5 ms·

Fear of radiation is irrational. Fear of dangerous levels of radiation is wise. Since the general population has no idea what levels are safe, the media is fre

Fear of radiation is irrational. Fear of dangerous levels of radiation is wise. Since the general population has no idea what levels are safe, the media is free to stir up catchy stories about anything radiation related. You can't expect the media to report responsibly, they're just regular folks incented to build audience. Society could make more rational decisions if this were solved. Responsible reporting might compare newsy radiation to ordinary events ("about as much radiation exposure as a flight from NY to LA" or "twice the ordinary background radiation levels for New York City"). But how could you incent the media to report usefully? Laws? I'm stumped. If they don't feel inclined, it won't happen.

chinathrow 11y ago
Yet low level radiation is now known to be dangerous. http://www.ianfairlie.org/news/recent-evidence-on-the-risks-of-very-low-level-radiation/ http://www.ianfairlie.org/news/recent-evidence-on-the-risks-... "Just to make sure the point gets across, these studies mean that all children will receive about 1 mSv of gamma radiation from background radiation each year and this results in their leukemia risk being increased by 12%."
- digi_owl 11y ago
  And what is their baseline risk of leukemia? And are we talking across their lifetime (a whole lot of crap can kill them over their next 70 or so years) or within the next year?
  - Vexs 11y ago
    Seriously, a 12% increase in a low number is not even statistically relevant. As it so often is, there is a relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1252/ https://xkcd.com/1252/
    - carbocation 11y ago
      More like, it may be statistically relevant, but may not be clinically relevant.
      - dasil003 11y ago
        How could it statistically significant but not be clinically relevant? Either you get it or you don't, and childhood leukemia fucking sucks (I should know, my mom was the manager of the Minneapolis Ronald McDonald House for 10 years and we lived on-site; many of my young childhood friends died as children).
        tptacek 11y ago
        Is the issue that "statistical relevance" is relative to measurements of radiation and "clinical relevance" is relative to impact on human health? Tiny amounts of radiation can be statistically relevant in environments that get no radiation, and yet have no impact on health.
- tedunangst 11y ago
  Isn't the point of background radiation that it's in the background and you can't avoid it? Where does one find a control group not exposed to background radiation?
  - pygy_ 11y ago
    The strength of the background radiation varies from place to place.
    - tedunangst 11y ago
      I wouldn't use the phrase "all chuldren" in that case, but something more like "chuldren in high radiation areas".
      - pygy_ 11y ago
        That's bad writing from the blog author who's trying to paraphrase this: [...] the authors estimated that the excess risk of childhood leukaemia was 12% per millisievert of cumulative red bone marrow dose from background gamma radiation (Kendall et al, 2012). ... where (Kendall et al, 2012) refers to http://www.nature.com/leu/journal/v27/n1/full/leu2012151a.html http://www.nature.com/leu/journal/v27/n1/full/leu2012151a.ht....
        tedunangst 11y ago
        That makes a lot more sense.
      - tedunangst 11y ago
        That was supposed to be children. My phone went weird.
dfox 11y ago
One of big problems with comparing radiation exposure is that there is no quantity that can be both accurately measured and at the same time meaningfully quantifies biological effects. One of projects that I consult on involves sorting of gravel from inactive uranium mines. On site the difference between "safe gravel for construction" and "radioactive waste" (which was found out to be viable as precursor for nuclear fuel) is mostly insignificant, but easily detectable. In my house this difference is swamped by natural background radiation (see "Living in a brick, stone..." in the XKCD chart, the sorting site is open-air installation). Edit: Somehow I think that the real danger of radiation comes from radioactive stuff that can be aspirated or ingested, not from "some well-localized thing that is radioactive" and thus any kind of "fear of radiation" is mostly irrational (given that one does not go near radiation sources unnecessarily). Otherwise it's poison as any other (and most radioactive isotopes with long half-life are primarily chemically poisonous with the radiation hazard being mostly insignificant).
- hn9780470248775 11y ago
  The referenced XKCD chart: http://xkcd.com/radiation/ http://xkcd.com/radiation/
- chris_va 11y ago
  Yes, ingestion/exposure to contaminated material seems to be more of an issue than exposure to direct radiation. Exceptions being something like space travel, where background gamma is high. An interesting example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_fleas https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_fleas
digi_owl 11y ago
I suspect that the biggest thing that scares people about radiation is: A. that you can't sense when you are being exposed. B. it penetrates most things that would stop say a harmful gas.
this_user 11y ago
There is no safe level of radiation. Latest research suggests that any kind of exposure has a lasting effect. [1] Naturally, that effect is small for small doses but does compound over the individual's lifespan. [1] http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanhae/article/PIIS2352-3026%2815%2900094-0/abstract http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanhae/article/PIIS2352-30...
- sliverstorm 11y ago
  ... which is about as practical an observation as the organization (I forget which- was it the skin cancer foundation?) that maintains there is no safe level of sunlight exposure, and that any and all forays outside should be accompanied with large sun hats, full-body clothing and an inch of sunscreen. Technically correct, but so unreasonably stringent as to be pointless, and so lacking in perspective as to be laughable. You cannot escape radiation, and frequently there are benefits that far outweight the risk. See: Bananas, x-rays, airlines, living in Colorado, using a computer, having friends.
- stared 11y ago
  Safe level of radiation (or lack of thereof) is a subject of discussion, see "Linear No-Threshold": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model But even if the relation is linear, for some doses the effect in negligible, comparing to other diseases/accidents/...

