Radiation and Reason

[Cuddles]

This is the title of a new book written by Professor Wade Allison, a physicist at Oxford University. It is available as an e-book here (http://radiation.tizrapublisher.com/view/jp284/default), where it can be viewed for free (although for some reason I am unable to view it in pdf form online).

It seems to be quite an interesting read. The premise is that radiation* as a hazard is treated very differently from most other hazards. This has led to overly strict safety rules and an undeserved fear of radiation in the public eye, which in turn have resulted in unnecessary difficulty in research and commercial applications involving radiation.

The main bulk of the book addresses just the evidence. The effects of single doses and multiple doses of radiation on the human body are looked at with reference to studies on many different sources - Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Chernobyl, medical therapy, radon exposure, radiation workers and so on. Even if you disagree with his conclusions, there's really nothing to argue with here.

He then goes on from this to conclude that current controls on allowed doses are something like an order of magnitude too conservative. This is due to public perception of risk, which is mainly because of the association of radiation with nuclear weapons, and in a large part because of the politics of the cold war, in which the dangers of a nuclear war did not want to be minimised. Prof Wade argues that this is quite a big problem, because nuclear power is the unavoidable choice in the short to medium term, and the irrational fear and restrictive limits are a barrier to this. There are also consequences to things like medicine involving radioactive tracers and so on, which are much more expensive and restricted than they need to be.

Prof Wade proposes a wholesale review of radiation safety limits, along with much better education on the reality of radiation. He focuses on electricity and climate change as the urgent need for this, but if things are as wrong as he says, I would think a review would stand on its own merits.

So, what do people think? Overall, even if you disagree with his political leanings, there seems little to argue with. The evidence does seem to show the current limits are far below the point where there could be any danger. Even if global warming turns out to be a hoax and there is never another nuclear plant built, there doesn't seem to be any good reason for not implementing more sensible does limits.

*Note that I use "radiation" to refer to ionising radiation.

[bobdroege7]

There are also consequences to things like medicine involving radioactive tracers and so on, which are much more expensive and restricted than they need to be.




The main reason for the high cost of the medical scans involving the radioactive tracers is the cost of the scanning equipment, not the cost of the drugs. Competition in the Industry has reduced the cost of a popular cancer scanning drug FDG to around 150 dollars a dose, while the scan still costs thousands of dollars.

The scanners cost millions, almost as much as the cyclotrons and associated equipment.

The scans do involve a significant radioactive dose, about 1 rem total body dose to various organs for a PET scan, so they should be restricted to those who have medical needs for same.

[Uncayimmy]

Did he address uranium in false teeth?
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1108/is-uranium-added-to-false-teeth-to-give-them-a-natural-glow

Still, you did have the problem that uranium was radioactive. In the wake of Hiroshima and Nagasaki it occurred to the dental-ceramics industry that a substance that had destroyed cities might not be such a good thing to use in somebody's mouth. Manufacturers discussed the situation with the Atomic Energy Commission in the 1950s. The debate proceeded along the following lines. On the one hand, putting uranium in people's mouths might possibly give them cancer and kill them. On the other hand, their teeth looked great. It was an easy call. The industry was given a federal exemption to continue using uranium.

[blutoski]

So, what do people think? Overall, even if you disagree with his political leanings, there seems little to argue with. The evidence does seem to show the current limits are far below the point where there could be any danger. Even if global warming turns out to be a hoax and there is never another nuclear plant built, there doesn't seem to be any good reason for not implementing more sensible does limits.

I haven't read the book, but I'm curious about why you think a physicist is qualified to refute medical opinion?

[Dilb]

I haven't read the book, but I'm curious about why you think a physicist is qualified to refute medical opinion?

Because the medical effects of radiation are quite well known, and aren't being disputed? Because physicists are trained to objectively examine evidence, and individual topics in medicine are not completely obscure to those who haven't trained to legally treat everything (or at least a very broad amount) in medicine?

[technoextreme]

Because the medical effects of radiation are quite well known, and aren't being disputed? Because physicists are trained to objectively examine evidence, and individual topics in medicine are not completely obscure to those who haven't trained to legally treat everything (or at least a very broad amount) in medicine?
I don't think it has not been under debate.
Did he address uranium in false teeth?
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1108/is-uranium-added-to-false-teeth-to-give-them-a-natural-glow
Yeah that is pretty interesting. The most deadly sham therapy that has ever been conceived:
http://www.theodoregray.com/PeriodicTable/Elements/088/index.s7.html

[jasonpatterson]

I've had students and parents complain about my use of radioactive materials in chemistry and physics classes. I'm talking about tiny quantities of radioactive substances sealed in epoxy. Most people have absolutely no idea that the whole world around them is radioactive, they are simply afraid of radiation. It gets old...

[wackyvorlon]

I have a small box of radium watch hands that I got along with a lot of old watchmaker's tools bought at auction. It sits in a wooden drawer, in a dresser that I don't normally use. People do get worried, but as I recall it's chiefly alpha decay, and that isn't very penetrating at all.

In some ways, this is an offshoot of something that has crippled all science education. Namely, the attempt to eliminate risk. Risk can never be eliminated, it can only be managed. The problem is that in order to effectively manage it, it must be accurately defined.

