One of the gripes that pro-nukes have about SNT is that it accepts the no-perfectly-harmless-dose hypothesis. These people think the public is too stupid to understand that there is no practical difference between negligible risk and zero risk.
Jack, you're doing it again. I've already forgotten what "NLT" means exactly, although I realize it's basically the anti-nuclear view that the only safe dose is zero, which, as you point out, is a ridiculous position, since we're all exposed to some radiation all the time. Then you use "20 mGy/day" and I don't know what the letters mean, although I realize it's a measure of dose per day. By not explaining these terms, you're preaching to the choir - a handful of fellow experts. What we desperately need is communication that will educate the public; not just other scientists. All you have to do is take a moment with each post to explain your terms so anyone can have a chance of understanding. Then lay people like me will be better able to use the info to help you spread the word.
I do have a physics degree, which included a course on nuclear physics, but just at the undergraduate (AB) level, and that was 50 years ago, before Chernobyl. If I have trouble with some of your terms, the more general public with no science background will be turned off and not even finish reading your posts. But those are the very people that need to be reached. We need more nuclear power plants!
It's a good point. Early on I redefined grays and sieverts etc in every post. But that quickly became irritatingly repetitious. What I will do is post a little glossary and link to it when I lapse into jargon, which as you point out is often.
The GKN has correctly been accused of preaching to the choir. But that's not all bad. The pro-nuke choir is an unruly lot. When they are not singing the wrong hymn, they are singing off key, trying to establish eye contact with the soprano section, and all sorts of other mischief. They could use some preaching to.
There are people who will point out that even a single decay may be capable of causing cancer, and they are not wrong. Instead of insisting on zero harm, it is probably better to decouple the harm and benefit, which doesn't preclude pointing out that there is an unspecified net benefit at low dose rates. This is evidently true for potassium, and even accepted by visitors of radon spas, so there is precedent that people can understand.
Moreover, if a threshold is set, it will hinder research into low dose (rate) radiation to explore and quantify benefits; with SNT, people could still assent to research for the specified amount of compensation. For the concerned, it would also be straightforward to estimate "harm" from radon in spas or homes, which could help inform people about the absurdly small risk, and there will be no legal battles over compensation at those levels.
The threshold isn't nearly as important as the ability to easily compute potential harm using a reasonably accurate model, where even erring on the conservative side will have negligible cost.
With you until that last bit, if we have a Chernobyl the UCert compensation will not be negligible, not should it be. It will be in the low billions.
One point on the single decay. If you subscribe to the school that believes that Double Double Strand Break's are the real problem, then you need more than one decay. The DDSB theory gets a real boost from some very clever experiments at Columbia where they were able to hit a single cell with exactly 1, 2, 4, or 8 alphas. The cells that were hit with 1 alpha had the same number of oncogenic mutations as the sham (zero) irradiated cells. But the cells that were hit with two alphas had 6 times as many mutations. This experiment did not get into the substack piece (Mea culpa) but is in the PDF version.
Sorry about that; I meant negligible (excess) cost to nuclear power in the normal case with reasonable plants and responsible operation. With passively safe reactors, and MSRs in particular, it will become increasingly difficult to have a release capable of doing any real harm. If a plant has to pay out billions, something has already gone very wrong. So far as I understand it, SNT strikes a good balance.
Thanks for the additional information, it is always comforting to learn about the depth in which this has been studied, and how little it is worth worrying about.
Thanks Jack, You are definitely on the right track.
One calculation I like make for people is what the Grant RERF report on cancer incidence in H/N survivors says about the most highly exposed workers at Fukushima. Grant says 1% cancer incidence increase for males at 100 mGy. This would be about half as much for adult males. 100 mGy to 1000 adult males describes the most exposed Fukushima workers fairly well. If we assume a 30% cancer incidence in the next 60 years without the accident, then there would be 1-2 additional cancers to the background number of 300 +/- 30. Far from detectable even for this huge accident.
We need to stop talking to people about cumulative dose. Only an LNTer can do that. Did the Fukushima worker get his 100 mSv in a single spike like the bomb survivors or was it spread over weeks and months of clean up? The difference is key to getting people to understand the importance of repair when it comes to radiation.
