Fear of radiation: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Pat Palmer (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| (10 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | {{subpages}} | ||
{{Image|Electrify5Radiophobia.017.jpeg|right|350px|Fig.1 Exposures up to 100mSv in a short time won't overwhelm our immune systems.<ref>[https://doi.org/10.1667/RR14492.1 Grant 2017] "Solid Cancer Incidence among Atomic Bomb Survivors: 1958–2009" E.J.Grant, et.al., Radiation Research, 187(5):513-537 (2017), see Table 3 for data.</ref>}} | {{Image|Electrify5Radiophobia.017.jpeg|right|350px|Fig.1 Exposures up to 100mSv in a short time won't overwhelm our immune systems.<ref>[https://doi.org/10.1667/RR14492.1 Grant 2017] "Solid Cancer Incidence among Atomic Bomb Survivors: 1958–2009" E.J.Grant, et.al., Radiation Research, 187(5):513-537 (2017), see Table 3 for data.</ref>}} | ||
{{Image|NaturalBackgroundRadiation-1.jpg|right|350px|Fig.2 People living in areas with high background radiation don't have more cancer.<ref>[https://i2.wp.com/electrifyingourworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/NaturalBackgroundRadiation-1.jpg?w=1280&ssl=1 Map of natural background radiation]</ref>}} | {{Image|NaturalBackgroundRadiation-1.jpg|right|350px|Fig.2 People living in areas with high background radiation don't have more cancer.<ref>[https://i2.wp.com/electrifyingourworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/NaturalBackgroundRadiation-1.jpg?w=1280&ssl=1 Map of natural background radiation]</ref>}} | ||
'''Fear of radiation''' is one of the barriers to reconsidering nuclear power. Government agencies have for decades assumed that deaths and other bad effects of radiation on our health follow a model called ''Linear No Threshold'' (LNT), in which death and disease is directly proportional to the total cumulative radiation, no matter how low the rate, even as low as the normal background radiation from space and the materials around us. This assumption ignores the data on low exposures (Figs.1&2) and the role of DNA repair in mitigating the damage done by low doses of radiation (Fig.3). Without a repair mechanism, the number of DNA breaks would simply accumulate in a linear fashion, no matter how low the exposure. | '''Fear of radiation''' is one of the barriers to [[Nuclear_power_reconsidered|reconsidering nuclear power]]. Government agencies have for decades assumed that deaths and other bad effects of radiation on our health follow a model called ''Linear No Threshold'' (LNT), in which death and disease is directly proportional to the total cumulative radiation, no matter how low the rate, even as low as the normal background radiation from space and the materials around us. This assumption ignores the data on low exposures (Figs.1&2) and the role of DNA repair in mitigating the damage done by low doses of radiation (Fig.3). Without a repair mechanism, the number of DNA breaks would simply accumulate in a linear fashion, no matter how low the exposure. | ||
{{Image|Electrify5Radiophobia.009.jpeg|right|350px|Fig.3 Natural breakage and repair of our DNA occurs much faster than damage from low levels of radiation.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_repair</ref>}} | {{Image|Electrify5Radiophobia.009.jpeg|right|350px|Fig.3 Natural breakage and repair of our DNA occurs much faster than damage from low levels of radiation.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_repair</ref>}} | ||
{{Image|Electrify5Radiophobia.028.jpeg|right|350px|Fig.4 Eliminating small amounts of radon can be costly.}} | {{Image|Electrify5Radiophobia.028.jpeg|right|350px|Fig.4 Eliminating small amounts of radon can be costly.}} | ||
| Line 10: | Line 9: | ||
Over reliance on the LNT model has led to policies that are very costly, like radon remediation in old homes (Fig.4) and over-reaction to radiation accidents, like the evacuation after Fukushima (Fig.5), which caused far more deaths that the accident itself (Fig.6). It has also led to excessive fear of radiation from medical x-rays and other nuclear medicine procedures which save thousands of lives. | Over reliance on the LNT model has led to policies that are very costly, like radon remediation in old homes (Fig.4) and over-reaction to radiation accidents, like the evacuation after Fukushima (Fig.5), which caused far more deaths that the accident itself (Fig.6). It has also led to excessive fear of radiation from medical x-rays and other nuclear medicine procedures which save thousands of lives. | ||
{{Image|Electrify5Radiophobia.014.jpeg|right|350px|Fig.5 Evacuation following the Fukushima meltdown.}} | {{Image|Electrify5Radiophobia.014.jpeg|right|350px|Fig.5 Evacuation following the Fukushima meltdown.}} | ||
{{Image|Fukushima 28000.jpeg|right|350px|Fig.6 Fukushima death toll over seven years, mostly from | {{Image|Fukushima 28000.jpeg|right|350px|Fig.6 Fukushima death toll over seven years, mostly from the tsunami, some from fear, none from radiation.<ref>[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421519303611 Karecha 2019] "Implications of energy and CO2 emission changes in Japan and Germany after the Fukushima accident", Pushker Kharecha, Makiko Sato, Science Direct, Volume 132, September 2019, Pages 647-653, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.05.057</ref>}} | ||
