GKN is in consolidation mode. A long paper on LNT has been uploaded to the Flop book website. It pulls together all the arguments against LNT that have been made on this substack, focusing on the time dimension and repair. At 40 pages, it's far too long for a substack post. The intended audience is teachers, policy makers, and missionaries; but it requires no specialist background. The basics of radiation damage and repair are laid out in some detail. I will make up a slide show if there is demand.
The substance is more or less the same, but the presentation is entirely different. Instead of starting off by talking about LNT, making it the de facto null hypothesis, we start with radiation damage and repair and then compare LNT with what we have learned. Also rather than attempting to review all the studies, this papers focuses almost completely on the Karunagappally study and the radium dial painters..
italicized part of second sentence should read: "no matter how rapidly or slowly that dose is received or to how many people". This further emphasizes how wrong LNT is. Or instead you could say: "harm depends only on the individual's total dose". then you can leave the rest of the sentence unchanged.
Section 2.2, second sentence should read: "background EXTERNAL dose rate is as high...". It is worth noting this does not include the radon dose which would be large.
Figure 14 still has the same Cumulative Doses as Figure 13.
Also the average dose rate/day for the high dose group are 0.164 and 0.106. since the PY seem to indicate the same group of people (i.e PY doubled as expected if the group is the same).
I like your 2nd idea and will incorporate. Thanks.
I also noticed that the 2021 update numbers don't jibe with the 2009 figures. I sent an email to Dr, Nair asking for clarification. That was about 2 weeks ago. I followed up with a somewhat less polite request a few days ago. So far no response. Very disappointing. Don't know what to make of it.
I am a little confused by the dose/time frame. You refer to maximum cumulative dose of 444 Sv and bone dose of 190 Sv. However, Ra-226 decay energy is 5 MEV, which is about a pico joule. 10,000,000 Bq is the safe level. This would produce about 280 joules/year. If you say that people have 28 kg of bones and tissue affected by radiation, then this gives the 10 Gy threshold that is being discussed. I don't know how you can consider this total accumulated over a lifetime. So, is your 190 Sv actually per year?
The Nair study excluded inhalation and ingestion. It was based only on external gamma. The 628 mSv cumulative (2009 numbers) was all external gamma. The text indicates that number was over the study period. I used the average time in the study as of 2009 (10.5 years) to come up with the 0.16 ave mSv/d for the top group.
But the 2021 numbers don't seem to jibe with this interpretation. I have not been able to reconcile this. Still no response from Nair. At this point, I dont expect one.
Oops. We switched to the dial painters. I missed that.
But still not following. Figure 17 is merely Fig 11 from Evans redrawn. Evans puts the max "skeletal" dose at a little over 200 Gy (the bottom axis in Fig 17). I converted that to Sv on the top axis using an RBE for radium of 16 , resulting in a max cumulativedose of around 3000 Sv. (top axis) Where did your 444 Sv and 190 Sv come from?
Ken. We should take this conversation off line but yr spam checker bounces me. Can you whitelist my email.
Does this differ significantly from chapter 5 of the "Why Nuclear Power Has Been a Flop" book?
If so how?
Jim,
The substance is more or less the same, but the presentation is entirely different. Instead of starting off by talking about LNT, making it the de facto null hypothesis, we start with radiation damage and repair and then compare LNT with what we have learned. Also rather than attempting to review all the studies, this papers focuses almost completely on the Karunagappally study and the radium dial painters..
Fantastic work. Thanks for sharing.
Thanks Jack! Slides would definitely be helpful, if you're willing!
Eric,
Working on it.
EXCELLENT WORK! Some hopefully helpful comments.
italicized part of second sentence should read: "no matter how rapidly or slowly that dose is received or to how many people". This further emphasizes how wrong LNT is. Or instead you could say: "harm depends only on the individual's total dose". then you can leave the rest of the sentence unchanged.
Section 2.2, second sentence should read: "background EXTERNAL dose rate is as high...". It is worth noting this does not include the radon dose which would be large.
Figure 14 still has the same Cumulative Doses as Figure 13.
Also the average dose rate/day for the high dose group are 0.164 and 0.106. since the PY seem to indicate the same group of people (i.e PY doubled as expected if the group is the same).
Ken,
I like your 2nd idea and will incorporate. Thanks.
I also noticed that the 2021 update numbers don't jibe with the 2009 figures. I sent an email to Dr, Nair asking for clarification. That was about 2 weeks ago. I followed up with a somewhat less polite request a few days ago. So far no response. Very disappointing. Don't know what to make of it.
Should have added: Chougaonkar et al, 2004 sampled 200 dwellings in the area and found that about 30% of the total dose was from inhalation.
I am a little confused by the dose/time frame. You refer to maximum cumulative dose of 444 Sv and bone dose of 190 Sv. However, Ra-226 decay energy is 5 MEV, which is about a pico joule. 10,000,000 Bq is the safe level. This would produce about 280 joules/year. If you say that people have 28 kg of bones and tissue affected by radiation, then this gives the 10 Gy threshold that is being discussed. I don't know how you can consider this total accumulated over a lifetime. So, is your 190 Sv actually per year?
The Nair study excluded inhalation and ingestion. It was based only on external gamma. The 628 mSv cumulative (2009 numbers) was all external gamma. The text indicates that number was over the study period. I used the average time in the study as of 2009 (10.5 years) to come up with the 0.16 ave mSv/d for the top group.
But the 2021 numbers don't seem to jibe with this interpretation. I have not been able to reconcile this. Still no response from Nair. At this point, I dont expect one.
Oops. We switched to the dial painters. I missed that.
But still not following. Figure 17 is merely Fig 11 from Evans redrawn. Evans puts the max "skeletal" dose at a little over 200 Gy (the bottom axis in Fig 17). I converted that to Sv on the top axis using an RBE for radium of 16 , resulting in a max cumulativedose of around 3000 Sv. (top axis) Where did your 444 Sv and 190 Sv come from?
Ken. We should take this conversation off line but yr spam checker bounces me. Can you whitelist my email.