I have given, and will soon give again, a talk to workers. They are interested to know the size of the risk. I had not applied the DDREF of 1/2 for a non acute dose. I will in the future and so I can say that 1000 workers who got 100 mSv have LNT predicted solid cancer incidence of 0 or 1. All other models (LWT, SNT, hormesis) predict lower cancer incidence (i.e. less than 1). since random variability is something like +/- 30, all the predictions are essentially 0 and there is no way to tell the difference between them. I bring up repair later, but I like to bound the problem with an example they can relate to.
When you lead with cumulative dose, you are conceding repair is unimportant. Not a good start.
There is a way of comparing predictions. Look at groups who have received very large doses over extended periods such as the radium dial painters. That's where I would start.
I hear you and understand your viewpoint, I will talk about Kerala, Radium dial painters, and Goiania Brazil. However, I am talking to workers in a regulated environment, specifically industrial radiographers and ultrasonic techs. The radiographers deal with sources every day and the ultrasonic techs work at reactors often. These people actually do get dose and some radiographers have gotten hurt. On the one hand I have to correct the wild exaggerations of radiation risk that these techs learned as students in NDT college. On the other hand I have to make sure that I am not contradicting the NCRP/CNSC/ICRP/NRC. The ICRP/NCRP reject cumulative dose calculations, because even they agree that the dose response is unknown in the range where it usually gets applied. Moreover, people start estimating what the dose will be years from now and are likely high by orders of magnitude. At least with the Fukushima workers, there is a defined group, with carefully measured doses and similar doses, a constrained time period of one year, and significant dose rates. Some 100 mGy workers got almost all of their dose in a few hours. SARI and I obviously disagree with LNT/cumulative dose, but it is instructive to see that these worse case estimations arrived at for the 1000 workers with about 100 mGy. That is 0 or 1 additional solid cancer diagnosis. I then make the point that other models produce lower estimates.
"It's the nuclear plant that isn't built that kills."
That is a large part of the message that needs to get out there.
A form of Frédéric Bastiat's commentary about seeking to understand the unseen aspects, as well as the more obvious aspects, of an issue.
Jack, you're doing it again. I've already forgotten what "NLT" means exactly, although I realize it's basically the anti-nuclear view that the only safe dose is zero, which, as you point out, is a ridiculous position, since we're all exposed to some radiation all the time. Then you use "20 mGy/day" and I don't know what the letters mean, although I realize it's a measure of dose per day. By not explaining these terms, you're preaching to the choir - a handful of fellow experts. What we desperately need is communication that will educate the public; not just other scientists. All you have to do is take a moment with each post to explain your terms so anyone can have a chance of understanding. Then lay people like me will be better able to use the info to help you spread the word.
I do have a physics degree, which included a course on nuclear physics, but just at the undergraduate (AB) level, and that was 50 years ago, before Chernobyl. If I have trouble with some of your terms, the more general public with no science background will be turned off and not even finish reading your posts. But those are the very people that need to be reached. We need more nuclear power plants!
Al,
It's a good point. Early on I redefined grays and sieverts etc in every post. But that quickly became irritatingly repetitious. What I will do is post a little glossary and link to it when I lapse into jargon, which as you point out is often.
The GKN has correctly been accused of preaching to the choir. But that's not all bad. The pro-nuke choir is an unruly lot. When they are not singing the wrong hymn, they are singing off key, trying to establish eye contact with the soprano section, and all sorts of other mischief. They could use some preaching to.
Ha! I didn't realize a lot of the choir is off key - I hope they'll decide to make you the songleader.
Not a good idea. There is nobody on this planet that has less musical talent than I.
There are people who will point out that even a single decay may be capable of causing cancer, and they are not wrong. Instead of insisting on zero harm, it is probably better to decouple the harm and benefit, which doesn't preclude pointing out that there is an unspecified net benefit at low dose rates. This is evidently true for potassium, and even accepted by visitors of radon spas, so there is precedent that people can understand.
Moreover, if a threshold is set, it will hinder research into low dose (rate) radiation to explore and quantify benefits; with SNT, people could still assent to research for the specified amount of compensation. For the concerned, it would also be straightforward to estimate "harm" from radon in spas or homes, which could help inform people about the absurdly small risk, and there will be no legal battles over compensation at those levels.
