Radiation Is Not A Big Deal

[Marlin]

An old debate is gaining some ground, this is not news to the most of us but now maybe it will migrate to regulators and the general public.

Like We've Been Saying -- Radiation Is Not A Big Deal

A very big report came out last month with very little fanfare.  It concluded what we in nuclear science have been saying for decades – radiation doses less than about 10 rem (0.1 Sv) are no big deal. The linear no-threshold dose hypothesis (LNT) does not apply to doses less than 10 rem (0.1 Sv), which is the region encompassing background levels around the world, and is the region of most importance to nuclear energy, most medical procedures and most areas affected by accidents like Fukushima.


This next statement would remove the stigmatism of overblown casualty estimates.

The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR)  (UNSCEAR 2012) submitted the report that, among other things, states that uncertainties at low doses are such that UNSCEAR “does not recommend multiplying low doses by large numbers of individuals to estimate numbers of radiation-induced health effects within a population exposed to incremental doses at levels equivalent to or below natural background levels.”

This has been a standard argument against LNT for years.
 

Of course, doubling the dose doesn’t double the cancers below 10 rem/yr (0.1 Sv/yr). It has no effect at all. The millions of nuclear workers that have been monitored closely for 50 years have no higher cancer mortality than the general population but have had several to ten times the average dose. People living in New Mexico and Wyoming have twice the annual dose as those in Los Angeles, but have lower cancer rates.  These cannot occur if LNT were true, because LNT states this could not occur.

There are no observable effects in any population group around the planet that suggest LNT is true below 10 rem/yr (0.1 Sv/yr) even in areas of the Middle East, Brazil and France where natural background doses exceed 10 rem/yr (0.1 Sv/yr).



The huge waste of money that is passing for clean-up now by just moving around dirt and leaves (NYTimes) can be focused on clean-up of real contamination near Fukushima using modern technologies.  The economic and psychological harm wrought by the wrong-headed adoption of linear no-threshold dose effects for doses less than 0.1 Sv (10 rem) has been extremely harmful to the already stressed population of Japan, and to continue it would be criminal.

This was brought out in the Fukishima thread.
 

The stresses of personal involvement in the evacuation, management and cleanup related to the Fukushima nuclear accident have emerged as the biggest factors in ill health for Japanese people.
 
The mental or physical burden of the forced move from their homes because of the Fukushima accident was the cause of 34 early deaths, said a report from Japan's Reconstruction Agency on 21 August. The figure compares to 1916 people from Fukushima, Iwate and Miyagi prefectures that died during evacuation from areas hit only by the tsunami and the earthquake. The leading causes of the majority of those early deaths were disruption to the smooth operation of hospitals, the exacerbation of pre-existing health problems, and the general 'mental fatigue' from dramatic changes in life situation.
 
"If we took a 'do more good than harm' approach I suspect we would abandon forced evacuation altogether, especially where iodine tables are available."
 
Malcolm Grimston
Imperial College
 
A cross-section of all people that died during their evacuation showed that the vast majority were elderly: only 4% were below 60 years of age, while 67% were over 80. Some 18% of these fatalities came within one week of the natural disasters and nuclear accident; 48% within one month; and 78% within three months.


http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_The_health_effects_of_Fukushima_2808121.html?goback=%2Egde_2170900_member_154737743

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/01/11/like-weve-been-saying-radiation-is-not-a-big-deal/?goback=%2Egde_2170900_member_203743677

[EugenioGarnica]

Very interesting study!

Anyhow, in my opinion, as real as radiation (well managed) is not a big deal is the fact that radiation has very deep negative "psychological" implications in the majority of population. I am afraid that studies as the one shown may not change this view, as there is always who says that this studies are biased due to economic or other interests.

I think politicians have a big part of responsibility in this problem.  Do you imagine a doctor, a fireman or a policeman acting based on what people may consider more popular? They cannot afford to have this luxe, but must act based on what they think is best for society. Unfortunately, politicians sometimes prefer taking decisions based on what people is expecting or to avoid later criticisms (e.g. a large evacuation in Fukushima) although it may do more harm than good...

[EugenioGarnica]

Just an interesting history... about a man who also thinks Radiation is not a big deal! 

[Marlin]

Just an interesting history... about a man who also thinks Radiation is not a big deal! 

Cracker-barrel wisdom and he's a animal lover, this should be his e-harmony tape 

[RDTroja]

He'll get more dose from his cigarettes...

[RTRT]

The new report echos this older one: http://www.ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/low-dose-NSWS-shipyard.pdf

[hamsamich]

Everyone is effected by "what's popular" and also what has been proffesionalized, including doctors.  Everyone looks back and laughs about how stupid we were back in the 1700s (blaming everything on bile and whatnot - see humorism), yet we continue to feel like we understand and know everything because "today is 2013", we must be right.  Look deeply into recent issues, inluding the popular view on statins, saturated fat and cholesterol, then drop what society has taught you and look closer.  Another more recent example is the proffesionaliztion of psychology, especially in the 1970s and 1980s when dotcors thought they had it all figured out.

[BetaAnt]

This study will not be believed until all the 'flat earthers' die off but, that ain't gonna happen since they reproduce like cockroaches and fear-monger their entire lifetime. 

Remember radiation hormesis?  It has been proven in a number of professional studies. 
Radiation kills no matter how low has been stated by a number of media generated studies. Just bLAME Hollywood for the 1950's to 1980's documentaries (i.e. Them, Attack of the Colossal Man, China Syndrome, et. al.). 

Medically, warfarin is used to dissolve and prevent blood clots. It is also used as rat poison. Same product to save lives can also kill in higher doses. I bet Jane Fonda won't make a movie out of that. 

When your non-nuclear friends and relatives asked you if you still glow in the dark, you would show them your paycheck and laugh all the way to the bank. 
Well shorter outages mean lower annual wages and you can't laugh anymore. 

Like Marlin says,

Don't wrestle with pigs...
Don't argue with idiots...

BA 

[SloGlo]

Everyone is effected by "what's popular" and also what has been proffesionalized, including doctors.  

Any buddy else remember doctors advocating cigarettes as a digestive aid?