chinathrow 11y ago

Yet low level radiation is now known to be dangerous. http://www.ianfairlie.org/news/recent-evidence-on-the-risks-of-very-low-level-radiation/ http://www.ianfairlie.org/news/recent-evidence-on-the-risks-... "Just to make sure the point gets across, these studies mean that all children will receive about 1 mSv of gamma radiation from background radiation each year and this results in their leukemia risk being increased by 12%."

digi_owl 11y ago
And what is their baseline risk of leukemia? And are we talking across their lifetime (a whole lot of crap can kill them over their next 70 or so years) or within the next year?
- Vexs 11y ago
  Seriously, a 12% increase in a low number is not even statistically relevant. As it so often is, there is a relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1252/ https://xkcd.com/1252/
  - carbocation 11y ago
    More like, it may be statistically relevant, but may not be clinically relevant.
    - dasil003 11y ago
      How could it statistically significant but not be clinically relevant? Either you get it or you don't, and childhood leukemia fucking sucks (I should know, my mom was the manager of the Minneapolis Ronald McDonald House for 10 years and we lived on-site; many of my young childhood friends died as children).
      - tptacek 11y ago
        Is the issue that "statistical relevance" is relative to measurements of radiation and "clinical relevance" is relative to impact on human health? Tiny amounts of radiation can be statistically relevant in environments that get no radiation, and yet have no impact on health.
tedunangst 11y ago
Isn't the point of background radiation that it's in the background and you can't avoid it? Where does one find a control group not exposed to background radiation?
- pygy_ 11y ago
  The strength of the background radiation varies from place to place.
  - tedunangst 11y ago
    I wouldn't use the phrase "all chuldren" in that case, but something more like "chuldren in high radiation areas".
    - pygy_ 11y ago
      That's bad writing from the blog author who's trying to paraphrase this: [...] the authors estimated that the excess risk of childhood leukaemia was 12% per millisievert of cumulative red bone marrow dose from background gamma radiation (Kendall et al, 2012). ... where (Kendall et al, 2012) refers to http://www.nature.com/leu/journal/v27/n1/full/leu2012151a.html http://www.nature.com/leu/journal/v27/n1/full/leu2012151a.ht....
      - tedunangst 11y ago
        That makes a lot more sense.
    - tedunangst 11y ago
      That was supposed to be children. My phone went weird.

dfox 11y ago

One of big problems with comparing radiation exposure is that there is no quantity that can be both accurately measured and at the same time meaningfully quantifies biological effects. One of projects that I consult on involves sorting of gravel from inactive uranium mines. On site the difference between "safe gravel for construction" and "radioactive waste" (which was found out to be viable as precursor for nuclear fuel) is mostly insignificant, but easily detectable. In my house this difference is swamped by natural background radiation (see "Living in a brick, stone..." in the XKCD chart, the sorting site is open-air installation). Edit: Somehow I think that the real danger of radiation comes from radioactive stuff that can be aspirated or ingested, not from "some well-localized thing that is radioactive" and thus any kind of "fear of radiation" is mostly irrational (given that one does not go near radiation sources unnecessarily). Otherwise it's poison as any other (and most radioactive isotopes with long half-life are primarily chemically poisonous with the radiation hazard being mostly insignificant).

hn9780470248775 11y ago
The referenced XKCD chart: http://xkcd.com/radiation/ http://xkcd.com/radiation/
chris_va 11y ago
Yes, ingestion/exposure to contaminated material seems to be more of an issue than exposure to direct radiation. Exceptions being something like space travel, where background gamma is high. An interesting example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_fleas https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_fleas

digi_owl 11y ago

I suspect that the biggest thing that scares people about radiation is: A. that you can't sense when you are being exposed. B. it penetrates most things that would stop say a harmful gas.

this_user 11y ago

There is no safe level of radiation. Latest research suggests that any kind of exposure has a lasting effect. [1] Naturally, that effect is small for small doses but does compound over the individual's lifespan. [1] http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanhae/article/PIIS2352-3026%2815%2900094-0/abstract http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanhae/article/PIIS2352-30...

sliverstorm 11y ago
... which is about as practical an observation as the organization (I forget which- was it the skin cancer foundation?) that maintains there is no safe level of sunlight exposure, and that any and all forays outside should be accompanied with large sun hats, full-body clothing and an inch of sunscreen. Technically correct, but so unreasonably stringent as to be pointless, and so lacking in perspective as to be laughable. You cannot escape radiation, and frequently there are benefits that far outweight the risk. See: Bananas, x-rays, airlines, living in Colorado, using a computer, having friends.
stared 11y ago
Safe level of radiation (or lack of thereof) is a subject of discussion, see "Linear No-Threshold": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model But even if the relation is linear, for some doses the effect in negligible, comparing to other diseases/accidents/...