Linear No Threshold (LNT), the radiation harm model which is the foundation for our radiation protection regulation is nonsense. It denies our undisputed ability to repair radiation damage. As a result it over-predicts harm in low dose rate situations, such as a nuclear power plant release by many orders of magnitude. But LNT survives. One reason is anti-LNT forces have not coalesced behind a single alternative. Another is that the most commonly suggested alternative, Linear With Threshold (LWT), has much the same problems as LNT.
I am struggling to see why (with all of the smart people in the world) a credible metric is not more easily addressed.
Not sure I really understand all of the details, but one "top of the head" thought is "can't we normalize" dosage to a baseline acceptable level? I am thinking (say): (Measured dose rate) per (dose rate that can be repaired within a standard period). If this value is 1.0 or less, there is little risk. If over 1.0, or 5.0?, or 10?, then there are grounds for concern (and an insurance payout).
This idea is too simple for someone not to have considered it already and rejected it for some reason, but ???
[Or is this equivalent to Threshold on Dose or Threshold on Dose Rate, and I am just not seeing it correctly?]
And isn't what you want to model basically a (fill the bucket at one rate) and (empty it at another rate), and see how high and how fast the bucket fills (or empties)? Possibly with separate spigots for repair rate, shielding effectiveness, weather dispersals impacts, etc. ???
I ask this on the philosophy that the only dumb question is the one you didn't ask. :-)
Not sure I understand the question, but harm (cancer incidence) is highly non-linear in the repair period dose. There's no getting around that.
The simplest model that does not do stupid things? That would be Sigmoid No Threshold, which has been the subject of several pieces on this substack and the basis of the Underwriter Certification compensation plan.
It isn't just radiation regulation which has this problems. You will find similar confusions with both alcohol and meat. Alcohol warnings often stress that there is no safe dose (as far as cancer is concerned) ... particularly for pregnant women. Meat warnings typically include a non-sensical threshold. Because almost all cancers start as a single point of damage, the logical inference is that a single gram (nano-gram, whatever tiny portion you prefer) was responsible. Therefor the only sensible way to describe this is "no safe dose". Once we hear this, it plays with our minds. We can't easily conceive of such tiny units of causality. In the case of meat, the sharp uptick in the dose response curve is at a few hundred grams per week ... hence the warning. But it is the politics of meat and alcohol that determines that "no safe dose" predominates in alcohol circles while threshold thinking dominates in meat warnings. All of these issues are bedevilled by the same problems that you discuss Jack. Almost nobody knows how to think sensibly about these things.
Right. I try to shun the word "safe" because its an entirely subjective concept. I think jumping out of an aircraft with a parachute is safe. Somebody else may feel differently. We are both right. But if your definition of "safe" is absolutely zero chance of harm, I think you will find it difficult to identity any activity that is safe. Nuclear proponents who claim this or that dose/dose rate is safe in this sense will embarrass themselves and nuclear power.
Data beats theory in all of these debates, and to me, the clearest data is Cohen's enormous study of lung cancer from radon in counties all over the USA. The cancer rate is clearly declining up to radon levels of 250 Bq/m3 (more than double the levels found in most buildings). The hormetic effect is small, not enough for me to add radon to my house, but it is easy to explain. Getting a little sun each day will prevent sunburns on the rare occasion when you get too much.
I got into a long debate with some anti-nukers, and they would never accept this simple conclusion, nor could they give me any references supporting their arguments, just outrage that Citizendium would publish this data, and speculation that their must be something wrong with the data. One of the debaters went so far as to dig up maps on smoking in various parts of the USA, and claimed that there was a strong negative correlation between these high-smoking areas and low radon. I pointed out that the cancer study had smoking as a controlled variable, but he didn't understand that.
Citizendium seeks to publish the most effective arguments on each side, be they rational or emotional, but none of these anti's wanted their names associated with their arguments, so I have created a "Read it on the Internet" section with links to the original discussions in a public forum. Let me know if you can improve on our summary. I think it deserves one of your slam-dunk rebuttals. Or maybe Robert Hargraves would like to step in. His lecture slides are where I found the links to this data.
I recently read "Why Nuclear Power Has Been A Flop" and find the arguments that LNT is nonsense convincing. Now as a proper skeptic I want to find the 'Steelman' argument *for* LNT. Can you point me toward the best proLNT arguments?
Your question is probably best directed to the pro-LNT people. For low dose rate, I suspect they would point you to the INWORKS study which was the subject of the Circling the LNT Wagons piece. INWORKS has produced a number of papers. Google Richardson Leuraud INWORKS for examples.
Jim, If your definitions of "best" is the most rational, at least attempting to follow good scientific procedure, then read Jack's thorough debunking of two studies in his Circling the Wagons paper. Citizendium's definitions of "best" includes influential, regardless of scientific validity. Follow the links in our Fear of Radiation article, cited above. Jump into the debate on FaceBook's forum "Renewable vs Nuclear Debate". I gave up on further discussion, and just collected the arguments under the heading "Read it on the Internet". We still need that slam-dunk rebuttal on the Radon section.
