NukeWorker Forum
Career Path => Radiation Safety => Topic started by: BetaAnt on Nov 13, 2014, 02:34
-
This is interesting http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2011/12/20/low-dose-radiation/?sthash.6eF9xMqf.mjjo (http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2011/12/20/low-dose-radiation/?sthash.6eF9xMqf.mjjo) .
The linear no threshold hypothesis is disproven? :o
The EPA is wrong? :o
BA 8)
-
Thanx good read +K
-
The Linear No-Threshold Hypothesis (LNT) was always been considered as a conservative approach to radiation safety since we have no consistent data to support what may happen to the human body below approximately 10 to 20 Rad acute exposure. It is a probabilistic assessment/assumption of risk, not a scientific predictor of harm. Many epidemiological studies have been done, including the hormesis study at the Norfolk Shipyard and the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki but they usually deal with statistical probabilities from long-term exposure to ionizing radiation. As a conservative method to help minimize and control chronic exposures to ionizing radiation, the LNT model is satisfactory. As a predictive tool, it leaves a lot to be desired. However, to treat it as a scientific fact is ludicrous since there is not any real data to support it - just extrapolated data from acute exposures and very high chronic occupational exposures (e.g., the watch dial painters).
-
a nice reed, butt knot much help four us knuckled draggers. talking about 200 rads worth of exposure to a small percentage of cells is interesting, but certainly naught worthy too attempt to dethrone the el en tea.
-
LNT is kinda like global warming. Both disproved hypothesis but still to be used regardless.
Climate change can also be called seasonal but, the useful idiots that get news from the 'Daily Show', 'The View', 'Entertainment Tonight' or any celebrity still support the hoax.
-
LNT is kinda like global warming. Both disproved hypothesis but still to be used regardless.
Climate change can also be called seasonal but, the useful idiots that get news from the 'Daily Show', 'The View', 'Entertainment Tonight' or any celebrity still support the hoax.
Headed toward PolySci territory [rulez] not that I disagree just need to keep open forums suitable for all posters.
[coffee]
-
LNT will take decades to get rid of even though it has no evidence to support it and a growing base of evidence to disprove it. In that respect it is exactly like the predictions of the climate Chicken Littles. However, in this case it was the conservative and sensible route to take in the absence of evidence for or against. Science does march on but it takes a while to overturn widely held beliefs even (or maybe particularly) if they are based solely on what one believes.
-
LNT will take decades to get rid of even though it has no evidence to support it and a growing base of evidence to disprove it. In that respect it is exactly like the predictions of the climate Chicken Littles. However, in this case it was the conservative and sensible route to take in the absence of evidence for or against. Science does march on but it takes a while to overturn widely held beliefs even (or maybe particularly) if they are based solely on what one believes.
Always good to take the conservative & sensible route until you're sure of your facts, right? ;)
-
Always? Maybe, maybe not. But in the case of health protection, yes.
-
A good read indeed....
-
A good read. Reaches the same conclusion that a presentation (part of his PHD thesis) Max Moon gave at an HPS (or was it EEI) meeting many years ago. Most of us that have been around for a while understand that in the case of health and safety the conservative side is the best way to go. But, with the understanding that it may be too conservative in all reality.
We've seen the occupational dose limit go from 5(x-18) (max 3 rem/qtr.) to a flat 5 rem per year. And may soon see 2 rem per year (what most are using now). However, we haven't seen a drop in the non-occupational limit! Why? It is less than most of us receive in a year just by waking up each morning and living another normal day.
I've heard people say "I'd never put Granite Counter Tops in my house, 'they' say it is radioactive". Oh well ;) ;D!
-
I've heard people say "I'd never put Granite Counter Tops in my house, 'they' say it is radioactive". Oh well ;) ;D!
But they highlight the Fiesta Ware so very nicely!
-
Kind of off topic, [OT] but, on a (not too long past) D&D project the only recordable WBD went to one of my best line supervisors (who also did the rad worker training). He left his dosimetry in his top desk drawer for about a week while on a trip. Right underneath it was his stack of Fiesta Ware, Coleman Mantles, etc. that he used in his classes. The low dose wasn't worth trying to explain away!
(He got more dose flying to his destination (for company work - and I've heard the argument 'if you are on company time it is occupational'. [DH]
-
A good read. Reaches the same conclusion that a presentation (part of his PHD thesis) Max Moon gave at an HPS (or was it EEI) meeting many years ago. Most of us that have been around for a while understand that in the case of health and safety the conservative side is the best way to go. But, with the understanding that it may be too conservative in all reality.
Haven't seen Max in a long time. Our old Numanco days if I recall.
LM
-
Haven't seen Max in a long time. Our old Numanco days if I recall.
LM
I last saw him at CR3 in 1981... Numanco it was. One of the people I will never forget.
[OT]