I drew a graph comparing Hiroshima/Nagasaki with the Dial Painters, residents of Karela, and the YangJiang apartment building. I can't seem to paste it here - I think maybe Jack D. has to enable it..
I don't think I can enable figures in a comment, but then my substack skills are non-existent,
The reason the response is completely different between the bomb survivors and the other three populations is dose rate. The bomb survivors got almsot all their dose in amatter of seconds. The other three groups received their dose over a period of decades. Dose rate is far mroe important than cumulative dose. SNT and the hormetian model I concocted divides the doe rate profile into daily chunks. The RERF fit is applied only to each daily chunk. See
I don't see much benefit to including hormesis in any compensation scheme. Yes, I believe it is real, but I'm not about to add radon to my basement, and I think most people would feel the same. The reason I favor the radon graph over all the other data I've seen is that a scatterplot is so clear, there just can't be any valid argument that there was some "fudge factor" applied. Yes, that is what the "radon experts" are saying. That is their story, and they are sticking to it, even when you give them a link to the original data.
"Experiments in which organisms have been placed in artificially low radiation environments such as lead lined boxes deep within mines, almost invariably show adverse health impacts."
Hmmm, this would ideally have a control group of animals placed in lead lined boxes deep within mines *BUT* exposed to radiation.
I drew a graph comparing Hiroshima/Nagasaki with the Dial Painters, residents of Karela, and the YangJiang apartment building. I can't seem to paste it here - I think maybe Jack D. has to enable it..
It shows all of these on one graph - with a dotted line for the bomb survivors. Pretty obvious that the others do not follow the same line. https://1drv.ms/f/s!ApcqMlOg59B8g_Jy_jfstS1YtOHU2w?e=N4JZ2R
LMK if you want the original .xlsx, or different cases.
Cliff,
I don't think I can enable figures in a comment, but then my substack skills are non-existent,
The reason the response is completely different between the bomb survivors and the other three populations is dose rate. The bomb survivors got almsot all their dose in amatter of seconds. The other three groups received their dose over a period of decades. Dose rate is far mroe important than cumulative dose. SNT and the hormetian model I concocted divides the doe rate profile into daily chunks. The RERF fit is applied only to each daily chunk. See
https://jackdevanney.substack.com/p/snt-for-dummies
I knew that. I just thought this was a good visual confirmation.
I don't see much benefit to including hormesis in any compensation scheme. Yes, I believe it is real, but I'm not about to add radon to my basement, and I think most people would feel the same. The reason I favor the radon graph over all the other data I've seen is that a scatterplot is so clear, there just can't be any valid argument that there was some "fudge factor" applied. Yes, that is what the "radon experts" are saying. That is their story, and they are sticking to it, even when you give them a link to the original data.
https://citizendium.org/wiki/Fear_of_radiation/Debate_Guide
My two best links for the anti-LNT view are:
https://www.x-lnt.org/evidence-for-radiation-hormesis
https://hps.org/hpspublications/historylnt/episodeguide.html
"Experiments in which organisms have been placed in artificially low radiation environments such as lead lined boxes deep within mines, almost invariably show adverse health impacts."
Hmmm, this would ideally have a control group of animals placed in lead lined boxes deep within mines *BUT* exposed to radiation.
In at least most of these experiments, the experimenters did attempt to produce a control group which controlled for the unusual environment.