THings have gotten so out of hand that very few chemical suppliers will deal with hobby chemists at all. In the United States, thanks to the DEA, it's almost impossible to get crystalline iodine now. But, with some potassium iodide and a few other chemicals, it's not hard to make. I cannot buy 100 grams of USP grade sodium chloride from VWR, yet I can go to the local hardware store and pick up a kilogram of sodium hydroxide crystals. The situation has grown beyond all reason, and entered the realm of sheer madness.

PS: When I mention I do chemistry as a hobby, please don't ask me if I make explosives. I don't. I find them alarming and rather boring. Further, there are certain humourless people who do not understand the concept of a joke. Regrettably these humourless people also have handcuffs.

[Towlie]

A young girl assistant at my dentist's office put a heavy lead bib over my chest before she took an x-ray of my teeth. She looked a little confused when I asked her if that was to protect my heart while she cooked my brain.

[nathan]

'the public' is scared crazy about anything nuclear. So much so that NMR machines are now MRI machines, purely to remove the use of That Word.

Hm, I wonder what would happen if I casually inquire about my next gadget purchase as to whether it consists of nuclear atoms, and then demand to know what kind of atoms it has when they inevitably deny the form of the bulk of its mass.

[technoextreme]

I have a small box of radium watch hands that I got along with a lot of old watchmaker's tools bought at auction. It sits in a wooden drawer, in a dresser that I don't normally use. People do get worried, but as I recall it's chiefly alpha decay, and that isn't very penetrating at all.

I love how you whine about the risk reduction mentality when after five minutes of research you have no fraking clue the risks are of storing radium are.

[wackyvorlon]

Care to enlighten me, then? I'm certainly capable of being wrong. It occurs to me that I should add mention of the fact that the hands themselves are inside small sealed glass tubes. They're organized by size and design, and the tubes are plugged with a stopper.

[geni]

So, what do people think? Overall, even if you disagree with his political leanings, there seems little to argue with. The evidence does seem to show the current limits are far below the point where there could be any danger. Even if global warming turns out to be a hoax and there is never another nuclear plant built, there doesn't seem to be any good reason for not implementing more sensible does limits.

The nuclear industry's record on following limits isn't too good. At least by keeping the limits low when they do screw up the problem isn't normaly that dangerious.

[technoextreme]

Care to enlighten me, then? I'm certainly capable of being wrong. It occurs to me that I should add mention of the fact that the hands themselves are inside small sealed glass tubes. They're organized by size and design, and the tubes are plugged with a stopper.
Never mind. That actually is stored pretty well. Alpha decay doesn't mean it won't **** you over. It just means it won't **** you over unless you somehow get it in your body which you left out of your first post. Also if you have an intense enough source it will actually burn you but obviously your watch hands can't do that.

[geni]

Care to enlighten me, then? I'm certainly capable of being wrong. It occurs to me that I should add mention of the fact that the hands themselves are inside small sealed glass tubes. They're organized by size and design, and the tubes are plugged with a stopper.

Probably fairly safe. The big problem with radium (asumeing you are not trying to eat it or wear it with dirrect skin contact) is the radon gas it gives off.

[technoextreme]

Probably fairly safe. The big problem with radium (asumeing you are not trying to eat it or wear it with dirrect skin contact) is the radon gas it gives off.
Actually, I would imagine its ability to act as a gamma source is also dangerous. Also, it is particularly noxious in the do not eat department since your body thinks its calcium.
http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/radionuclides/radium.html#properties
Though my worry was accidentally breathing in the dust.

[wackyvorlon]

The dresser is in a corner, and I rarely get within a foot of it. If it were in somewhere I was close to on a regular basis, I would put them in a steel box or somesuch. I am glad to hear I'm storing them properly, though. As you can imagine, I have no desire to get cancer from exposure to radiation :)

[edd]

I haven't read the book, but I'm curious about why you think a physicist is qualified to refute medical opinion?

He's a physicist who has worked with radiation and therefore has to understand the risk assessments under which that work is carried out. He's also a physicist who has done a sizeable amount of work in medical physics.

What makes you think medics are qualified to refute his opinions on physics?

[Cuddles]

The scans do involve a significant radioactive dose, about 1 rem total body dose to various organs for a PET scan, so they should be restricted to those who have medical needs for same.

That's really something of a straw man. Just because someone says that radiation limits are unnecessarily low does not mean they are advocating dosing everyone up to the eyeballs.

Did he address uranium in false teeth?

I'm not sure. I haven't actually finished reading the book, but I don't remember him mentioning it in the lecture I saw.

I haven't read the book, but I'm curious about why you think a physicist is qualified to refute medical opinion?

Yeah, how on Earth could a lecturer in both nuclear and medical physics possibly be qualified to give an opinion on nuclear and medical physics?:rolleyes:

And of course, that's before we even take into account the actual evidence presented, which you seem to have conveniently ignored. This is hardly some lone crank throwing out an unsupported opinion, try having a look at the actual data on how the effects of radiation vary depending on dose and then get back to us.

The nuclear industry's record on following limits isn't too good. At least by keeping the limits low when they do screw up the problem isn't normaly that dangerious.

What exactly is wrong with their record? I'm aware of plenty of accidents and such, but that's a completely separate issue. An accident that causes a radioactive release will be the same no matter what you were supposed to be limiting exposure to. The limits on normal dose affect things like thickness of shielding, whereas accidents generally depend on things like faulty procedures and bad maintenance. It doesn't matter how good your shielding is if you forget to close a valve, or build your reactor on top of a fault line (yeah, Japan really doesn't have a great record for nuclear accidents).

