Fear of radiation: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
mNo edit summary
("immune systems" > "DNA repair systems")
(35 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{subpages}}
{{subpages}}
{{seealso|Nuclear_power_reconsidered}}
{{Image|Electrify5Radiophobia.017.jpeg|right|350px|Fig.1 Exposures up to 100mSv in a short time won't overwhelm our DNA repair 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>See the [[Fear_of_radiation/Debate_Guide#Another_very_large_study_testing_LNT|Kerala Study]]</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 model 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 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.}}


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.
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 than 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 bad politics, 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>}}
{{Image|Fukushima 28000.jpeg|right|350px|Fig.6 Fukushima death toll over seven years, mostly from air pollution,<ref>[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421519303611 Kharecha 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>
and from the tsunami, some from fear, none from radiation.<ref>See [https://jackdevanney.substack.com/p/the-fukushima-workers-part-2 The Fukushima Workers] Jack Devanney, Substack 6 Nov 2024, for a detailed analysis of the Lost Life Expectancy for the most severely exposed workers at the Fukushima plant.</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. Nuclear power advocates argue that the danger from a radiation leak is much smaller than the public believes, and much smaller than the risks from ever-increasing CO2 in our atmosphere.


=Further Reading=
=Further Reading=


For a more complete discussion of radiation fear and its impact on public policy and nuclear power, see Section 6 in ElectrifyingOurWorld.com by Robert Hargraves, a founder of ThorCon<ref>[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>.
For the pro-LNT point of view, see ''Hold Fast to Linear No-Threshold for Radiation Protection'', Bemnet Alemayehu, Senior Staff Scientist, 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; accessed September 2024.</ref><br>
"... numerous authoritative national and international bodies have convened committees of experts to examine the issue of LNT ... Again and again, these bodies have endorsed LNT as a reasonable approach to regulating exposures to low dose radiation. ... Opponents of the LNT model simply chose to disregard core research and findings in the field of radiation health physics."


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 a rebuttal to these arguments from authority, and an in-depth review of the history, politics, and science of LNT, see ''Epidemiology Without Biology: False Paradigms, Unfounded Assumptions, and Specious Statistics in Radiation Science'', Bill Sacks, Gregory Meyerson & Jeffry A. Siegel,
''Biological Theory'', 2016.<ref> Sacks, B., Meyerson, G. & Siegel, J.A., Biol Theory 11, 69–101 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13752-016-0244-4</ref><br>
"Belief in LNT informs the practice of radiology, radiation regulatory policies, and popular culture through the media. The result is mass radiophobia and harmful outcomes, including forced relocations of populations near nuclear power plant accidents, reluctance to avail oneself of needed medical imaging studies, and aversion to nuclear energy — all unwarranted and all harmful to millions of people."


For a review of the history of the LNT controversy, see
For a more recent review from the Health Physics Society, see ''The History of the Linear No-Threshold (LNT) Model'', 2024.<ref> [https://hps.org/hpspublications/historylnt/episodeguide.html ''The History of the Linear No-Threshold (LNT) Model''], Health Physics Society, accessed July 2024.</ref><br>
[https://jackdevanney.substack.com/p/the-two-lies-that-killed-nuclear The Two Lies that Killed Nuclear Power], Jack Devanney, Principle Engineer, ThorCon USA, 2022.
"The Health Physics Society (HPS) created this series of videos to examine the history of the most controversial question in our field: the LNT model."


For a review of the data underlying the LNT controversy, see [https://www.songscommunity.com/internal_redirect/cms.ipressroom.com.s3.amazonaws.com/339/files/20205/BEIR%20VII_Review.pdf 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.
For a summary of the argument that there was scientific misconduct in the promotion of LNT, see ''Cancer risk assessment, its wretched history and what it means for public health'', Edward J Calabrese, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 2024.<ref>
Calabrese, E. J. (2024). Cancer risk assessment, its wretched history and what it means for public health. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 21(4), 220–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2024.2311300</ref><br>
"The foundations of cancer risk assessment represent a century of significant uncorrected mistakes and scientific misconduct, dominated by powerful self-interests and politicized ideological actions involving the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS), ''Science'' journal, multiple Nobel Prize winners, and elite leaders of the field of radiation genetics from the 1920s to the 1990s." ... "It is time that the scientific community, including [professional associations] inform their memberships and elected leaders of this history of public deception and work to correct the scientific record."


