Radiation Isn't So Bad
We're too afraid of radiation, says the New Scientist. It's not really all that bad:
Given what we now know, from radiotherapy to the legacy of the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it is clear that radiationsafety limits are far too conservative. Evidently, our bodies have learned through evolution to repair or eliminate damaged cells, with a low failure rate. I suggest the upper limit might be reset at a lifetime total of 5 sieverts, at no more than 0.1 sievert per month. That would be a fraction of a radiotherapy dose, spread over a lifetime.
And what's more:
It should also lead to a more sensible attitude to nuclear waste. If treated properly, the quantities are small, it become harmless after a few centuries, and it may be buried at moderate cost. In any event, the effect of radioactive waste is a small matter compared with the global influence of carbon dioxide and leaked hydrocarbons. We should re-examine the environmental risks ofradiation with the same radical attitude that is required for our own health.
Now they tell us. I'm happy to read it, of course -- nuclear energy really is the best option for a growing, dynamic American economy -- but I have to wonder what else they're not telling us yet, what other things aren't so bad for us. For years, "radiation" has been a favorite scare word. What's next?
I'm hoping it's French fries.
- Comment (12)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Re: Radiation Isn't So Bad
The saying in toxicology holds true for radiation and most other environmental nasties: The dose makes the poison. Even a large cumulative dose, delivered over time in teensy-weensy increments is vastly different than a bolus.
Re: Radiation Isn't So Bad
Wait, I'm not sure I understand. I read this with joyful hope ... should I be? My daughter with Down syndrome has had a lot of radiation in her young life. Well, I say "a lot" because it's much, much more than anyone else in our family has had in our lives, and she's just 4. At birth, she had several doses to check her heart function, then she's either had pneumonia or been at risk for pneumonia many times (meaning lots of chest X-rays), and she's also had 2 swallow studies, which required multiple X-ray snapshots as she eats her food to assess her chewing/swallowing functioning. Does this mean I don't have to worry as much? But I thought there was just something 6 mos or a year ago saying radiation amounts are too high these days? Unnecessary deaths, and all that. I am always fretting about this & trying to figure out the risks. Am I setting her up for cancer in the future while trying to prevent something more immediate -- choking, pneumonia, heart stress? Or am I reading something into this that I shouldn't be ...
Aug '10
Re: Radiation Isn't So Bad
Not only may it not be so bad, but a little may (I said, may) turn out to be helpful. Radiation hormesis theory posits that we're better of with a small amount of radiation than none at all.
This theory hasn't been accepted yet, but it's not just some whack-a-doodle theory, to judge by the people considering it (like France's Académie nationale de Médecine).
On the face of it, since we evolved around low-level background radiation, it makes sense to conjecture that that's what we're best adapted to. At least as much sense as the linear no-threshold model...
I wonder what the good Dr Savage makes of radiation hormesis?
Jun '10
Re: Radiation Isn't So Bad
The problem with nuclear energy is that the vast majority of people in the world don't understand it. To quote Artur C. Clarke, any technology sufficiently advanced is like magic," so to most people nukes are magic at best and witchcraft at worst. As an example consider the controversy some four or five years ago engendered by NASA's desire to send a nuclear powered satalite into deep space. To some it was anathama to send a nuke into space because of the potential for emitting nuclear radiation. What went unsaid by most scientists, probably because they were laughing histarically, is that space teems with all types of radiation, and the nuke wouldn't even constitute the equivalent of a laughter induced tear in the Pacific Ocean.
Jul '10
Re: Radiation Isn't So Bad
Yes! My chair's gonna be 6 inches from the tv, just where I said it should be.
Jun '10
Re: Radiation Isn't So Bad
LCD? Plasma?
Re: Radiation Isn't So Bad
MFR, I am unconvinced by the available evidence supporting either radiation hormesis or the no-threshold hypothesis. I place myself squarely in the threshold dose-response camp. In fact, even NTH adherents usually justify its use on utilitarian rather than scientific grounds -- regulatory rulemaking is far easier when stipulating a stable dose-response instead of debating threshold dose and interval for every conceivable exposure scenario. Unfortunately, talking heads promulgate NTH without context, thereby scaring those having an X-ray or living near nuclear reactors -- or living in Denver, but for some reason nobody seems to worry much about the 2X cosmic radiation dose delivered to residents of Mile High City.
Aug '10
Re: Radiation Isn't So Bad
Thanks, Dr!
May '10
Re: Radiation Isn't So Bad
Sleeper 1973 - Woody Allen
Dr. Melik: This morning for breakfast he requested something called "wheat germ, organic honey and tiger's milk."
Dr. Aragon: [chuckling] Oh, yes. Those are the charmed substances that some years ago were thought to contain life-preserving properties.
Dr. Melik: You mean there was no deep fat? No steak or cream pies or... hot fudge?
Dr. Aragon: Those were thought to be unhealthy... precisely the opposite of what we now know to be true.
Dr. Melik: Incredible.
Jun '10
Re: Radiation Isn't So Bad
The Chinese don't seem overly concerned about nuclear power. In fact, according to the World Nuclear Association China has 12 nuclear reactors in operation, 24 under construction, and more about to start construction. Nuclear capacity will increase tenfold between now and 2020, to 80 GWe. Capacity will increase to 200 GWe by 2030 and 400 GWe by 2050.
Anyone know a good uranium ETF?
Jul '10
Re: Radiation Isn't So Bad
Cas Balicki
LCD? Plasma? · Aug 6 at 7:22pm
'Fraid not Cas. It's strictly turn of the century tech here. 32-inch flat-screen 150 lb type technology. There are two massive upsides. First, it was free, my folks purchased it as a Christmas gift. Second, my neighbors' "friends" haven't bothered to steal it. It'd require way too much work.
May '10
Re: Radiation Isn't So Bad
I dunno, George. We know that the radiation associated with coal plants is significantly more intense than sleeping right next to the Three Mile Island reactor building.
But, since granite gives off a lot more radiation than you get from a nuke plant or the average x-ray, isn't the exposure from spending to much time in the US Capitol a possible explanation for the addled minds of our Congress?
In fact, shouldn't we send them all home, retired, because of the OSHA implications of working there too long?
Term limnits, at last, dictated by the bureaucracy!