Fear of radiation: Difference between revisions
imported>David MacQuigg |
imported>David MacQuigg (Include legitimate science on the anti-nuke side) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
{{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 Solid Cancer Incidence among Atomic Bomb Survivors: 1958–2009] [https://bioone.org/journals/radiation-research/volume-187/issue-5/RR14492.1/Solid-Cancer-Incidence-among-the-Life-Span-Study-of-Atomic/10.1667/RR14492.1.full E.J.Grant, et.al., Radiation Research, 187(5):513-537 (2017)]</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 Solid Cancer Incidence among Atomic Bomb Survivors: 1958–2009] [https://bioone.org/journals/radiation-research/volume-187/issue-5/RR14492.1/Solid-Cancer-Incidence-among-the-Life-Span-Study-of-Atomic/10.1667/RR14492.1.full E.J.Grant, et.al., Radiation Research, 187(5):513-537 (2017)]</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>}} | ||
Government agencies have for decades assumed that deaths and other bad effects of radiation on our health follow a theory called Linear No Threshold (LNT) in which death and disease is simply 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 | Government agencies have for decades assumed that deaths and other bad effects of radiation on our health follow a theory called Linear No Threshold (LNT) in which death and disease is simply 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<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_repair</ref> in mitigating the damage done by low doses of radiation (Fig.3). | ||
{{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.}} | {{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.}} | ||
Revision as of 12:10, 23 November 2021
- See also: Nuclear_power_reconsidered
Fig.1 Exposures up to 100mSv in a short time won't overwhelm our immune systems.[1]
Government agencies have for decades assumed that deaths and other bad effects of radiation on our health follow a theory called Linear No Threshold (LNT) in which death and disease is simply 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[3] in mitigating the damage done by low doses of radiation (Fig.3).
Over reliance on the LNT theory leads 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, which caused far more deaths that the accident itself (Fig.5).
LNT theory has also had a devastating effect on 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
Section 6 in ElectrifyingOurWorld.com by Robert Hargraves, a founder of ThorCon, has a more complete discussion of radiation fear and its impact on public policy and nuclear power.
For a thorough review of the data underlying the LNT controversy, see O'Connor 2017 - 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.