I'd say there's a reasonable case to be made that overall safety could be improved, especially if nuclear power becomes significantly more prolific as it seems likely to. However, I'm not aware of any problems that would be made worse by relaxing limits, just problems that could be improved with better inspection and maintenance procedures.

[blutoski]

He's a physicist who has worked with radiation and therefore has to understand the risk assessments under which that work is carried out. He's also a physicist who has done a sizeable amount of work in medical physics.

Mm. Still not sounding like he has any insight into the relevant issues.



What makes you think medics are qualified to refute his opinions on physics?

I do not get the impression his argument has anything to do with physics per se.

Safety decisions are based on current understanding of the effects on human health, and the judgements about risk acceptance that surround those facts.

Analogy: are mechanics the right people to decide safe municipal speed bylaws? Wouldn't it make more sense to ask the people who treat the injured what the relationship between speed and injury are, and then ask the families who live in the area what level risk they are willing to accept? Would understanding more about gears affect their decision?

[blutoski]

What I'm saying is I'll have to read the book, but my impression is that we're dealing with something called [scientism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism)].

The misguided belief that understanding a technology is the same thing as qualified judgement about its applications in society.

I'm concerned about one more Stossel, eh?

[blutoski]

I do not get the impression his argument has anything to do with physics per se.

Sorry, just a last comment... the field he's discussing is [epidemiology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology)] - the assessment of public health risks. It's a specialty in medicine.

Epidemiologists certainly have engaged physicists when establishing their guidelines over the years. Is he saying that these physicists gave the epidemiologists incorrect information?

[bobdroege7]

That's really something of a straw man. Just because someone says that radiation limits are unnecessarily low does not mean they are advocating dosing everyone up to the eyeballs.






A PET scan typically involves about 1 REM dose, that is a fact, not an argument, so how can it be a strawman.

I was countering your post that medicine involving nuclear tracers was expensive and restricted due to the radioactive nature of the drugs involved, which is not true.

On the other hand, we have a physicist saying the current limits on radiation are a thousand times too low.

Maybe we should have a Health Physicist weigh in and advise since they are more qualified than either physicists or medical doctors as to the hazards of radiation dose.

[marting]

One can get a sense of public perception of radiation risk v reality by asking people questions about known events. For some years I've occasionally asked people what their estimate of the number of cancer deaths caused by the two atomic bombings of Japanese cities was. Almost always the answer is high by orders of magnitude. My own estimate was high by one order of magnitude.

http://www.rerf.or.jp/general/qa_e/qa2.html

[wackyvorlon]

I think it's plausible that he has the expertise to present a cogent argument, certainly not obviously lacking in same. I'd like to see a summary of the argument and the data he uses to support it, though, so it can be evaluated on it's merits.

[edd]

Mm. Still not sounding like he has any insight into the relevant issues.

Guess it depends what you think the relevant issues are.


I do not get the impression his argument has anything to do with physics per se.

I can see the balancing of the various risks of radiation as involving a number of disciplines - it's not purely a medical decision, and so you can't criticise someone's opinion on it because their specialisation leans more to one part of that than someone else's. That's my main point. I don't think you can dismiss Wade's opinion because he's a physicist.

[Tim Thompson]

I haven't read the book, but I'm curious about why you think a physicist is qualified to refute medical opinion?
Sorry, just a last comment... the field he's discussing is [epidemiology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology)] - the assessment of public health risks. It's a specialty in medicine.
I haven't read the book and I don't know anything about the author, so I can't specifically address this specific example. However, I think you compartmentalize things too much here. This is a specialty in physics as well, the field is radiation health physics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_physics). I have trained in that field and subsequently qualified & served as a radiation safety coordinator for low energy particle experiments. It's a cross disciplinary course in physics, biology and medicine, specific to radiation issues. The assessment of the personal & public risks of radiation is a specific topic. If this author has trained in that field, then he is just as qualified as any doctor to discuss specifically the health risks of radiation.

[blutoski]

I haven't read the book and I don't know anything about the author, so I can't specifically address this specific example. However, I think you compartmentalize things too much here. This is a specialty in physics as well, the field is radiation health physics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_physics). I have trained in that field and subsequently qualified & served as a radiation safety coordinator for low energy particle experiments. It's a cross disciplinary course in physics, biology and medicine, specific to radiation issues. The assessment of the personal & public risks of radiation is a specific topic. If this author has trained in that field, then he is just as qualified as any doctor to discuss specifically the health risks of radiation.

Yes, like I said, I'll have to read it, but my impression is that he's not debating any issue within actual physics, but about public policy derived from physics facts obtained an probably not in dispute.

If that's the case, then he's as much a layperson as I am.

As I said: I'm willing to be educated, but I'm concerned about Stossel-like sophistry and appeals to scientism.

I'm also interested in how exposure level quibbling issues relates at all to the real application of public policy. I do not get the impression that his conclusions follow from any issues mentioned in the posts.

[blutoski]

Guess it depends what you think the relevant issues are.

I'm only going from your post. It doesn't sound like he's saying physicists are wrong about anything. It sounds like he's railing against public attitudes toward risk. That would be a political issue.

[Xulld]

Number one reason for the fear: Cancer.

It may not be probable, but its possible to get cancer from a single radiation event. Cancer is not well understood, we have no cure, only troubling treatments.

Its a big killer. Statistics do not give people the warm and fuzzies. Almost everyone knows someone that has died of cancer.

Founded in reason or not, the fear is real and understandable. No one wants to be a statistic.

