radon/health-risk-radon https://www.epa.gov/radon/health-risk-radon

schiffern 3y ago
Let me preemptively disclaim that I do have nitpicks about the talk I linked, but IMO his main argument is sound. In particular I think his scientific explanations aren't always fully accurate, and he worries about measurement minutia very strenuously. Also at one point he says you could breathe 80% radon/20% oxygen, which while chemically this is true, radiologically it would be suicidal. Those nitpicks aside, his point about the EPA LNT model having no clothes is spot on. After "the scales fell from my eyes," now I can't not notice how all those same Party Line Claims get parroted in every piece of radon-related content. Another glimpse down the rabbit hole is this interview with the late Dr Bernie Cohen, who studied the link between residential radon and cancer: https://youtu.be/xhkBLhw-8pk https://youtu.be/xhkBLhw-8pk
- pfdietz 3y ago
  The alternative to LNT is to conservatively assume radiation has the maximum effect not ruled out by evidence (after all, radiation is not a criminal defendant that's innocent until proven guilty). This would make low level radiation more dangerous than predicted by LNT, not less.
  - schiffern 3y ago
    >The alternative to LNT is to conservatively assume radiation has the maximum effect not ruled out by evidence No, the alternative is to use real data, rather than fabricate fraudulent data to fit the LNT model. Namely, you need to look at the actual shape of the dose-response curve in the real world, instead of externally imposing a certain predetermined shape by fiat and fudging data to fit. Here's one of the relevant timestamps from the talk, which runs on into Part 3.[0] However if I'm being honest, this talk is impossible to capture in a short clip suitable for modern attention spans. My apologies. To keep from getting lost, one really should watch the whole thing before formulating the next counterpoint. Otherwise this will devolve into a very long and boring comment thread, where I laboriously digest the points from the video and feed them to you through an HN comment-sized straw. ;) [0] https://youtu.be/37pCurE0nxo?t=1671 https://youtu.be/37pCurE0nxo?t=1671
    - pfdietz 3y ago
      The LNT is consistent with the real world data, cherrypicked bullshit from pseudoscientists notwithstanding. This is why the NRC recently rejected a call to stop using LNT in setting regulations. Their responses to the details of the petitions are pretty damning. https://www.regulations.gov/document/NRC-2015-0057-0671 https://www.regulations.gov/document/NRC-2015-0057-0671 Now, at the very low doses typical of large scale exposure from nuclear accidents, it's true that the evidence does not directly require LNT. That's because the effect predicted by LNT is so small at those doses that it's swamped by noise and unmodelled biases. No practically obtainable data could do the trick. But note what this means: the data at those low doses is so poor that it's consistent with an effect greater than from LNT. It cannot rule this out. I'll add that a favorite pseudoscientific claim from the radiation apologists, radiation hormesis, would imply a larger effect from radiation at low doses than predicted by LNT. That's because hormesis putatively acts by inducing repair mechanisms above some dose, bending the curve downward. Below that putative threshold, the curve has a high slope (and thus more damage per increment of dose) than the linear curve of the LNT.
      - schiffern 3y ago
        >The NRC, however, does not use the LNT model to assess the actual risk of low dose radiation. Instead, the NRC uses the LNT model as the basis for a regulatory framework that meets the “adequate protection” standard of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA). Furthermore, the LNT model is applied so that the framework can be effectively implemented by an agency that regulates diverse categories of licensees This matches exactly what the presenter says: LNT makes great policy. It's just bad science, which the NRC demonstrates here by immediately throwing the LNT under the bus when questioned. The NRC is literally calling LNT an "assumption" here. How much more of a hint do you need? >The 1991 final rule explained that the NRC based its radiation protection regulations upon three assumptions. The first assumption concerned the use of the LNT model, which was described as follows: >The first assumption, the linear nonthreshold dose-effect relationship, implies that the potential health risk is proportional to the dose received and that there is an incremental health risk associated with even very small doses
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

schiffern 3y ago

Let me preemptively disclaim that I do have nitpicks about the talk I linked, but IMO his main argument is sound. In particular I think his scientific explanations aren't always fully accurate, and he worries about measurement minutia very strenuously. Also at one point he says you could breathe 80% radon/20% oxygen, which while chemically this is true, radiologically it would be suicidal. Those nitpicks aside, his point about the EPA LNT model having no clothes is spot on. After "the scales fell from my eyes," now I can't not notice how all those same Party Line Claims get parroted in every piece of radon-related content. Another glimpse down the rabbit hole is this interview with the late Dr Bernie Cohen, who studied the link between residential radon and cancer: https://youtu.be/xhkBLhw-8pk https://youtu.be/xhkBLhw-8pk

pfdietz 3y ago
The alternative to LNT is to conservatively assume radiation has the maximum effect not ruled out by evidence (after all, radiation is not a criminal defendant that's innocent until proven guilty). This would make low level radiation more dangerous than predicted by LNT, not less.
- schiffern 3y ago
  >The alternative to LNT is to conservatively assume radiation has the maximum effect not ruled out by evidence No, the alternative is to use real data, rather than fabricate fraudulent data to fit the LNT model. Namely, you need to look at the actual shape of the dose-response curve in the real world, instead of externally imposing a certain predetermined shape by fiat and fudging data to fit. Here's one of the relevant timestamps from the talk, which runs on into Part 3.[0] However if I'm being honest, this talk is impossible to capture in a short clip suitable for modern attention spans. My apologies. To keep from getting lost, one really should watch the whole thing before formulating the next counterpoint. Otherwise this will devolve into a very long and boring comment thread, where I laboriously digest the points from the video and feed them to you through an HN comment-sized straw. ;) [0] https://youtu.be/37pCurE0nxo?t=1671 https://youtu.be/37pCurE0nxo?t=1671
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    The LNT is consistent with the real world data, cherrypicked bullshit from pseudoscientists notwithstanding. This is why the NRC recently rejected a call to stop using LNT in setting regulations. Their responses to the details of the petitions are pretty damning. https://www.regulations.gov/document/NRC-2015-0057-0671 https://www.regulations.gov/document/NRC-2015-0057-0671 Now, at the very low doses typical of large scale exposure from nuclear accidents, it's true that the evidence does not directly require LNT. That's because the effect predicted by LNT is so small at those doses that it's swamped by noise and unmodelled biases. No practically obtainable data could do the trick. But note what this means: the data at those low doses is so poor that it's consistent with an effect greater than from LNT. It cannot rule this out. I'll add that a favorite pseudoscientific claim from the radiation apologists, radiation hormesis, would imply a larger effect from radiation at low doses than predicted by LNT. That's because hormesis putatively acts by inducing repair mechanisms above some dose, bending the curve downward. Below that putative threshold, the curve has a high slope (and thus more damage per increment of dose) than the linear curve of the LNT.
    - schiffern 3y ago
      >The NRC, however, does not use the LNT model to assess the actual risk of low dose radiation. Instead, the NRC uses the LNT model as the basis for a regulatory framework that meets the “adequate protection” standard of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA). Furthermore, the LNT model is applied so that the framework can be effectively implemented by an agency that regulates diverse categories of licensees This matches exactly what the presenter says: LNT makes great policy. It's just bad science, which the NRC demonstrates here by immediately throwing the LNT under the bus when questioned. The NRC is literally calling LNT an "assumption" here. How much more of a hint do you need? >The 1991 final rule explained that the NRC based its radiation protection regulations upon three assumptions. The first assumption concerned the use of the LNT model, which was described as follows: >The first assumption, the linear nonthreshold dose-effect relationship, implies that the potential health risk is proportional to the dose received and that there is an incremental health risk associated with even very small doses
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]