For the latest and most thorough review from the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, see the [https://www.unscear.org/docs/publications/2019/UNSCEAR_2019_Report.pdf UNSCEAR 2019 Report]
=Notes and References=
{{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>
-->
 
}}


=Notes and References=
[[Category:Suggestion Bot Tag]]
{{Reflist|2}}

Revision as of 17:15, 17 November 2024

This article is developing and not approved.
 Main Article
 Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
Debate Guide [?]
 
https://en.citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=Fear_of_radiation&printable=yes
This editable Main Article is under development and subject to a disclaimer.
© Image: Robert Hargraves, PhD
Fig.1 Exposures up to 100mSv in a short time won't overwhelm our DNA repair 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.4 Eliminating small amounts of radon can be costly.

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 than 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.5 Evacuation following the Fukushima meltdown.
Fig.6 Fukushima death toll over seven years, mostly from air pollution,[4] and from the tsunami, some from fear, none from radiation.[5]

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. Nuclear power advocates argue that the danger from a radiation leak is much smaller than the public believes, and much smaller than the risks from ever-increasing CO2 in our atmosphere.

Further Reading

For the pro-LNT point of view, see Hold Fast to Linear No-Threshold for Radiation Protection, Bemnet Alemayehu, Senior Staff Scientist, Natural Resources Defense Council, 2016.[6]
"... numerous authoritative national and international bodies have convened committees of experts to examine the issue of LNT ... Again and again, these bodies have endorsed LNT as a reasonable approach to regulating exposures to low dose radiation. ... Opponents of the LNT model simply chose to disregard core research and findings in the field of radiation health physics."

For a rebuttal to these arguments from authority, and an in-depth review of the history, politics, and science of LNT, see Epidemiology Without Biology: False Paradigms, Unfounded Assumptions, and Specious Statistics in Radiation Science, Bill Sacks, Gregory Meyerson & Jeffry A. Siegel, Biological Theory, 2016.[7]
"Belief in LNT informs the practice of radiology, radiation regulatory policies, and popular culture through the media. The result is mass radiophobia and harmful outcomes, including forced relocations of populations near nuclear power plant accidents, reluctance to avail oneself of needed medical imaging studies, and aversion to nuclear energy — all unwarranted and all harmful to millions of people."

For a more recent review from the Health Physics Society, see The History of the Linear No-Threshold (LNT) Model, 2024.[8]
"The Health Physics Society (HPS) created this series of videos to examine the history of the most controversial question in our field: the LNT model."

For a summary of the argument that there was scientific misconduct in the promotion of LNT, see Cancer risk assessment, its wretched history and what it means for public health, Edward J Calabrese, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 2024.[9]
"The foundations of cancer risk assessment represent a century of significant uncorrected mistakes and scientific misconduct, dominated by powerful self-interests and politicized ideological actions involving the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS), Science journal, multiple Nobel Prize winners, and elite leaders of the field of radiation genetics from the 1920s to the 1990s." ... "It is time that the scientific community, including [professional associations] inform their memberships and elected leaders of this history of public deception and work to correct the scientific record."

Notes and References

  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.
  2. ↑ See the Kerala Study
  3. ↑ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_repair
  4. ↑ Kharecha 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
  5. ↑ See The Fukushima Workers Jack Devanney, Substack 6 Nov 2024, for a detailed analysis of the Lost Life Expectancy for the most severely exposed workers at the Fukushima plant.
  6. ↑ Hold Fast to Linear No-Threshold for Radiation Protection, Bemnet Alemayehu, Natural Resources Defense Council, 2016; accessed September 2024.
  7. ↑ Sacks, B., Meyerson, G. & Siegel, J.A., Biol Theory 11, 69–101 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13752-016-0244-4
  8. ↑ The History of the Linear No-Threshold (LNT) Model, Health Physics Society, accessed July 2024.
  9. ↑ Calabrese, E. J. (2024). Cancer risk assessment, its wretched history and what it means for public health. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 21(4), 220–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2024.2311300
Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=Fear_of_radiation&oldid=994561"