[Myriad]

I thought it was pretty well known that ionizing radiation, like shark attacks and plane crashes, was one of those personal risks that's way overestimated by the general public, relative to other risks in life.

When government policy is influenced by those perceptions instead of being based on completely objective rational criteria, the result is inefficient allocation of risks and resources, such as underuse of nuclear power.

However, government policy must be influenced by those perceptions. The alternative is a government that is unconcerned with popular opinion, except insofar as it conforms to rational criteria that the government itself gets to decide. In the long term, that's a personal risk factor too.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[wackyvorlon]

How often do people pump gas without any thought? It contains multiple known carcinogens. You're far more likely to get cancer from gasoline than from ionizing radiation, simply because it's more common.

[quarky]

At the beginning of the atomic age, the acceptable dose of radiation was too much. It took awhile to find out. During the early bomb tests, soldiers walked up to the site after the explosion. Many of them died later, from leukemia, including my ex-father in law.

We gradually adjusted what was thought to be an acceptable exposure, erring on the side of safety.

[marting]

At the beginning of the atomic age, the acceptable dose of radiation was too much. It took awhile to find out. During the early bomb tests, soldiers walked up to the site after the explosion. Many of them died later, from leukemia, including my ex-father in law.

We gradually adjusted what was thought to be an acceptable exposure, erring on the side of safety.

Leukemia is the cancer that first shows up from radiation exposure. It peaks after about 2 years. Other solid tumor cancers show up decades later. The longitudinal study of Japanese bombing survivors has gone on long enough to produce pretty reliable estimates of dosage and cancer risk over time.

http://www.rerf.or.jp/general/qa_e/qa2.html

Before coming across this study I would have guessed there were about 25,000 cancers due to the bombings rather than a tenth that. Many people I've asked estimate 100,000 to 1,000,000 cancers. No one I've asked estimated less than 10,000.

[blutoski]

I thought it was pretty well known that ionizing radiation, like shark attacks and plane crashes, was one of those personal risks that's way overestimated by the general public, relative to other risks in life.

Again, I'll have to read the book, but my impression is that the author is not talking about the general perception of risk to a person walking around minding their own business, but the specific medical risks associated with particular types of real exposures, and perhaps the risk of the exposure incidences.

These are at least questions that have objective answers that a physicist can help with.

When you say 'relative to other risks in life' that's the subjective part, since we don't know whether the safety rules are too strict for ionizing radiation, or too loose for the benchmark threats. We can say that at least there is an inconsistency. That doesn't support an argument that ionizing radiation exposure levels should be higher.




When government policy is influenced by those perceptions instead of being based on completely objective rational criteria, the result is inefficient allocation of risks and resources, such as underuse of nuclear power.

However, government policy must be influenced by those perceptions. The alternative is a government that is unconcerned with popular opinion, except insofar as it conforms to rational criteria that the government itself gets to decide. In the long term, that's a personal risk factor too.

For sure. I spent early years in a Soviet. Pretty much without exception, government deferred to the facility operators on issues of safety, without consulting nearby residents. The result was probably a less healthy environment. Again, the concern is with scientism.

[blutoski]

How often do people pump gas without any thought? It contains multiple known carcinogens. You're far more likely to get cancer from gasoline than from ionizing radiation, simply because it's more common.

Yes, but skeptics are asked to avoid tu coque types of arguments.

It isn't hyporicy or ignorance to say that I'd like to be protected from the risks that can be avoided, even though I know there are other risks I can't avoid. Reduced risk is reduced risk.

[blutoski]

Leukemia is the cancer that first shows up from radiation exposure. It peaks after about 2 years. Other solid tumor cancers show up decades later. The longitudinal study of Japanese bombing survivors has gone on long enough to produce pretty reliable estimates of dosage and cancer risk over time.

http://www.rerf.or.jp/general/qa_e/qa2.html

Before coming across this study I would have guessed there were about 25,000 cancers due to the bombings rather than a tenth that. Many people I've asked estimate 100,000 to 1,000,000 cancers. No one I've asked estimated less than 10,000.

Sure.

But what did the policymakers believe when setting current guidelines?

[technoextreme]

How often do people pump gas without any thought? It contains multiple known carcinogens. You're far more likely to get cancer from gasoline than from ionizing radiation, simply because it's more common.
What? That is news for me. Ionizing radiation is far more common. Far far more common. So much so that I can say with 95% certainty that every single person on the face of the earth has been exposed to cancer causing ionizing radiation. :p Of course if you are a vain person then you are more at risk though. That 5% is the uncertainty caused by the shut in population. You should be a bit more careful because the sun is the greatest source of ionizing energy.
The dresser is in a corner, and I rarely get within a foot of it. If it were in somewhere I was close to on a regular basis, I would put them in a steel box or somesuch. I am glad to hear I'm storing them properly, though. As you can imagine, I have no desire to get cancer from exposure to radiation
Well I was worried that you were storing in a manner that you can easily inhale the dust.

[theprestige]

It isn't hyporicy or ignorance to say that I'd like to be protected from the risks that can be avoided, even though I know there are other risks I can't avoid. Reduced risk is reduced risk.
You could be protected a lot more from the risks of gasoline. You could profit a lot more from radioactive materials. But in the first case, you seem unconcerned about the risks, and quite happy to accept the current risk level in exchange for the convenience of gasoline everywhere. And in the second case, you seem quite concerned about the risks, and quite happy to forgo the convenience of radioactive materials everywhere if it means avoiding even the slightest risk from them.

