This is the big question. It seems to me that LNT is definitely wrong, there is a threshold. The question is.. what is that threshold, and how likely is it that biological system will actually trigger that threshold, IE food chains and other natural phenomena.
Cleanup may not need to be as expensive as we thought, but isn't the only way to tell for sure.. loss of human life / cancer?
Re:Why has nuclear power been a flop?
by simonblack on Saturday April 17, 2021 @03:50AM
(#26842417)
It seems to me that LNT is definitely wrong, there is a threshold. The question is.. what is that threshold
Coincidentally, my brother was a PhD in Zoology and his doctorate thesis back in the 1960s was whether or not there is a threshold for radiation damage on fruit-flies. His results indicated that there was no threshold. Radiation damage is proportional to the dosage.
Nature, 1961 "Radiosensitive Stages in the Spermatogenesis of Drosophila melanogaster" - Strangio, V. A.
The actual thesis is a bit too technical for my complete understanding.
The alternative hypothesis is activation, that is that low doses of radiation are actually benificial to organism. There seems to be some evidence, and that's why people sometimes deliberately inhale radon. Cf https://www.bad-kreuznach-tourist.de/en/health-resort-therap...
Please don't inhale radon!
Why would I?
"The official model guiding US government policy, both at the EPA and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), is the Linear No Threshold model (LNT). LNT says that cancer risk is directly proportional to dose, that doses are cumulative over time (rate doesn‘t matter), and that there is no threshold or safe dose.?
The author points out that the danger of long term low level radiation is much smaller than what is commonly believed, which means that cleanup does not need to be as thorough and expensive.