This piece is an experiment. It is not only a highly technical argument; it is a highly abbreviated, highly technical argument. It goes very fast, far too fast. But LNT is at the core of what is wrong with nuclear power. If this post perplexes people enough to check out the extended discussion of radiation harm models in Why Nuclear Power has been a Flop, it will have been a success
This is great. I lack expertise, and I can follow almost all of it. My uncertainty concerns Figure 1. Is it intended to show mortality when different doses of radiation are absorbed over a very short period rather than over a lifetime? To me the S curve looks almost linear; is that near-linearity the effect of the small low-end hook, and does that small hook result from the quickness of the dose? Does the curve resemble what LNT theory predicts? How would a non-lopsided S curve look? Thank you.
Bang on! It's all about the repair rate. Normal cellular metabolic processes -- resulting in oxygen free radicals which want to bind with any cellular molecules including DNA -- cause far more damage, including double DNA breaks, than does low level radiation. All living organisms, including humans, have evolved over millennia and have obviously survived the metabolic processes that are essential to life. Surely such medical scientific knowledge can be applied to put a stake in the heart of LNT and thus ALARA.
This is an excellent post. I'm wondering though, if in our wildest dreams we convinced the NRC that ALARA is baloney, what practical changes to the regulations would be reasonable? What about our current nuclear plants are wastefully overbuilt? Or is it more along the lines of not going into hysterics for every small release of radiation?
Hormesis means a small amount of a stressor makes us stronger and healthier — a zero amount of the stressor makes us weak and unhealthy. This has been found to be true for radiation, too — people living in high background radiation areas actually have lower cancer rates than those living in low radiation areas.
My advice: lay out the facts of background radiation and radiation harm. But don't make your arguments depend on hormesis. It can be a by-the-way point.
I agree that LNT is bunk, but not all "exposure" is the same, and simply walking around with a Geiger counter measuring levels at a particular location won't tell you what the risks are. Exposure from sources external to the body are one thing, but if you inhale or ingest radioactive particles, the hazards are quite different.
I recently found https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NnKVWzqVW8 by a professor of public health, though did not listen as I am deaf and subtitles are very tedious. Anyway I think he is saying what Jack Devanney has been saying (for a long time).
I agree that LNT is incorrect, but the nuclear bomb seems like a bad way to prove it. It is, for the most part, a single catastrophic event. If you look at the data, those "Not In City (NIC)" are considered as receiving 0 dose. So, any remaining radiation is not considered.
This is great. I lack expertise, and I can follow almost all of it. My uncertainty concerns Figure 1. Is it intended to show mortality when different doses of radiation are absorbed over a very short period rather than over a lifetime? To me the S curve looks almost linear; is that near-linearity the effect of the small low-end hook, and does that small hook result from the quickness of the dose? Does the curve resemble what LNT theory predicts? How would a non-lopsided S curve look? Thank you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3ZfL4vTPPM
LNT is a lie
Very useful to have LNT explained.
Bang on! It's all about the repair rate. Normal cellular metabolic processes -- resulting in oxygen free radicals which want to bind with any cellular molecules including DNA -- cause far more damage, including double DNA breaks, than does low level radiation. All living organisms, including humans, have evolved over millennia and have obviously survived the metabolic processes that are essential to life. Surely such medical scientific knowledge can be applied to put a stake in the heart of LNT and thus ALARA.
This is an excellent post. I'm wondering though, if in our wildest dreams we convinced the NRC that ALARA is baloney, what practical changes to the regulations would be reasonable? What about our current nuclear plants are wastefully overbuilt? Or is it more along the lines of not going into hysterics for every small release of radiation?
Jack, you may be interested in the phenomenon of hormesis:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormesis
Hormesis means a small amount of a stressor makes us stronger and healthier — a zero amount of the stressor makes us weak and unhealthy. This has been found to be true for radiation, too — people living in high background radiation areas actually have lower cancer rates than those living in low radiation areas.
"[LNT] is like saying taking one aspirin a day for a year is the same as taking 365 aspirins in a day."
Or like saying 365 people each taking one aspirin is the same as one of 365 people taking 365 aspirin.
Johan,
My advice: lay out the facts of background radiation and radiation harm. But don't make your arguments depend on hormesis. It can be a by-the-way point.
I agree that LNT is bunk, but not all "exposure" is the same, and simply walking around with a Geiger counter measuring levels at a particular location won't tell you what the risks are. Exposure from sources external to the body are one thing, but if you inhale or ingest radioactive particles, the hazards are quite different.
I recently found https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NnKVWzqVW8 by a professor of public health, though did not listen as I am deaf and subtitles are very tedious. Anyway I think he is saying what Jack Devanney has been saying (for a long time).
I agree that LNT is incorrect, but the nuclear bomb seems like a bad way to prove it. It is, for the most part, a single catastrophic event. If you look at the data, those "Not In City (NIC)" are considered as receiving 0 dose. So, any remaining radiation is not considered.