Talk:Fear of radiation

Guide to Acronyms

This section has been moved to the Debate Guide page.

LNT Controversy

A summary of this debate and two figures have been moved to the Debate Guide page. The debate is ongoing, so we will continue the discussion here. David MacQuigg (talk) 12:06, 22 July 2023 (CDT)

For those who care about the small risk of exposures less than 100 mSv (regulators and a fearful public) I would say we should think of this as we do about buying a car. If I had to choose between a car I really wanted, and one that had a safety rating a little better (20% chance of an injury in an accident, vs 21%) I would take that extra risk. I might do a little study and find out exactly what the problem is with the car I like, and take steps to avoid that problem.

So on the nuclear power question, if I was considering buying a home I really liked near a nuclear plant or spent fuel storage site, I might do a little study and assure myself that the chances of an accident are small, and then the chances of a radiation leak are even smaller, and then the chances of that leak giving me an exposure like the Japanese bomb survivors are so small that I would better spend my time worrying about getting hit by a meteor. David MacQuigg (talk) 12:06, 22 July 2023 (CDT)

External links are not allowed to exist within articles themselves

External links (to sites outside Citizendium) may go in the reference, and they should definitely go on the External Links tab, but they may NOT exist within the article body itself. Thus, there is a need to revise the Further Reading section. I suggest putting the links in the reference (between <ref></ref> tags) and just the description within the article itself. I know this may be different than you are used to, but it's how online encyclopedias have traditionally done this, including Wikipedia. Let's stick with it.Pat Palmer (talk) 13:41, 27 December 2022 (CST)

I fixed the first of several links for you, as an example.Pat Palmer (talk) 13:50, 27 December 2022 (CST)

I agree. Putting the link details in the footnotes makes the text more readable. I fixed the rest of the links. David MacQuigg (talk) 21:12, 27 December 2022 (CST)

a question about LNT

The discussion of LNT has left me scratching my head. Am I right in understanding that the Linear No Threshold (LNT) model is comparable to the conventional wisdom on bee sting reactions, which goes like something like this: "Every time a bee stings you, the venom you get accumulates in your system. A day may come when you get a bee sting that puts you over the threshold for safety and then you'll start having dangerous reactions to bee stings. So every single bee sting is a really really bad thing because you body cannot really eliminate the venom." So is it like, with LNT, "Every little bit of radiation that hits your body accumulates in your body over time", whereas in reality, the body eliminates most radioactive substances (like it eliminates almost everything unneeded) and can usually repair any damage from moderate amounts of radiation, and so it only matters that you not get too much ALL AT ONCE? Instead of worrying about a lifetime of slow accumulation?" As far as I'm concerned, the existing discussions of LNT need to be made more accessible to normal humans who are not scientists. I can't be the only one who just doesn't understand this stuff.Pat Palmer (talk) 10:51, 3 January 2023 (CST)

The best simple explanation I have found is in Robert Hargraves' lecture slides, linked in our Further Reading section. Maybe we should include more of this in the article. David MacQuigg (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2023 (CST)

LNT and radon, Controversy over Figure 4

This discussion has been summarized on the Debate Guide page.

There seems to be ongoing debate on the question - Is radon an exception to the studies proving that exposures less than 100 mSv do NOT follow LNT, and in fact, show no measurable harm? Until this question is resolved, we might want to remove Figure 4 from the article. It is not essential to showing that LNT is invalid as a basis for regulation of nuclear power. David MacQuigg (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2023 (CDT)

On the other hand, Figure 4 makes an important point about the cost of over-reliance on LNT. I remember spending money and having great concern about radon in my home in Florida in the 1980's. These worries seem to have abated since then, but I am still hearing strong opinions, without evidence, in discussions on the Internet. So let's keep the figure, but add a section on our Debate Guide page, something like:
Read it on the Internet:

"If you had posted that graphic to Wikipedia I would have edited it already but as it is some kind of alternative to Wikipedia I’m not going to spend my Friday evening getting verified just to take down misleading information."[1]

Fig.X Counties with higher radon have less lung cancer.

