The radiation hormesis theory is gathering steam & is especially pertinent to nuclear medicine technologists, who are exposed in the low-dose, low dose-rate fashion that seems to carry beneficial effects. The history of our perceptions of radiation is fascinating but is subject to change as Epidemiological and experimental evidence supporting the radiation hormesis paradigm continues to accumulate. There is no justification for denying the reality of low level radiation. Even the medical & pharmaceutical industries are also being forced to face up to the current non-sensical LNT paradigm. It is up to the nuclear industry to take the lead despite the entrenched interests.
Gathering steam? Tragically, I'd say creeping forward smoothed under a flood of molasses. The very same people who panic at the thought of having a nuclear power plant within the boundaries of a country are indifferent to the radiation personally received from a CAT scan.
Truly, we're some distance away from achieving sanity.
The regulations should be based on best understanding of reality and should adapt to it. Precautionary principle is used for NP and it is very stupid and dangerous(while "people" avoid NP and imaginary dangers- they suffer from real dangers- pollution, energy poverty, high prices etc). That being said:
-NP is factually the safest way of generating reliable, ultra-low carbon power (even with LNT false hypothesis)
-NP is the only reliable source of power that can be scaled worldwide, with perspective of fuel supply not running out for generations, resistant to inflation and dictators will(people in the future will make their decisions based on their reality that we cannot even imagine).
-NP should be cheaper than coal and fast to build, because there is now real reason for it not being cheaper than alternatives(it was in the past)
NNadir used to say it perfectly IMHO: "Nuclear power doesn't have to be perfect/by someones unrealistic standards-my addition/, it already is better than any of alternatives".
A well written letter backed by good science. Every medical radiologist knows the body can heal from radiation exposure fairly quickly. It's time the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency acknowledged this.
Well, yes, I've asked them from time to time about these things just to see what they will say. Most have not studied into the whole science, just enough to run their equipment.
Nope, I don't agree with your conclusions on your substack or the fear mongering over low dose radiation used for diagnosing cancer or other medical needs. The needless fear over X-rays is harmful. It may be that breast cancer is over diagnosed, but looking at it with X-rays is not causing the cancer. Again, as Jack has clearly pointed out - the O2 in the cell causes far more damage than an X-ray, 10 to 100 times more damage every day! O2, oxygen in the cell is like having 100 X-rays a day every day. The cell can repair that damage and it is exactly the same damage. This is almost on the same level as saying that a 1/4 watt of power from a cell phone is dangerous, or that a 1/1000 watt signal from a cell tower is dangerous. There is simply not enough energy transferred to the body to make a more serious impact than the normal biological processes already have.
X-ray dose harm is much more related to origin of LNT hypothesis and bomb survival studies- exposure is much more like an "atomic bomb blast"- but even with LNT hypothesis estimated harm from medical X-ray or CT is minuscule isn't it? X-rays are done for a very good diagnostic reason and lots of advancements goes to reduce dose/study.
I'm putting my hands into 5.4kW (soft-ish) X-rays path at work everyday so I must trust that the interlocks and shutter works and is fail-safe. It is different beast than any potential release from NPP can ever be though(low dose rate, moderate accumulated over time and dose-rates not exceeding biological repair).
It is not minuscule. The estimates from the atomic bombing are problematic: 1) The confidence intervals are enormous for the doses used in radiology; 2) Radiology was widely used in Japan at the time of the bombing, so women in the control group received similar doses (this was not a randomized trial, and there may have been a geographic bias); 3) The studies on the effects were conducted by the country responsible for the bombing. https://x.com/daniel_corcos/status/1860567542202319323
Even assuming that the data collection was done honestly, there is nothing here to support the safety of medical X-rays.
It is easy to spread fear and some people make career out of it(like one "famous" Australian pediatrician with strong emotional appeals, little data to show). We do have lots of good quality data on radiation/medical/ non-medical and health. If I wan't to learn where people get cancers it is better to look for smoking habits, pollution(air, water, food), dietary habits rather than frequency of medical x-rays or natural background radiation in place they live in. More frequent x-rays indicate better state of healthcare in general all other things being equal.
Is it healthier to live next to NPP or coal power plant?
I would consider supporting you if: you stopped using Sieverts, a meaningless unit; and at the same time, you warned about the extreme risk of high-dose-rate radiation, such as medical X-rays.
While I agree that high dose rate radiation carries an extreme risk, the time for which anyone is exposed to that rate still matters. X-rays might use intense beams, but they do it for such a short period of time that they have been safely used for more than a century.
Faulty X-ray equipment and other types of medical devices can be dangerous if not properly used and protected.
Not sure if this helps, but I always use the temperature analogy:
If you can touch an object at 0 °C and nothing happens, and then touch another one at 70 °C and get burned, then linear scientific modeling would predict that touching something at 35 °C should give you exactly half as bad burns.
For people who understand absolute zero temperature, this argument becomes even more effective when you use Kelvin numbers. But I guess this analogy only works if you're talking to someone who knows that scientists love to apply linear models to everything and then get why maybe LNT is just a product of that habit.
Concise and on point. I hope it reaches the estimable Mr. Wright.
Congratulations for taking this on.
The radiation hormesis theory is gathering steam & is especially pertinent to nuclear medicine technologists, who are exposed in the low-dose, low dose-rate fashion that seems to carry beneficial effects. The history of our perceptions of radiation is fascinating but is subject to change as Epidemiological and experimental evidence supporting the radiation hormesis paradigm continues to accumulate. There is no justification for denying the reality of low level radiation. Even the medical & pharmaceutical industries are also being forced to face up to the current non-sensical LNT paradigm. It is up to the nuclear industry to take the lead despite the entrenched interests.
https://tech.snmjournals.org/content/31/1/11
Gathering steam? Tragically, I'd say creeping forward smoothed under a flood of molasses. The very same people who panic at the thought of having a nuclear power plant within the boundaries of a country are indifferent to the radiation personally received from a CAT scan.