The threshold isn't nearly as important as the ability to easily compute potential harm using a reasonably accurate model, where even erring on the conservative side will have negligible cost.
cc
With you until that last bit, if we have a Chernobyl the UCert compensation will not be negligible, not should it be. It will be in the low billions.
One point on the single decay. If you subscribe to the school that believes that Double Double Strand Break's are the real problem, then you need more than one decay. The DDSB theory gets a real boost from some very clever experiments at Columbia where they were able to hit a single cell with exactly 1, 2, 4, or 8 alphas. The cells that were hit with 1 alpha had the same number of oncogenic mutations as the sham (zero) irradiated cells. But the cells that were hit with two alphas had 6 times as many mutations. This experiment did not get into the substack piece (Mea culpa) but is in the PDF version.
https://gordianknotbook.com/download/same-birthdays-and-double-double-strand-breaks
This is not an argument for a threshold since even tiny dose rates will occasionally hit a cell twice within a repair period.
Sorry about that; I meant negligible (excess) cost to nuclear power in the normal case with reasonable plants and responsible operation. With passively safe reactors, and MSRs in particular, it will become increasingly difficult to have a release capable of doing any real harm. If a plant has to pay out billions, something has already gone very wrong. So far as I understand it, SNT strikes a good balance.
Thanks for the additional information, it is always comforting to learn about the depth in which this has been studied, and how little it is worth worrying about.
Thanks Jack, You are definitely on the right track.
One calculation I like make for people is what the Grant RERF report on cancer incidence in H/N survivors says about the most highly exposed workers at Fukushima. Grant says 1% cancer incidence increase for males at 100 mGy. This would be about half as much for adult males. 100 mGy to 1000 adult males describes the most exposed Fukushima workers fairly well. If we assume a 30% cancer incidence in the next 60 years without the accident, then there would be 1-2 additional cancers to the background number of 300 +/- 30. Far from detectable even for this huge accident.
Ken.
We need to stop talking to people about cumulative dose. Only an LNTer can do that. Did the Fukushima worker get his 100 mSv in a single spike like the bomb survivors or was it spread over weeks and months of clean up? The difference is key to getting people to understand the importance of repair when it comes to radiation.
I have given, and will soon give again, a talk to workers. They are interested to know the size of the risk. I had not applied the DDREF of 1/2 for a non acute dose. I will in the future and so I can say that 1000 workers who got 100 mSv have LNT predicted solid cancer incidence of 0 or 1. All other models (LWT, SNT, hormesis) predict lower cancer incidence (i.e. less than 1). since random variability is something like +/- 30, all the predictions are essentially 0 and there is no way to tell the difference between them. I bring up repair later, but I like to bound the problem with an example they can relate to.
When you lead with cumulative dose, you are conceding repair is unimportant. Not a good start.
There is a way of comparing predictions. Look at groups who have received very large doses over extended periods such as the radium dial painters. That's where I would start.
I hear you and understand your viewpoint, I will talk about Kerala, Radium dial painters, and Goiania Brazil. However, I am talking to workers in a regulated environment, specifically industrial radiographers and ultrasonic techs. The radiographers deal with sources every day and the ultrasonic techs work at reactors often. These people actually do get dose and some radiographers have gotten hurt. On the one hand I have to correct the wild exaggerations of radiation risk that these techs learned as students in NDT college. On the other hand I have to make sure that I am not contradicting the NCRP/CNSC/ICRP/NRC. The ICRP/NCRP reject cumulative dose calculations, because even they agree that the dose response is unknown in the range where it usually gets applied. Moreover, people start estimating what the dose will be years from now and are likely high by orders of magnitude. At least with the Fukushima workers, there is a defined group, with carefully measured doses and similar doses, a constrained time period of one year, and significant dose rates. Some 100 mGy workers got almost all of their dose in a few hours. SARI and I obviously disagree with LNT/cumulative dose, but it is instructive to see that these worse case estimations arrived at for the 1000 workers with about 100 mGy. That is 0 or 1 additional solid cancer diagnosis. I then make the point that other models produce lower estimates.