The question is - Does radon, unlike other sources of radiation, pose a special threat at low levels typically found in buildings (50 to 100 Bq/m3). Some (WHO and EPA) are saying yes, the risk is a simple linear extrapolation of the risk measured at higher doses, and the death rate (per EPA) exceeds even that of drunk driving. Others are saying this assumption is leading to costly and unnecessary remediation of old buildings. The data seems to support the latter. See Figure X. David MacQuigg (talk) 06:47, 1 August 2023 (CDT)

Regarding radon in buildings, it usually occurs in basements. Some basements are seldom visited, so even if it's there, human exposure is low. But people sometimes also live in basements areas day and night, so the exposure is very long. And I think that's why zoning typically requires remediation of basements with too much radon, because there is no distinction between a basement used as storage where people seldom go and a basement in which people live. That's my understanding anyway. As far as I know, studies do not distinguish these two cases either. Pat Palmer (talk) 09:10, 1 August 2023 (CDT)

We have the same problem with elevators in vet clinics, needed for handicap access. They are required in some districts, even if the second floor is used only for storage. That makes no sense for employees at a vet clinic, who must be moving around and handling animals, so cannot be handicapped. For radon in basements, remediation might make more sense. The problem is the level of radon which requires remediation. If we believe LNT, even the smallest dose could be fatal. If we believe the studies of low-level radon, small doses could even reduce your risk of lung cancer. I used to think this was silly, even laughing at a joke about some famous person who drank radium water for good health, until his jaw fell off. Now, I would not spend money to remediate my basement unless the radon level was above 200 Bq/m3. It seems to me the science is quite clear. The opposition is quite strong, however, even from people whose technical understanding I respect. I just can't get them to give me any reliable sources. Hence, my suggestion we include a "Read it on the Internet" section in our Debate Guide pages. David MacQuigg (talk) 07:04, 2 August 2023 (CDT)

More quotes for our Read it on the Internet section:

Cohen (the source of the data) is "a loose nut whose methodology has been debunked." [2]

This is what passes for truth on the Internet. We can't just ignore it. David MacQuigg (talk) 11:54, 3 August 2023 (CDT)

A review of Cohen's study can be found in section 7 of a paper at [3] "Though several authors have criticized Cohen's study, he has thoroughly rebutted those criticisms, and his study has never been refuted, ..." I am guessing that the source of this intense criticism, with no evidence, may be coming from the radon remediation industry. David MacQuigg (talk) 05:25, 12 August 2023 (CDT)

"So the question is why the negative slope. I think I found a possibility. If you look at a radon contour map of the US it’s highly concentrated in the north and west. Then if you look at a contour map of where people smoke the most and, more importantly, where the laws for indoor smoking are most lenient it’s all in the south and east. So non-smokers in high radon locations get very little 2nd hand smoke. Non-smokers in low radon locations get a LOT of 2nd hand smoke. If you simply plot lung cancer vs radon in homes without controlling for that you’ll get a plot like Cohens. But it’s wrong." [4]

Smoking is the same for all counties in the scatterplot. Whatever correlation there is between radon and smoking doesn't matter. Data in the scatterplot is ONLY for counties with smoking prevalence between 58 and 60%. David MacQuigg (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2024 (CST)

Another very large study debunking LNT

This discussion has been summarized on the Debate Guide page.

Fig.Y Natural background radiation, even at very high levels, shows no detectable increase in cancer.

Cumulative radiation doses more than 500 mSv over many years showed no significant increase in cancer. See Figure Y. Compare this with the bomb survivor data in Figure 1. LNT says they should be the same.
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/radiatenvironmed/10/2/10_74/_pdf/-char/en
From the abstract:
// The coastal belt of Karunagappally, Kerala, India is known for high natural background radiation (HNBR) from thorium-containing monazite sand. A cohort of all residents in Karunagappally was established in the 1990s to evaluate the health effects of HNBR. Following the cohort of 149,585 residents aged 30-84 for 19.1 years on average, approximately 2,851,688 person-years of observation were accumulated. The cumulative radiation dose for each individual was estimated based on outdoor and indoor dosimetry of each household, taking into account sex- and age-specific house occupancy factors. Using Karunagapally cancer registry, 6,804 cancer cases excluding leukemia were identified by the end of 2017. ... //

Comment from Jack Devanney, Chief Engineer, ThorCon USA:
https://jackdevanney.substack.com/p/kerala-cancer-data-2021-update
"The key point [from this study] is 600 mSv received all at once results in a significant increase in cancer but 600 mSv spread over ten years results in no detectable increase in cancer. ... SNT matches both the very high dose rate data and the low. LNT cannot."