Truly, we're some distance away from achieving sanity.
The regulations should be based on best understanding of reality and should adapt to it. Precautionary principle is used for NP and it is very stupid and dangerous(while "people" avoid NP and imaginary dangers- they suffer from real dangers- pollution, energy poverty, high prices etc). That being said:
-NP is factually the safest way of generating reliable, ultra-low carbon power (even with LNT false hypothesis)
-NP is the only reliable source of power that can be scaled worldwide, with perspective of fuel supply not running out for generations, resistant to inflation and dictators will(people in the future will make their decisions based on their reality that we cannot even imagine).
-NP should be cheaper than coal and fast to build, because there is now real reason for it not being cheaper than alternatives(it was in the past)
NNadir used to say it perfectly IMHO: "Nuclear power doesn't have to be perfect/by someones unrealistic standards-my addition/, it already is better than any of alternatives".
Hadn't know Wright went to MIT. Hope it generates some interest. He's certainly the right target in the administration.
A well written letter backed by good science. Every medical radiologist knows the body can heal from radiation exposure fairly quickly. It's time the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency acknowledged this.
Most medical radiologists don't know anything.
https://danielcorcos.substack.com/p/radiation-the-other-conspiracy-of
Well, yes, I've asked them from time to time about these things just to see what they will say. Most have not studied into the whole science, just enough to run their equipment.
Nope, I don't agree with your conclusions on your substack or the fear mongering over low dose radiation used for diagnosing cancer or other medical needs. The needless fear over X-rays is harmful. It may be that breast cancer is over diagnosed, but looking at it with X-rays is not causing the cancer. Again, as Jack has clearly pointed out - the O2 in the cell causes far more damage than an X-ray, 10 to 100 times more damage every day! O2, oxygen in the cell is like having 100 X-rays a day every day. The cell can repair that damage and it is exactly the same damage. This is almost on the same level as saying that a 1/4 watt of power from a cell phone is dangerous, or that a 1/1000 watt signal from a cell tower is dangerous. There is simply not enough energy transferred to the body to make a more serious impact than the normal biological processes already have.
You're wrong. All the data shows that X-rays cause many cancers, and none proves otherwise. They're only claimed to be safe.
2 mGy in one second is not the same as 2mGy in a day!
Corcos D & Bleyer A, NEJM, 2020
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2749234
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/238527v1.full
https://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/RMP/
https://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/PBC/
X-ray dose harm is much more related to origin of LNT hypothesis and bomb survival studies- exposure is much more like an "atomic bomb blast"- but even with LNT hypothesis estimated harm from medical X-ray or CT is minuscule isn't it? X-rays are done for a very good diagnostic reason and lots of advancements goes to reduce dose/study.
I'm putting my hands into 5.4kW (soft-ish) X-rays path at work everyday so I must trust that the interlocks and shutter works and is fail-safe. It is different beast than any potential release from NPP can ever be though(low dose rate, moderate accumulated over time and dose-rates not exceeding biological repair).
It is not minuscule. The estimates from the atomic bombing are problematic: 1) The confidence intervals are enormous for the doses used in radiology; 2) Radiology was widely used in Japan at the time of the bombing, so women in the control group received similar doses (this was not a randomized trial, and there may have been a geographic bias); 3) The studies on the effects were conducted by the country responsible for the bombing. https://x.com/daniel_corcos/status/1860567542202319323
Even assuming that the data collection was done honestly, there is nothing here to support the safety of medical X-rays.
It is easy to spread fear and some people make career out of it(like one "famous" Australian pediatrician with strong emotional appeals, little data to show). We do have lots of good quality data on radiation/medical/ non-medical and health. If I wan't to learn where people get cancers it is better to look for smoking habits, pollution(air, water, food), dietary habits rather than frequency of medical x-rays or natural background radiation in place they live in. More frequent x-rays indicate better state of healthcare in general all other things being equal.
Is it healthier to live next to NPP or coal power plant?
I would consider supporting you if: you stopped using Sieverts, a meaningless unit; and at the same time, you warned about the extreme risk of high-dose-rate radiation, such as medical X-rays.
While I agree that high dose rate radiation carries an extreme risk, the time for which anyone is exposed to that rate still matters. X-rays might use intense beams, but they do it for such a short period of time that they have been safely used for more than a century.
Faulty X-ray equipment and other types of medical devices can be dangerous if not properly used and protected.
People think we have data showing X-rays are safe. In reality, the only data we have is alarming.
Corcos D & Bleyer A, NEJM, 2020
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2749234
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/238527v1.full
https://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/RMP/
https://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/PBC/
Jack:
Good letter with good timing. I hope it succeeds in both capturing attention and stimulating the desired action.
It could measurably improve the human condition.
Send the memo to Elon
Well stated.
Not sure if this helps, but I always use the temperature analogy:
If you can touch an object at 0 °C and nothing happens, and then touch another one at 70 °C and get burned, then linear scientific modeling would predict that touching something at 35 °C should give you exactly half as bad burns.
For people who understand absolute zero temperature, this argument becomes even more effective when you use Kelvin numbers. But I guess this analogy only works if you're talking to someone who knows that scientists love to apply linear models to everything and then get why maybe LNT is just a product of that habit.
Not that anyone knows, I exist. I'm reposting on X