I've had it with Philosopher Kings. If you have a better replacement for LNT than SNT, write a computer program implementing your model, then apply that model to the Chernobyl and Fukushima releases, and show us why it is better.
Why apply the model to the Chernobyl and Fukushima releases? Why test the model in situations where we don't know the outcomes? Does your model apply with what we know about the effects of radon?
It is now 37 years since Chernobyl. Millions of dollars has been spent on studying the results. The only detectable increase in cancer for the public has been thyroid cancer in kids whose thyroids were hit with scores to hundreds of mGy/d for weeks from contaminated milk.
It is now 12 years since Fukushima. So far no detectable increase in the public. See UNSCEAR 2021.
SNT over-predicts the Chernobyl and Fukushima data but not nearly as outrageously as LNT.. SNT was designed to err on the conservative side.
Radon is not a fission product and is not among the isotopes released by a NPP casualty. In most studies, the radon dose rates are tiny and easily overwhelmed by all sorts of confounding factors., most importantly smoking . I have not spent any time comparing SNT with LNT on radon.
I know you are trying to force me to delete your comments by bringing up issues that are at best peripheral to the low dose rate, low LET profiles experienced in a nuclear plant release. I have to say, by bringing in teh Genome Project where the DOE wasted 3 billion dollars of taxpayer money on something the private market did far faster and far, far cheaper, you are getting pretty close.
So why did the DOE waste $3 billion on the Genome Project when the private market could profitably do so? By reading this thread you will find the answer.
Have you read the Gordian Knot book Why Nuclear Power has Been a Flop?
I just read the radon section. Really interesting. All referenced studies that were not statistically tortured were either not supportive of LNT or showed a negative correlation between lung cancer and radon under 200 Bq/M^3. A laboratory study observing the cancerous mutations in mouse cells caused by 0, 1, 2, 4, and 8 alphas showed a tiny increase from 0 to 1, and a large threshold jump to 2 going roughly linear after that point
The null results included multiple authors who went in assuming LNT would be supported, one fully intending to defend it and concluding otherwise
A big problem is that most studies in humans do not distinguish the dose from longer exposure (cumulative) from the dose of a higher concentration (to be determined by observation).
Periodically, the EPA and the NRC are prodded into "reviewing" LNT. The result is always the same. We will stick with LNT, at least as long as it is an NCRP recommendation. The URL you cite is no different.
I just saw this from the BMJ shared on twitter. What are your thoughts? Cheers!
"Cancer mortality after low dose exposure to ionising radiation in workers in France, the United Kingdom, and the United States (INWORKS): cohort study"
I think this is the first update of Inworks since 2015. See Flop book, Sections 4.6.3 and 4.6.4 for what I wrote on the 2015 version, which are too long to repeat here. See
On a skim, not much new. Altho no leukemia this time around??
This is another attempt to tease results from tiny differences in doses, differences that are small compared to non-work exposure both to background and medical procedures. In the 2015 version, the mean measured dose rate was 1.1 mGy/y. Then you take differences
of these differences to come up with a slope, vastly magnifying any errors.
I very quickly get bored when people try to base a model on tiny differences in dose rate in the face of all sorts of confounding factors. If you really want to study the health effects of radiation you find populations that have received really large doses, both acutely and over protracted periods.
This comment will be deleted shortly as not germane to the LNT issue.
If you want to take into account the dose rate, you can't do it in a 2 dimensional model. You need a dose-response curve for each dose rate.
SNT does account for the dose rate. Read the paper at gordianknotbook.com.
I've had it with Philosopher Kings. If you have a better replacement for LNT than SNT, write a computer program implementing your model, then apply that model to the Chernobyl and Fukushima releases, and show us why it is better.
Too the point and good reply 😉
Why apply the model to the Chernobyl and Fukushima releases? Why test the model in situations where we don't know the outcomes? Does your model apply with what we know about the effects of radon?
We know quite a bit about the outcomes.
