St Augustine taught that there needs to be choices between the lesser of two evils. We live in a world that expects yes/no answers to complex questions. We live in the gray, not in the black or white
The Ralph Naders of this world are fond of saying, "No price is too great to save even one human life." What if the price is 8 million OTHER human lives every year? That's the estimated number of deaths due to pollution alone from fossil fuel burning.
I'm skeptical about that 8 million figure for deaths from fossil fuel emissions. I'm just not sure how anyone arrived at that or how rigorous the analyses were. Mechanics who work in garages get a lot more exposure to auto emissions than I do, but they seem healthy enough. I realize that's just an intuitive thought, not scientific, but still...
The WHO estimate of about 8 million lives from air pollution was half was from indoor air pollution and half from outdoor air pollution. Indoor air pollution comes from cooking over fires in your house in Somalia and similar places. Electricity would eliminate that. The outdoor air pollution typically in rich countries comes from transportation, fossil fuel burning for space heating, electricity production, and so on.
This is just anecdotal, but I was in Kerala, India a few years ago and ate with a family that cooked with wood in the kitchen. They were very healthy. Perhaps their home was more spacious than most, so the smoke was less of a factor.
In New Delhi, the smog was terrible. I’m not sure how to quantify the effect on human health…I didn’t personally notice anyone in the crowded city having any breathing problems that I could see.
I suppose we have figures comparing respiratory problems and hospitalizations?
I bet you were in a relatively rich home in Kerala that could afford high quality wood, maybe even charcoal. In a poor country that translates into burning dung, or even garbage. I was in Karachi and my lungs hurt after a few hours being outside.
Critical to not step into the "threshold cannot be proven, therefore LNT" trap. Regulators aren't going to go out on a limb and agree there's no harm at some dose rate
It might even be rather useful to describe LNT as a "linear radiation harm model" and erase the tripwire right out of the conversation, except to confirm that we wouldn't propose a threshold model for regulatory purposes if asked
Just because someone is against the current Linear No Threshold policy of the Nuclear Regulatory agency doesn't mean they are saying there is zero risk of harm below a certain threshold of exposure.
You're your own worst enemy - picking fights even with those who agree with much of what you propose. Actually, I'm having trouble figuring out just what you are proposing. It gets lost in all the flak.
Your post on showing how many studies, including RERF studies, produce a non-linear dose response should reach a wider audience. I suggest it be massaged into a paper for the LNT issue coming up in Dose-Response. I could give you a hand if you want. I recently had one accepted.
It's a good idea, but I have neither the time nor the patience to deal with journal editors or reviewers. Go for it. Use whatever you want. It's all Open Source. I can send you any figures you need.
It's not just non-linear. Non-linear must be combined with chopping the dose rate profile into repair periods. Otherwise you are ignoring the time dimension.
St Augustine taught that there needs to be choices between the lesser of two evils. We live in a world that expects yes/no answers to complex questions. We live in the gray, not in the black or white
Lou Lanese
The Ralph Naders of this world are fond of saying, "No price is too great to save even one human life." What if the price is 8 million OTHER human lives every year? That's the estimated number of deaths due to pollution alone from fossil fuel burning.
I'm skeptical about that 8 million figure for deaths from fossil fuel emissions. I'm just not sure how anyone arrived at that or how rigorous the analyses were. Mechanics who work in garages get a lot more exposure to auto emissions than I do, but they seem healthy enough. I realize that's just an intuitive thought, not scientific, but still...
The WHO estimate of about 8 million lives from air pollution was half was from indoor air pollution and half from outdoor air pollution. Indoor air pollution comes from cooking over fires in your house in Somalia and similar places. Electricity would eliminate that. The outdoor air pollution typically in rich countries comes from transportation, fossil fuel burning for space heating, electricity production, and so on.
This is just anecdotal, but I was in Kerala, India a few years ago and ate with a family that cooked with wood in the kitchen. They were very healthy. Perhaps their home was more spacious than most, so the smoke was less of a factor.
In New Delhi, the smog was terrible. I’m not sure how to quantify the effect on human health…I didn’t personally notice anyone in the crowded city having any breathing problems that I could see.
I suppose we have figures comparing respiratory problems and hospitalizations?
I bet you were in a relatively rich home in Kerala that could afford high quality wood, maybe even charcoal. In a poor country that translates into burning dung, or even garbage. I was in Karachi and my lungs hurt after a few hours being outside.
Yes, they had good dry hardwood.
Critical to not step into the "threshold cannot be proven, therefore LNT" trap. Regulators aren't going to go out on a limb and agree there's no harm at some dose rate
It might even be rather useful to describe LNT as a "linear radiation harm model" and erase the tripwire right out of the conversation, except to confirm that we wouldn't propose a threshold model for regulatory purposes if asked
You're tilting at windmills.
Just because someone is against the current Linear No Threshold policy of the Nuclear Regulatory agency doesn't mean they are saying there is zero risk of harm below a certain threshold of exposure.
You're your own worst enemy - picking fights even with those who agree with much of what you propose. Actually, I'm having trouble figuring out just what you are proposing. It gets lost in all the flak.
Jack: I always enjoy your posts.
Your post on showing how many studies, including RERF studies, produce a non-linear dose response should reach a wider audience. I suggest it be massaged into a paper for the LNT issue coming up in Dose-Response. I could give you a hand if you want. I recently had one accepted.
Ken,
It's a good idea, but I have neither the time nor the patience to deal with journal editors or reviewers. Go for it. Use whatever you want. It's all Open Source. I can send you any figures you need.
It's not just non-linear. Non-linear must be combined with chopping the dose rate profile into repair periods. Otherwise you are ignoring the time dimension.