Could you please provide a key for the several acronyms used in this statement? It is Citizendium policy not to use acronyms, but if they must be used, a key should be provided for mSv, LNT, SNT, and RERF in the statement above, even if by extensive reading I might find them elsewhere in this article. The key would ideally be at the top of this page in a table and supply expansions for all acronyms used anywhere on the page, including units such as Gy, CI, "bidi", and HNBR. Pat Palmer (talk) 09:04, 14 January 2024 (CST)

I've added a section with some of these acronyms at the top of this page. The others seem non-essential, so will delete the sentences where they occur. HNBR is a weird one, used only once, and defined where it is used. David MacQuigg (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2024 (CST)

When a few milli Sieverts can be dangerous

A video from Veritasium "The Most Radioactive Places on Earth" is a really excellent travel guide, with lots of drama seeing a geiger counter screaming OVERLOAD, as it is held next to some chunk of debris in a hospital near Chernobyl. It is not so good, however, on putting the danger of low-level radiation into perspective. If I didn't know better, I would think some of these places, like Fukushima, with up to 10 microsieverts per hour were dangerous. 20 millisieverts per day is the lowest level that has measurable health consequences. 2 mSv per day is a sensible limit for public exposure. 1 mSv / year is what we have to hold at my wife's vet clinic.

Figure 1 in this Fear of Radiation article shows that it takes 100 mSv in a short burst to see a slight increase in cancer rates. Maybe we should have more data in this article. Jack Devanney has assembled a table of all known severe radiation accidents, the doses of radiation they produced, and the results in loss of life.

The most important thing to understand about radiation risk is that what counts is the dose rate, not the total cumulative dose. So if your dose rate is less than 2 mSv per day, you should be safe forever. The Kerala study is the most easily understood proof I have found. I also like Cohen's radon study, because it does not depend on any sophisticated statistics. You can look at a scatterplot of the raw data, and see the trend. Also, the original data is available for anyone to check - no "cherry picking", no "fudge factors", as alleged in the debate on this topic.

That said, we need to be careful not to dismiss the danger in ALL low exposures. We need to distinguish between sparsely ionizing radiation, like you get from flying in an airplane, or walking on the beach in Kerala India, and highly localized radiation, like you get from smoke particles stuck in your lung. I'm not sure if the Veritasium number for smokers, 160 mSv per year, is right, or even what that means, but 160 mSv would not be a problem if distributed evenly and steadily over your whole body for a year.

As I understand it, some of the damage from tobacco smoke is due to minute amounts of Po-210 in tobacco. Po-210 is an alpha emitter. The damage is concentrated in just a few cells near the smoke particle. The unit Sievert is a measure of total radiation absorbed in a kilogram of tissue. The dose in those few lung cells per kg of tissue must be enormous, probably a lot more than 160 mSv per year.

I don't like using bananas as a measure of dose. When he says eating a banana gives you a dose of 0.1 microSieverts, we have to guess at the time he is assuming - maybe a day for the potassium to be eliminated in urine? That assumption is wrong, according to this WP article on Banana Equivalent Dose. It seems the time assumed is 50 years !! What makes this complicated is how much potassium stays in your body for 50 years.

Maybe Jess could update his Radiation Hazards article, and give us something better than WP. OR maybe we should ban bananas entirely from our writing. I have used the banana unit in one place, where ambiguity doesn't matter, the Debate page in our Nuclear Waste Management article.
David MacQuigg (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2025 (CDT)

Question: What is the risk from inhalation or ingestion of radionuclides in places like Chernobyl or Fukushima? This is the worry I'm hearing from people who accept the fact that LNT is bunk, and "groundshine" is no problem, but are concerned about particles of dust in their lungs or contamination in locally grown foods. So far, all I have from the pro-nuclear side is dismissal.
David MacQuigg (talk) 09:59, 31 March 2025 (CDT)