So why do you have a greater risk tolerance for gasoline, and a greater risk aversion for radioactive materials? Or would you say you would accept the same level of risk from both?

[quarky]

More radiation exposure for me, please.

[tesscaline]

This is an interesting... idea. That we get nowhere near our tolerances for radiation, I mean. I'm pretty sure my mother (who works as an X-ray technologist) would probably disagree. But then, she's around radiation 8 hours a day (if not longer) 5 days a week (if not more).

[Dogdoctor]

Airline pilots and stewardesses are exposed to more radiation than most radiology technicians. Radiation comes from outer space but is filtered out by our atmosphere. Those who spend long hours at high altitudes have a very high exposure. New equipment and safeguards keep radiology techs from have much exposure.

[macdoc]

The nuclear industry's record on following limits isn't too good.

compared to say coal burning which emits incredible amounts of radiation comparatively, let alone myriad other poisons ...... the nuclear industry's record is sterling.....
AND offset that against the lives saved by nuclear medicine and reducing coal plant emissions with nuclear power stations

Seems to me that was just another kneejerk ill informed throw away comment from the anti-nuke faction....:rolleyes:

People are seriously stupid about real risks.....all afeared of phantom threats and will sit behind an idling bus in traffic without a thought.....

100 cosmic-ray-generated neutrinos pass through your body every second,

ban cosmic rays!!!!!!...how dare they invade my sanctum sanctorum ....:garfield:

[geni]

What exactly is wrong with their record? I'm aware of plenty of accidents and such, but that's a completely separate issue. An accident that causes a radioactive release will be the same no matter what you were supposed to be limiting exposure to. The limits on normal dose affect things like thickness of shielding, whereas accidents generally depend on things like faulty procedures and bad maintenance. It doesn't matter how good your shielding is if you forget to close a valve, or build your reactor on top of a fault line (yeah, Japan really doesn't have a great record for nuclear accidents).

I'd say there's a reasonable case to be made that overall safety could be improved, especially if nuclear power becomes significantly more prolific as it seems likely to. However, I'm not aware of any problems that would be made worse by relaxing limits, just problems that could be improved with better inspection and maintenance procedures.

If you relax the limits that means people are closer to larger amounts of radioactive material for greater lengths of time. That means that if something does go wrong the damage has the potential to be rather greater.

[geni]

compared to say coal burning which emits incredible amounts of radiation comparatively, let alone myriad other poisons ...... the nuclear industry's record is sterling.....
AND offset that against the lives saved by nuclear medicine and reducing coal plant emissions with nuclear power stations

Seems to me that was just another kneejerk ill informed throw away comment from the anti-nuke faction....:rolleyes:

Coal powers are operateing withing defined limits. The nuclear industry? Well LWR probably do these days but the remaining reprossessing plants have a rather less happy history.

[big-E]

Something no-one appears to have brought up yet is the 'linear no-threshold' theory which is generally applied to radiation i.e. drawing the graph of exposure v.s. damage using the well-established data points of high exposure: high damage and tracing the trend line down to 0,0 in a linear fashion. I'm not sure it holds up, and a quick search brought up this article which I've not read in detail but may be of interest:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6878/is_3_13/ai_n28562153/

The basic principle of the objection being that very low/low (depending on your scale) doses don't cause a proportional amount of damage or carry a proportional risk of cancer, but instead have basically no effect at all (or even beneficial, though that seems a stretch).

This seems quite plausible to me as we, as many posters above have pointed out, live in a sea of radiation at all times, and there's nothing *magically* dangerous about it - we have cell repair mechanisms etc. - so for the human body not to be able to happily tolerate low levels with no effect seems unlikely.

Not to mention that the damaging effect of very low dose radioactivity would be lost in the noise of the damaging effect of every other low-damage lifestyle choice...

[Cuddles]

A PET scan typically involves about 1 REM dose, that is a fact, not an argument, so how can it be a strawman.

It's a straw man because no-one had suggested that PET scans should not restricted to only those who need them.

Again, I'll have to read the book

Yes, perhaps you should read it before making any more nonsensical posts. Nothing you have said has so far been at all relevant. You question his authority, despite it being clearly explained that he is, in fact, an authority. You further ignore the fact that, as always, credentials are utterly irrelevant, evidence is evidence no matter who presents it. The book presents evidence. Disagree with that if you like, but please stop spouting off without having any clue what you are actually commenting on.

Something no-one appears to have brought up yet is the 'linear no-threshold' theory which is generally applied to radiation i.e. drawing the graph of exposure v.s. damage using the well-established data points of high exposure: high damage and tracing the trend line down to 0,0 in a linear fashion.

That's all mentioned in the book as well.

[macdoc]

Coal powers are operateing withing defined limits.

:dl:

You really don't want to go there comparing safety records and death counts on nuclear versus coal and it's off topic anyways...

Coal industry radiation is NEVER accounted for.....period.

[ponderingturtle]

Something no-one appears to have brought up yet is the 'linear no-threshold' theory which is generally applied to radiation i.e. drawing the graph of exposure v.s. damage using the well-established data points of high exposure: high damage and tracing the trend line down to 0,0 in a linear fashion. I'm not sure it holds up, and a quick search brought up this article which I've not read in detail but may be of interest:


Sure, but I am confortable with it being overly protective rather than finding out say 1 in 100 nuclear technicians died from work related cancers.