The LNT model has also been used to argue against expansion of nuclear power. It has lead to the belief that an accident causing a small increase in radiation over a very large area could lead to a large number of cancers and deaths. A more realistic assessment will show that the danger from nuclear power is much smaller than the public believes, and much smaller that the risks from ever-increasing CO2 in our atmosphere. | The LNT model has also been used to argue against expansion of nuclear power. It has lead to the belief that an accident causing a small increase in radiation over a very large area could lead to a large number of cancers and deaths. A more realistic assessment will show that the danger from nuclear power is much smaller than the public believes, and much smaller that the risks from ever-increasing CO2 in our atmosphere. | ||
| Line 16: | Line 15: | ||
=Further Reading= | =Further Reading= | ||
For a more complete discussion of radiation fear | For a more complete discussion of radiation fear, its effect on public policy, and how radiation damage to our DNA is actually repaired, see Section 6 of ''ElectrifyingOurWorld.com'' by [[Robert Hargraves/Definition|Robert Hargraves]], a founder of [[ThorCon nuclear reactor|ThorCon]].<ref name=Hargraves/> | ||
For the pro-LNT point of view, see [https://www.nrdc.org/experts/bemnet-alemayehu/hold-fast-linear-no-threshold-radiation-protection Hold Fast to Linear No-Threshold for Radiation Protection], Bemnet Alemayehu, Natural Resources Defense Council, 2016. | For the pro-LNT point of view, see ''Hold Fast to Linear No-Threshold for Radiation Protection'', Bemnet Alemayehu, Natural Resources Defense Council, 2016.<ref>[https://www.nrdc.org/experts/bemnet-alemayehu/hold-fast-linear-no-threshold-radiation-protection Hold Fast to Linear No-Threshold for Radiation Protection], Bemnet Alemayehu, Natural Resources Defense Council, 2016; last access 12/27/2022.</ref> | ||
For a review of the history of the LNT controversy, see | For a review of the history of the LNT controversy, see | ||
''The Two Lies that Killed Nuclear Power'', [[Jack Devanney/Definition|Jack Devanney]], Principle Engineer, ThorCon USA, 2022.<ref name=Devanney/> and Devanney's book [https://gordianknotbook.com ''Why Nuclear Power Has Been A Flop''], which has more detail and references to reliable sources. | |||
For a | For a proposal to replace LNT with SNT, a more accurate model of the harm caused by radiation exposure, see Jack Devanney's ''SNT for Dummies'' <ref name=Devanney2/> | ||
For the latest and most thorough review from the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation | For a review of the data underlying the LNT controversy, see ''Risk of low-dose radiation and the BEIR VII report: A critical review of what it does and doesn’t say''.<ref name=OConnor/> | ||
For the latest and most thorough review, see the ''UNSCEAR 2019 Report'' from the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation.<ref name=UNSCEAR/> | |||
=Notes and References= | =Notes and References= | ||
{{Reflist| | {{Reflist|refs= | ||
<ref name=Devanney>[https://jackdevanney.substack.com/p/the-two-lies-that-killed-nuclear ''The Two Lies that Killed Nuclear Power''], [[Jack Devanney/Definition|Jack Devanney]], ThorCon USA, 2022; last access 12/27/2022. | |||
</ref> | |||
<ref name=Devanney2> | |||
[https://jackdevanney.substack.com/p/snt-for-dummies ''SNT for Dummies''], [[Jack Devanney/Definition|Jack Devanney]], [https://jackdevanney.substack.com/ ''Gordian Knot News''], last access 01/06/2024. | |||
</ref> | |||
<ref name=Hargraves>[https://electrifyingourworld.com ''ElectrifyingOurWorld.com''] by Robert Hargraves; see [https://electrifyingourworld.com/?page_id=834 Section 6] on radiation fear and its impact on public policy and nuclear power; last access 12/27/2022. | |||
</ref> | |||
<ref name=OConnor>[https://www.songscommunity.com/internal_redirect/cms.ipressroom.com.s3.amazonaws.com/339/files/20205/BEIR%20VII_Review.pdf Risk of low-dose radiation and the BEIR VII report: A critical review of what it does and doesn’t say] Michael K. O’Connor, Physica Medica 43 (2017) 153-158; last access 12/27/2022. | |||
</ref> | |||
<ref name=UNSCEAR>[https://www.unscear.org/docs/publications/2019/UNSCEAR_2019_Report.pdf UNSCEAR 2019 Report]; last access 12/27/2022. | |||
</ref> | |||
}}[[Category:Suggestion Bot Tag]] | |||
Revision as of 17:00, 15 August 2024
© Image: Robert Hargraves, PhD
Fig.1 Exposures up to 100mSv in a short time won't overwhelm our immune systems.[1]
Fig.1 Exposures up to 100mSv in a short time won't overwhelm our immune systems.[1]
Fig.2 People living in areas with high background radiation don't have more cancer.[2]
Fear of radiation is one of the barriers to reconsidering nuclear power. Government agencies have for decades assumed that deaths and other bad effects of radiation on our health follow a model called Linear No Threshold (LNT), in which death and disease is directly proportional to the total cumulative radiation, no matter how low the rate, even as low as the normal background radiation from space and the materials around us. This assumption ignores the data on low exposures (Figs.1&2) and the role of DNA repair in mitigating the damage done by low doses of radiation (Fig.3). Without a repair mechanism, the number of DNA breaks would simply accumulate in a linear fashion, no matter how low the exposure.
