3 Comments
User's avatar
Victualis's avatar

This is the best description to date of your model. It also makes me think that there is a much simpler model lurking underneath. The thought is that you add the dose for the time interval using the same data you use, and then take the limit of the expression as the interval goes to zero. LNT uses an infinite interval, you use one day, but what happens if one makes the interval one second, or a picosecond? It feels to me as though you could situate your concrete proposal between LNT and the limit as the interval tends to zero. Or you could go all the way to the limit by thinking of the dose-repair process as continuous instead of occurring in discrete intervals. There might be a clean closed form expression to be derived.

Expand full comment
Jack Devanney's avatar

Vic,

Of course, repair is a continuous process. Several groups have explored models which keep explicit track of the inventory of still unrepaired DSB's. AFAIK, the most complex such effort is the Warsaw model by Prof Fornalski's group.

https://jick.net/nukes/references/Fornalski_2022_warsaw_model.pdf

We've done a bit of this oursleves. See

https://jackdevanney.substack.com/p/a-better-snt

In our analysis of the Fukushima plant workers, we separated the repair time (1 day)

from the updating interval (1 hour).

the immediate goal is to get rid of LNT which means we need a quick and dirty replacement NOW. But yes the idea is worth investigation.

Expand full comment
daniel corcos's avatar

In my opinion, it is far more important to know that radiology is dangerous than to know that space travel is possible.

Expand full comment