[IXP]

I believe that is we discarded all biases and objectively determined risks and benefits of various technologies, cars would be banned and nuclear power plants would proliferate.

IXP

[bobdroege7]

It's a straw man because no-one had suggested that PET scans should not restricted to only those who need them.




No one except you






There are also consequences to things like medicine involving radioactive tracers and so on, which are much more expensive and restricted than they need to be.

[blutoski]

You could be protected a lot more from the risks of gasoline. You could profit a lot more from radioactive materials. But in the first case, you seem unconcerned about the risks, and quite happy to accept the current risk level in exchange for the convenience of gasoline everywhere. And in the second case, you seem quite concerned about the risks, and quite happy to forgo the convenience of radioactive materials everywhere if it means avoiding even the slightest risk from them.

I haven't said anything about myself, actually.




So why do you have a greater risk tolerance for gasoline, and a greater risk aversion for radioactive materials? Or would you say you would accept the same level of risk from both?

I'd say that I don't actually know the exact level of risk for either. At least not for the purpose of the discussion at this point, since the term 'risk' has varying meanings.

[blutoski]

Yes, perhaps you should read it before making any more nonsensical posts. Nothing you have said has so far been at all relevant. You question his authority, despite it being clearly explained that he is, in fact, an authority. You further ignore the fact that, as always, credentials are utterly irrelevant, evidence is evidence no matter who presents it. The book presents evidence. Disagree with that if you like, but please stop spouting off without having any clue what you are actually commenting on.

That's all mentioned in the book as well.

Well, with all due respect, my impression is that the original post was posted to a forum obviously populated by people who have not read the book, and that opinions were solicited.

If you intended to dismiss the thoughts of people who haven't read the book, you should have said so in your original post and we would have avoided wasting everybody's time.

[technoextreme]

This seems quite plausible to me as we, as many posters above have pointed out, live in a sea of radiation at all times, and there's nothing *magically* dangerous about it - we have cell repair mechanisms etc. - so for the human body not to be able to happily tolerate low levels with no effect seems unlikely.

That reminds me of the statistic about your risk of cancer increasing with one sunburn. Admittedly, I have no idea if it woo or not but if it isn't then that rational gets thrown out the window.
Yes, perhaps you should read it before making any more nonsensical posts. Nothing you have said has so far been at all relevant. You question his authority, despite it being clearly explained that he is, in fact, an authority. You further ignore the fact that, as always, credentials are utterly irrelevant, evidence is evidence no matter who presents it. The book presents evidence. Disagree with that if you like, but please stop spouting off without having any clue what you are actually commenting on.

Dumb rational. He really has no authority to talk about the medical safety of radiation. That is a doctors job. He has no authority to talk about the safety of nuclear reactors. That is an engineers job. I really don't trust people who work outside their field of expertise and despite how well researched it is they can still and have entirely ****** up the science.

[blutoski]

That reminds me of the statistic about your risk of cancer increasing with one sunburn. Admittedly, I have no idea if it woo or not but if it isn't then that rational gets thrown out the window.

Dumb rational. He really has no authority to talk about the medical safety of radiation. That is a doctors job. He has no authority to talk about the safety of nuclear reactors. That is an engineers job. I really don't trust people who work outside their field of expertise and despite how well researched it is they can still and have entirely ****** up the science.

Actually, I'm still up in the air about what exactly the focus of the author's concern is, which is why I was asking questions. Is he saying the physicists have provided incorrect data to the regulators? Is he saying the regulators have not engaged the physicists and medical experts sufficiently? Is he saying the regulators have engaged the experts, but overruled their advice in favour of public opinion? Something else I haven't thought of?

I learned there are relevant fields of expertise involved. This leads to other questions: is he a recognized member of any of these fields of expertise? Is there a consensus within the field anyways? if so: are his views typical of these experts, or is he rejecting the consensus?

I would take these into consideration when reading any nonfiction book on a technical subject in which I have little expertise. Especially if it smells like axe-grinding. The author's purpose for the book sounds like an attempt to persuade the reader - I would want to see if the information he provided is likely to be balanced based on perhaps an external repuation.

Just to put it into perspective, Ken Ham is literally "a lecturer and textbook author on the subject of evolution", which looks good on a CV. But it'd be a serious omission to ignore what other evolutionary biologists think of his contributions. Millions of people who have no expertise in biology read his book and walk away utterly convinced, because that's their window into the field.

[Cuddles]

No one except you

There's really very little point in lying about my posts when you've just quoted it for everyone to see.

Dumb rational. He really has no authority to talk about the medical safety of radiation. That is a doctors job. He has no authority to talk about the safety of nuclear reactors. That is an engineers job. I really don't trust people who work outside their field of expertise and despite how well researched it is they can still and have entirely ****** up the science.

Seriously, what the **** is wrong with everyone here? He is a medical physicist. That is exactly the person you should be looking to to talk about medical physics. And instead of just imagining that he might have messed up the science, how about actually reading the *********** book and seeing for yourself? I didn't start this thread so people could argue with the voices in their heads, I started it because I rather stupidly thought that a forum full of skeptics might actually be interested in reading something and giving their views on it.

Actually, I'm still up in the air about what exactly the focus of the author's concern is, which is why I was asking questions. Is he saying the physicists have provided incorrect data to the regulators? Is he saying the regulators have not engaged the physicists and medical experts sufficiently? Is he saying the regulators have engaged the experts, but overruled their advice in favour of public opinion? Something else I haven't thought of?

