3 ms·

>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

>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
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    Go back and read about the malfeasance of the petitioners there. They do things like cite a study, neglecting later data from the same study where the effect they want no longer shows up in the better data. Policy has to go beyond what is rigorously demonstrated. It's not like criminal law. Technologies are not innocent until proven guilty. Just because LNT cannot be demonstrated at the doses relevant to nuclear accidents doesn't mean regulators should assume no effect.
    - schiffern 3y ago
      Claims of malfeasance go in both directions. >Policy has to go beyond what is rigorously demonstrated. Thanks. I can see we're done here.
      - pfdietz 3y ago
        Yes, indeed. We are done. You are living in a fantasyland, not in the real world of how regulation and politics actually work. But at least you can admit LNT is consistent with the evidence? The claim to the contrary is an outright lie.

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
- pfdietz 3y ago
  Go back and read about the malfeasance of the petitioners there. They do things like cite a study, neglecting later data from the same study where the effect they want no longer shows up in the better data. Policy has to go beyond what is rigorously demonstrated. It's not like criminal law. Technologies are not innocent until proven guilty. Just because LNT cannot be demonstrated at the doses relevant to nuclear accidents doesn't mean regulators should assume no effect.
  - schiffern 3y ago
    Claims of malfeasance go in both directions. >Policy has to go beyond what is rigorously demonstrated. Thanks. I can see we're done here.
    - pfdietz 3y ago
      Yes, indeed. We are done. You are living in a fantasyland, not in the real world of how regulation and politics actually work. But at least you can admit LNT is consistent with the evidence? The claim to the contrary is an outright lie.