The fact that the SNT model needs the dose rate through time is the reason why it is not used. Taking into account the dose rate would reveal the criminal lies of the Atomic Energy Commission and American defense.
This is excellent, as usual. As one of the aforementioned members of the choir, I can assure you I do understand LNT and SNT. My questions are are how do we best communicate this to the people who have the most influence on our energy policy. My focus is on journalists in the mainstream media, the ones wailing about climate change, but I can certainly include politicians and their staffers.
In my role as editor at Citizendium, I can't be a missionary, or be seen as a pro-nuclear advocate, but I can provide an alternative to Wikipedia, which is where most of these people get their information. I've added this article to the Further Reading section of our article on Fear of Radiation. It could also be a section of that article, or even a whole new article linked as a subtopic of the Fear article. https://citizendium.org/wiki/Fear_of_radiation#Further_Reading
An excellent read, but it's no dummy's guide. My 30000ft overview: LNT is saying radiation is like lead, SNT is saying it's like alcohol. Too much is bad for you and can kill you, but most people are OK with a small amount of alcohol each day, but lead builds up so any amount at all is bad. The data is clear that radiation for people is like alcohol, not like lead.
What language is your code snippet written in? Could you provide a data set to run it against? And also include the LNT code for comparison. If you have the code in MATLAB or similar, that would be helpful. Thanks.
The snippet is in Python. Any semi-competent programmer can translate it into whatever language you want. There is no data base. The code accepts an arbitrary vector of daily doses.
Before I agree to become your programmer, may I ask why I'm being asked to do this?
I thought it might be Python. I just thought you would have a csv file, or such, of the curve in figure 4. Maybe I’m too dumb, but I have a hard time following your logic in detail. If I program and play with your functions in MATLAB, then I will most likely understand. Mainly it’s curiosity but maybe a little “trust but verify”. Don’t get me wrong; I’m on your side. I think your arguments should have a much wider audience. Please consider doing more podcasts. I only know of one. Are there more?
Many thanks. I somehow missed this important update.. Strengthens the case against LNT by tightening down the Confidence Intervals a lot.. Now up to 3 million person years. If LNT were valid, we should have seen an increase. . Will incorporate in future stuff. Thanks again.
The fact that the SNT model needs the dose rate through time is the reason why it is not used. Taking into account the dose rate would reveal the criminal lies of the Atomic Energy Commission and American defense.
https://danielcorcos.substack.com/p/bca
https://twitter.com/daniel_corcos/status/1715995504566231338
Thank you for your explanation. I have a much better understanding of SNT now.
This is excellent, as usual. As one of the aforementioned members of the choir, I can assure you I do understand LNT and SNT. My questions are are how do we best communicate this to the people who have the most influence on our energy policy. My focus is on journalists in the mainstream media, the ones wailing about climate change, but I can certainly include politicians and their staffers.
In my role as editor at Citizendium, I can't be a missionary, or be seen as a pro-nuclear advocate, but I can provide an alternative to Wikipedia, which is where most of these people get their information. I've added this article to the Further Reading section of our article on Fear of Radiation. It could also be a section of that article, or even a whole new article linked as a subtopic of the Fear article. https://citizendium.org/wiki/Fear_of_radiation#Further_Reading
An excellent read, but it's no dummy's guide. My 30000ft overview: LNT is saying radiation is like lead, SNT is saying it's like alcohol. Too much is bad for you and can kill you, but most people are OK with a small amount of alcohol each day, but lead builds up so any amount at all is bad. The data is clear that radiation for people is like alcohol, not like lead.
What language is your code snippet written in? Could you provide a data set to run it against? And also include the LNT code for comparison. If you have the code in MATLAB or similar, that would be helpful. Thanks.
Tom,
That's quite a shopping list.
The snippet is in Python. Any semi-competent programmer can translate it into whatever language you want. There is no data base. The code accepts an arbitrary vector of daily doses.
Before I agree to become your programmer, may I ask why I'm being asked to do this?
I thought it might be Python. I just thought you would have a csv file, or such, of the curve in figure 4. Maybe I’m too dumb, but I have a hard time following your logic in detail. If I program and play with your functions in MATLAB, then I will most likely understand. Mainly it’s curiosity but maybe a little “trust but verify”. Don’t get me wrong; I’m on your side. I think your arguments should have a much wider audience. Please consider doing more podcasts. I only know of one. Are there more?
SNT is the biggest new addition to the SARI discussion in some times. FYI, the Kerala study was repeated with a bigger cohort and double the years.
Background Radiation and Cancer Excluding Leukemia in Kerala, India
–Karunagappally Cohort Study
Jayalekshmi Padmavathy Amma1, 2, Rekha A Nair1, Raghu Ram K. Nair3*,
David G Hoel4, Suminori Akiba3, Seiichi Nakamura3 and Keigo Endo3
Radiation Environment and Medicine 2021 Vol.10, No.2 74–81
Ken,
Many thanks. I somehow missed this important update.. Strengthens the case against LNT by tightening down the Confidence Intervals a lot.. Now up to 3 million person years. If LNT were valid, we should have seen an increase. . Will incorporate in future stuff. Thanks again.
Note that the 2021 report also specifically says that leukaemia shows no increase.
So, both solid cancer and leukaemia show no increase with dose.