READ THE *********** BOOK! For ****s sake, how difficult is this to understand? You have no idea what is being said or who is saying it, yet you throw out utterly nonsensical complaints about what you imagine might be being said. If you don't have any interest in actually reading the book that is the subject of the thread and commenting on what is actually said in it, then just stop making an ass of yourself and stop posting.

Well, with all due respect, my impression is that the original post was posted to a forum obviously populated by people who have not read the book, and that opinions were solicited.

With all due respect (that would be none, in case you were wondering) I assumed that when I presented a link where the book could be read and asked what people's opinions were on what the book said, that anyone with more than one brain cell would understand that I was rather obviously asking for opinions on what was in it, rather than asking for ignorant, uninformed speculation about what it might say if it was a different book written by a different person.

If you intended to dismiss the thoughts of people who haven't read the book, you should have said so in your original post and we would have avoided wasting everybody's time.

I asked for opinions on the book. Are you seriously stupid enough to blame me for wasting people's time, when you are the one who has been spouting nonsense without bothering to look at either the book or the author? Please. If you're not interested in posting here, just don't post. Don't try blaming me for starting a thread about something you don't care about.

[ponderingturtle]

READ THE *********** BOOK! For ****s sake, how difficult is this to understand? You have no idea what is being said or who is saying it, yet you throw out utterly nonsensical complaints about what you imagine might be being said. If you don't have any interest in actually reading the book that is the subject of the thread and commenting on what is actually said in it, then just stop making an ass of yourself and stop posting.



With all due respect (that would be none, in case you were wondering) I assumed that when I presented a link where the book could be read and asked what people's opinions were on what the book said, that anyone with more than one brain cell would understand that I was rather obviously asking for opinions on what was in it, rather than asking for ignorant, uninformed speculation about what it might say if it was a different book written by a different person.



I asked for opinions on the book. Are you seriously stupid enough to blame me for wasting people's time, when you are the one who has been spouting nonsense without bothering to look at either the book or the author? Please. If you're not interested in posting here, just don't post. Don't try blaming me for starting a thread about something you don't care about.

Well it seems you are the only one who has read the book, and as you are unwilling to try to discuss the issues in it, you should stop posting. You are also setting a great example of behavior here.

[Dilb]

Dumb rational. He really has no authority to talk about the medical safety of radiation. That is a doctors job. He has no authority to talk about the safety of nuclear reactors. That is an engineers job. I really don't trust people who work outside their field of expertise and despite how well researched it is they can still and have entirely ****** up the science.

A doctor's job is to legally practice medicine, to the best of current knowledge about medicine. Not to be the only authority on anything health related. An engineer's job is to legally design a system to be safe and effective, to the best current knowledge of how that system works. Physicists can, and do, tell engineers and doctors how to improve certain aspects of their work.

If the author were in a hospital, saying to a patient "you should take 200 microCuries of tracer to get the best imaging" he'd be overstepping his bounds, because he has not been trained as a doctor and shouldn't be treating patients. He'd probably be right about how to improve the image, but he wouldn't be trained about weighing the risks and benefits of a scan for this particular person.

When he says that given the risks of radiation, the radiation industry is regulated far more than industries with comparable or greater risks, then he's well within his area of expertise.

[marting]

When he says that given the risks of radiation, the radiation industry is regulated far more than industries with comparable or greater risks, then he's well within his area of expertise.

Agreed.

The OP provided an online readable text. The queestion as to regulation of the nuclear industry is an interesting one that gets into risk analysis of low frequency events. The debate as to whether the linear to zero theory is accurate or not is an interesting one but the low incidence of predicted cancers using that model is such that experimentally it isn't directly verifiable in human populations.

The author's critical point is that people generally overestimate the risks of ionizing radiation. It's a good argument. The widespread lay overestimates of cancer from events such as the nuclear bombings of Japan and the massive Chernobyl meltdown continues in the popular view. It even continues amongst the reasonably well informed as I pointed out in my ad hoc sampling of people's perceptions of cancers due to the bombings.

The author also underlined the notion that this perception was useful in stirring efforts to control WMD proliferation. An interesting question is whether nurturing (or just ignoring) such misperceptions for a greater good (impeding the acceptability of nukes) is proper. I think not. In this case the extant paradigm may be negatively impacting tradeoffs in energy sources with low carbon footprints.

i believe more nuclear energy is badly needed but that the most critical risk tradoff is proliferation and the focus should be on reactor and fuel cycle designs that have the highest barriers to weapons diversion.

[macdoc]

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

[Philip]

Here are some links for those who don't know what medical physicists or health physicists are:

http://www.aapm.org/medical_physicist/default.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_physics

http://hps.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_physics

The International Commission on Radiological Protection is one of the main international bodies that makes recommendations for radiological limits.
http://www.icrp.org/index.asp
The International Commission on Radiological Protection, ICRP, is an independent Registered Charity, established to advance for the public benefit the science of radiological protection, in particular by providing recommendations and guidance on all aspects of protection against ionising radiation.

http://www.icrp.org/about.asp
Biologists and medical doctors dominate the current membership; physicists are also well represented.

The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements makes recommendations in the US.
http://www.ncrponline.org/AboutNCRP/About_NCRP.html

The lack of a proportionally higher number of cancers in regions of higher levels of natural background radiation calls into question the LNT hypothesis or at least suggests that low-level radiation makes a very small contribution to the total number of cancers.