It is now 37 years since Chernobyl. Millions of dollars has been spent on studying the results. The only detectable increase in cancer for the public has been thyroid cancer in kids whose thyroids were hit with scores to hundreds of mGy/d for weeks from contaminated milk.
It is now 12 years since Fukushima. So far no detectable increase in the public. See UNSCEAR 2021.
SNT over-predicts the Chernobyl and Fukushima data but not nearly as outrageously as LNT.. SNT was designed to err on the conservative side.
Radon is not a fission product and is not among the isotopes released by a NPP casualty. In most studies, the radon dose rates are tiny and easily overwhelmed by all sorts of confounding factors., most importantly smoking . I have not spent any time comparing SNT with LNT on radon.
While millions of dollars were spent studying the results of Chernobyl, billions of dollars were spent hiding the risk of radiation.
https://twitter.com/daniel_corcos/status/1616796601648914432
Regarding Chernobyl, it's like demanding a joint US-China investigation to determine the origin of SARS-CoV-2.
Regarding Fukushima, what data on what date and for which cancer make you consider that there is no detectable increase in the public?
Concerning radon, there is an abundant literature on the risk of cancer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_radon
Corcos,
I know you are trying to force me to delete your comments by bringing up issues that are at best peripheral to the low dose rate, low LET profiles experienced in a nuclear plant release. I have to say, by bringing in teh Genome Project where the DOE wasted 3 billion dollars of taxpayer money on something the private market did far faster and far, far cheaper, you are getting pretty close.
So why did the DOE waste $3 billion on the Genome Project when the private market could profitably do so? By reading this thread you will find the answer.
https://twitter.com/daniel_corcos/status/1616796601648914432
Have you read the Gordian Knot book Why Nuclear Power has Been a Flop?
I just read the radon section. Really interesting. All referenced studies that were not statistically tortured were either not supportive of LNT or showed a negative correlation between lung cancer and radon under 200 Bq/M^3. A laboratory study observing the cancerous mutations in mouse cells caused by 0, 1, 2, 4, and 8 alphas showed a tiny increase from 0 to 1, and a large threshold jump to 2 going roughly linear after that point
The null results included multiple authors who went in assuming LNT would be supported, one fully intending to defend it and concluding otherwise
A big problem is that most studies in humans do not distinguish the dose from longer exposure (cumulative) from the dose of a higher concentration (to be determined by observation).
Have you gotten involved in the EPA review?
United States Environmental Protection Agency (.gov)
https://www.epa.gov › filesPDF
EPA Is Taking Steps to Update Its Federal Radiation Guidance
Dan,
I have not.
Periodically, the EPA and the NRC are prodded into "reviewing" LNT. The result is always the same. We will stick with LNT, at least as long as it is an NCRP recommendation. The URL you cite is no different.
Is there a github repo for the code?
No. Give me an email at djw1 at thorconpower dot com and I'll send it to you.
Great article as always Jack.
I just saw this from the BMJ shared on twitter. What are your thoughts? Cheers!
"Cancer mortality after low dose exposure to ionising radiation in workers in France, the United Kingdom, and the United States (INWORKS): cohort study"
https://www.bmj.com/content/382/bmj-2022-074520
Mark,
I think this is the first update of Inworks since 2015. See Flop book, Sections 4.6.3 and 4.6.4 for what I wrote on the 2015 version, which are too long to repeat here. See
https://gordianknotbook.com
On a skim, not much new. Altho no leukemia this time around??
This is another attempt to tease results from tiny differences in doses, differences that are small compared to non-work exposure both to background and medical procedures. In the 2015 version, the mean measured dose rate was 1.1 mGy/y. Then you take differences
of these differences to come up with a slope, vastly magnifying any errors.
I very quickly get bored when people try to base a model on tiny differences in dose rate in the face of all sorts of confounding factors. If you really want to study the health effects of radiation you find populations that have received really large doses, both acutely and over protracted periods.