3 ms·
> But you cannot produce any food in soils around it for thousand years. Is that actually based on some sort of science though, or is it the same woolly thinki
by roenxi 1y ago
> But you cannot produce any food in soils around it for thousand years.
Is that actually based on some sort of science though, or is it the same woolly thinking as the linear-no-threshold modelling that was popular around the time of Chernobyl? What are the actual risks here and how does it compare to low exercise or the typical amount of air pollution in a large city?
- tehjoker 1y agoafaik LNT is correct last time i looked into it. LNT had to be proven as powerful agencies much preferred the hormesis hypothesis because it let them off the hook.
- gregbot 1y agoLNT has never been established and probably never will be. It is still used in some contexts for conservative safety analysis. Places with multiple times typical background activity do not have measurably higher cancer rates.
- tehjoker 1y agoBEIR VII still supports LNT. There's some criticisms, but it seems like a pretty safe guess that just because the uncertainty climbs at low doses it's not just a straight line projection from the closest easier to ascertain value. Maybe some people are better at DNA repair, but some people have DNA repair defects too. The number of ion tracks is going to correlate with number of DNA breaks, and DNA breaks correlate with increased cancer. https://www.epa.gov/radiation/blue-book-epa-radiogenic-cancer-risk-models-and-projections-us-population#getacopy https://www.epa.gov/radiation/blue-book-epa-radiogenic-cance...