© Image: Robert Hargraves, PhD
Fig.3 Natural breakage and repair of our DNA occurs much faster than damage from low levels of radiation.[3]
Fig.3 Natural breakage and repair of our DNA occurs much faster than damage from low levels of radiation.[3]
Over reliance on the LNT model has led to policies that are very costly, like radon remediation in old homes (Fig.4) and over-reaction to radiation accidents, like the evacuation after Fukushima (Fig.5), which caused far more deaths that the accident itself (Fig.6). It has also led to excessive fear of radiation from medical x-rays and other nuclear medicine procedures which save thousands of lives.
Fig.6 Fukushima death toll over seven years, mostly from the tsunami, some from fear, none from radiation.[4]
The LNT model has also been used to argue against expansion of nuclear power. It has lead to the belief that an accident causing a small increase in radiation over a very large area could lead to a large number of cancers and deaths. A more realistic assessment will show that the danger from nuclear power is much smaller than the public believes, and much smaller that the risks from ever-increasing CO2 in our atmosphere.
Further Reading
For a more complete discussion of radiation fear, its effect on public policy, and how radiation damage to our DNA is actually repaired, see Section 6 of ElectrifyingOurWorld.com by Robert Hargraves, a founder of ThorCon.[5]
For the pro-LNT point of view, see Hold Fast to Linear No-Threshold for Radiation Protection, Bemnet Alemayehu, Natural Resources Defense Council, 2016.[6]
For a review of the history of the LNT controversy, see The Two Lies that Killed Nuclear Power, Jack Devanney, Principle Engineer, ThorCon USA, 2022.[7] and Devanney's book Why Nuclear Power Has Been A Flop, which has more detail and references to reliable sources.
For a proposal to replace LNT with SNT, a more accurate model of the harm caused by radiation exposure, see Jack Devanney's SNT for Dummies [8]
For a review of the data underlying the LNT controversy, see Risk of low-dose radiation and the BEIR VII report: A critical review of what it does and doesn’t say.[9]
For the latest and most thorough review, see the UNSCEAR 2019 Report from the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation.[10]
Notes and References
- ↑ Grant 2017 "Solid Cancer Incidence among Atomic Bomb Survivors: 1958–2009" E.J.Grant, et.al., Radiation Research, 187(5):513-537 (2017), see Table 3 for data.
- ↑ Map of natural background radiation
- ↑ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_repair
- ↑ Karecha 2019 "Implications of energy and CO2 emission changes in Japan and Germany after the Fukushima accident", Pushker Kharecha, Makiko Sato, Science Direct, Volume 132, September 2019, Pages 647-653, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.05.057
- ↑ ElectrifyingOurWorld.com by Robert Hargraves; see Section 6 on radiation fear and its impact on public policy and nuclear power; last access 12/27/2022.
- ↑ Hold Fast to Linear No-Threshold for Radiation Protection, Bemnet Alemayehu, Natural Resources Defense Council, 2016; last access 12/27/2022.
- ↑ The Two Lies that Killed Nuclear Power, Jack Devanney, ThorCon USA, 2022; last access 12/27/2022.
- ↑ SNT for Dummies, Jack Devanney, Gordian Knot News, last access 01/06/2024.
- ↑ Risk of low-dose radiation and the BEIR VII report: A critical review of what it does and doesn’t say Michael K. O’Connor, Physica Medica 43 (2017) 153-158; last access 12/27/2022.
- ↑ UNSCEAR 2019 Report; last access 12/27/2022.