I've added to the LNT section of our Debate Guide "For a review of recent studies supporting LNT, see Circling the LNT Wagons by Jack Devanney, downloaded 2024-03-13."
I am struggling to see why (with all of the smart people in the world) a credible metric is not more easily addressed.
Not sure I really understand all of the details, but one "top of the head" thought is "can't we normalize" dosage to a baseline acceptable level? I am thinking (say): (Measured dose rate) per (dose rate that can be repaired within a standard period). If this value is 1.0 or less, there is little risk. If over 1.0, or 5.0?, or 10?, then there are grounds for concern (and an insurance payout).
This idea is too simple for someone not to have considered it already and rejected it for some reason, but ???
[Or is this equivalent to Threshold on Dose or Threshold on Dose Rate, and I am just not seeing it correctly?]
And isn't what you want to model basically a (fill the bucket at one rate) and (empty it at another rate), and see how high and how fast the bucket fills (or empties)? Possibly with separate spigots for repair rate, shielding effectiveness, weather dispersals impacts, etc. ???
I ask this on the philosophy that the only dumb question is the one you didn't ask. :-)
Not sure I understand the question, but harm (cancer incidence) is highly non-linear in the repair period dose. There's no getting around that.
The simplest model that does not do stupid things? That would be Sigmoid No Threshold, which has been the subject of several pieces on this substack and the basis of the Underwriter Certification compensation plan.
It isn't just radiation regulation which has this problems. You will find similar confusions with both alcohol and meat. Alcohol warnings often stress that there is no safe dose (as far as cancer is concerned) ... particularly for pregnant women. Meat warnings typically include a non-sensical threshold. Because almost all cancers start as a single point of damage, the logical inference is that a single gram (nano-gram, whatever tiny portion you prefer) was responsible. Therefor the only sensible way to describe this is "no safe dose". Once we hear this, it plays with our minds. We can't easily conceive of such tiny units of causality. In the case of meat, the sharp uptick in the dose response curve is at a few hundred grams per week ... hence the warning. But it is the politics of meat and alcohol that determines that "no safe dose" predominates in alcohol circles while threshold thinking dominates in meat warnings. All of these issues are bedevilled by the same problems that you discuss Jack. Almost nobody knows how to think sensibly about these things.
Right. I try to shun the word "safe" because its an entirely subjective concept. I think jumping out of an aircraft with a parachute is safe. Somebody else may feel differently. We are both right. But if your definition of "safe" is absolutely zero chance of harm, I think you will find it difficult to identity any activity that is safe. Nuclear proponents who claim this or that dose/dose rate is safe in this sense will embarrass themselves and nuclear power.
Data beats theory in all of these debates, and to me, the clearest data is Cohen's enormous study of lung cancer from radon in counties all over the USA. The cancer rate is clearly declining up to radon levels of 250 Bq/m3 (more than double the levels found in most buildings). The hormetic effect is small, not enough for me to add radon to my house, but it is easy to explain. Getting a little sun each day will prevent sunburns on the rare occasion when you get too much.
I got into a long debate with some anti-nukers, and they would never accept this simple conclusion, nor could they give me any references supporting their arguments, just outrage that Citizendium would publish this data, and speculation that their must be something wrong with the data. One of the debaters went so far as to dig up maps on smoking in various parts of the USA, and claimed that there was a strong negative correlation between these high-smoking areas and low radon. I pointed out that the cancer study had smoking as a controlled variable, but he didn't understand that.
Citizendium seeks to publish the most effective arguments on each side, be they rational or emotional, but none of these anti's wanted their names associated with their arguments, so I have created a "Read it on the Internet" section with links to the original discussions in a public forum. Let me know if you can improve on our summary. I think it deserves one of your slam-dunk rebuttals. Or maybe Robert Hargraves would like to step in. His lecture slides are where I found the links to this data.
https://citizendium.org/wiki/Fear_of_radiation/Debate_Guide#LNT_and_radon,_Controversy_over_Figure_4
"the most effective arguments on each side"
I recently read "Why Nuclear Power Has Been A Flop" and find the arguments that LNT is nonsense convincing. Now as a proper skeptic I want to find the 'Steelman' argument *for* LNT. Can you point me toward the best proLNT arguments?
Jim,
Your question is probably best directed to the pro-LNT people. For low dose rate, I suspect they would point you to the INWORKS study which was the subject of the Circling the LNT Wagons piece. INWORKS has produced a number of papers. Google Richardson Leuraud INWORKS for examples.
Jim, If your definitions of "best" is the most rational, at least attempting to follow good scientific procedure, then read Jack's thorough debunking of two studies in his Circling the Wagons paper. Citizendium's definitions of "best" includes influential, regardless of scientific validity. Follow the links in our Fear of Radiation article, cited above. Jump into the debate on FaceBook's forum "Renewable vs Nuclear Debate". I gave up on further discussion, and just collected the arguments under the heading "Read it on the Internet". We still need that slam-dunk rebuttal on the Radon section.
I've added to the LNT section of our Debate Guide "For a review of recent studies supporting LNT, see Circling the LNT Wagons by Jack Devanney, downloaded 2024-03-13."