[blutoski]

Well it seems you are the only one who has read the book, and as you are unwilling to try to discuss the issues in it, you should stop posting. You are also setting a great example of behavior here.

I'm a little shocked, myself, actually. My comments are mostly questions and sincere attempts to understand the subject matter, short of actually reading the book.

I don't suppose there's any point in reporting a moderator as abusive, but the fallout in terms of people being afraid to post will remain.

[Dogdoctor]

I think the USA government generally choses to err on the side of safety when it comes to cancer causing things. If a substance is found to cause even benign tumors in other species they restrict it's use in humans. The causes of cancer are numerous and often unknown so they rather be more cautious than find out that they cleared the use of a substance or procedure that lead to cancer (except for cigarettes).

[Skwinty]

I have been a radiation worker since 1984. The ALARA principle has always been applied to exposure to ionizing radiation. I agree with what the book says about the exposure limits being too conservative, however, from a pragmatic point of view, I would not be too happy if these limits were increased. One glass of whisky per day is far better than one bottle of whisky per day. It comes down to time, distance and shielding.

Try spending 8 hours in close proximity to a heavily irradiated piece of equipment without sharing the dose with some of your fellow workers. It is all fine and well for the average person who is only exposed to background radiation such as cosmic rays, nuclear fallout from the more than 300 atomic bombs detonated on planet earth, sunshine etc to espouse increasing the exposure threshold as opposed to some one who actually has to be exposed on a daily basis to doserates far in excess of what is considered normal and natural.

As for Cuddle's response to Blutoski.
The OP only made reference to a physicist so I do not see what all the reaction to Blutoski is all about. Cuddles by name but not by nature?;)

[ingoa]

Agreed.

...The debate as to whether the linear to zero theory is accurate or not is an interesting one but the low incidence of predicted cancers using that model is such that experimentally it isn't directly verifiable in human populations.

...

I support martings post. For some explanations about the LNT (linear/no threshold) hypothesis see here:
http://www.iem-inc.com/prlntr.html

[wadeallison]

Sorry, it was my fault that this book was hard to download. It is now available in paperback via radiationandreason.com
Maybe those who felt encouraged to read it will now succeed in doing so.
Again apologies

[CoolSceptic]

A colleague of mine used to work in this field; I've discussed this topic with him several times and he makes very similar comments, that the limits are very conservative, perhaps overly so.

Popular perception has a lot to do with it, and people worry endlessly about nuclear power but don't think twice about jumping on a plane. Long distance flight crews (apparently) have a statistically significant reduction in length of life due to the increased risk of cancer from cosmic radiation. Kinda difficult to protect them though; lead lined planes don't fly too good.

Another huge risk that doesn't get talked about - home insulation. In certain parts of the world (including places in the UK, US) insulating your home increases the concentration of radon gas in your home, which is a very major cause of lung cancer (in affected areas, second only to smoking). That's one warning we don't get to hear much about.

Compared to these two natural sources of radiation, public risk from industrial/scientific radiation doesn't even register. But people make a big deal about the latter, and seem oblivious to the former.

[Doubt]

It comes down to time, distance and shielding.


The book does sound interesting.

Time, I think, would be the interesting part of this. Life time doses matter. I know almost nothing about what is legally allowed. But if anything were to change, I would hope exposure limits would be scaled based on the age of those involved if they don't already do that. More restrictive for younger folks. Less restrictive for older.

My memory of what I learned in the army is not what is used to be. But I did find what the US army thinks about radiation exposure. Of course, their concerns are a bit different than the civilian world.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/army/fm/3-3-1_2/Appa.htm#s1

[macdoc]

So why do you have a greater risk tolerance for gasoline, and a greater risk aversion for radioactive materials? Or would you say you would accept the same level of risk from both?

Let alone coal which emits BOTH carcinogens and high amounts of radiation and kills thousands directly every year and 100,000s indirectly.....

silly monkeys....:garfield:

A recent survey of people living in towns with nuclear facilities showed 80% and higher were very supportive of the facility and happy to live near it.


Findings from a 2009 survey from NEI and Bisconti Research Inc. include the public living within 10 miles of a nuclear plant:

· 90 percent of plant neighbors have a favorable impression of their local nuclear plant
· 76 percent would accept a new reactor at their nearest nuclear plant site
· 79 percent say they would find acceptable a new reactor at the nuclear plant nearest to where they live.
· 90 percent believe that nuclear plants stimulate the local economy and provide jobs for local workers

[wadeallison]

1. The radiation levels in the nuclear waste storage hall at Sellafield, UK (1 microsievert per hour) are so low that anyone would have to stay there for a million hours to receive the same dose that any patient on a course of radiotherapy treatment receives to their healthy tissue in a single day (1 sievert).
2. The radiation dose experienced by the survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs caused 0.6% to die of radiation-induced cancer between 1950 and 2000, about 1/20 of the chance of dying of cancer anyway and less than the chance of being killed on US highways in that period.
3. The wildlife at Chernobyl today is reported to be thriving, despite being radioactive.
4. The mortality of UK radiation workers before age 85 from all cancers is 15-20% lower than comparable groups.
The case for a complete change in attitude towards radiation safety is unrelated to the effects of climate change. But the realisation that radiation and nuclear energy are much safer than is usually supposed is of extreme importance to the current discussion of alternatives to fossil fuels and their relative costs.
More in the book (out in October) and on the website www radiationandreason com