8 Comments
User's avatar
Adi Paterson's avatar

LNT has no credibility in science, prospective or reflective. It predates modern microbiology and has been refuted by many independent methods.

Its only strengths are in INCUMBENCY and INSTIUTIONAL RIGIDITY.

Neither of these are virtues.

Typically, in politics, this type of hegemony needs to be overthrown as it is impervious to science, facts and reason.

In the meantime, public costs increase, socialization of fear persists.

NOT GOOD.

Expand full comment
daniel corcos's avatar

Ignoring the dose rate is deliberate. It's the only way to hide the skeleton in the closet: it's the high dose rate that causes cancer, the military killed people with its experiments, and it killed many more people by covering up the risk of medical X-rays that Gofman warned about.

Expand full comment
David MacQuigg's avatar

I have tried to summarize both sides of the LNT debate in https://citizendium.org/wiki/Fear_of_radiation/Debate_Guide#LNT_Controversy

The strongest arguments supporting LNT are arguments from authority. This statement from the NRDC is typical: "... numerous authoritative national and international bodies have convened committees of experts to examine the issue of LNT ... Again and again, these bodies have endorsed LNT as a reasonable approach to regulating exposures to low dose radiation. ... Opponents of the LNT model simply chose to disregard core research and findings in the field of radiation health physics."

When I try to push LNT supporters for supporting data, all they can come up with a plot from the European Code showing a linear relationship of lung cancer to radon.

https://citizendium.org/wiki/Fear_of_radiation/Debate_Guide#LNT_and_radon,_Controversy_over_Figure_4

I complain that I cannot trace this data to its original source, and I get outrage. How can I dare question all these "scientists" with their numerous credentials and prestigious papers. As I scientist, I can dismiss arguments from authority, but our journalist readers take them very seriously.

Expand full comment
Cliff Gold's avatar

I paid for the 2008 version pf Hwang. One way to get through a paywall. One thing I noticed is that he used a 90% confidence interval, not the 95% you mention. Crazy low. So, if you have 10 cancers, it is likely that 1 will be out of range. The only value with a lower error bar above 1.00 is "Leukemia excluding chronic lymphocytic leukemia" at a lower bar of 1.01. So, statistically, no evidence of increased cancer risk.

Expand full comment
Jack Devanney's avatar

Cliff,

Their argument is: if the actual cancer incidence is higher than the Confidence Interval,

it only strengthens our argument that there was a real increase in cancer. We are wrong only if the actual is lower than the CI. That's how they get to 5%.

Expand full comment
Cliff Gold's avatar

Jack,

Huh? Their logic is illogical? The actual cancer rate being higher than the high side is exactly the same as it being lower on the low side.

Sorry if my understanding of statistics is not great, or my confirmation bias is not letting me see what you are saying. Here is what I think:

With 90% confidence, you can say the leukemia incidence is between 1.01 and 1.31 (-.18, +.12).

With 95% confidence, the lower value would be lower and the higher value would be higher. Specifically, this is by the ratios of the critical values. 1.96 for 95%, 1.645 for 90%. So, for 95%, the lower would be -.18 * 1.96/1.645 = -.214. High side, .12 * 1.96/1.645 = .143.

So, we end up with 95% range of .976 to 1.333. So, with 95% confidence, you cannot say there is no hormesis, or that there is an increase. 6 cases is just not enough to draw a conclusion.

Expand full comment
Jack Devanney's avatar

Cliff,

Thanks for the correction.

Nicely put.

You can be sure I will plagiarize this.

Expand full comment
David MacQuigg's avatar

Until I started doing a little reading on nuclear power, three years ago, I believed the simple one-hit theory of radiation damage. (One zoomie can kill you, and two are twice as bad.) My wife got a rare form of cancer that generally occurs only with smokers. I assumed it was a random cosmic ray.

Most journalists today believe this. It is a simple theory that makes sense to anyone who has no knowledge of DNA repair. I don't even remember where I heard the theory. It was just "in the air".

We need to get through to journalists. Public understanding will follow. Politicians will follow the change in public attitude. The regulators will do what the politicians order. Dedicated anti-nukers will never go away, but they will lose their control of public beliefs about nuclear power.

Expand full comment