Talk:Fear of radiation

LNT Controversy

A summary of this debate and two figures have been moved to the Debate Guide page. The debate is ongoing, so we will continue the discussion here. David MacQuigg (talk) 12:06, 22 July 2023 (CDT)

For those who care about the small risk of exposures less than 100 mSv (regulators and a fearful public) I would say we should think of this as we do about buying a car. If I had to choose between a car I really wanted, and one that had a safety rating a little better (20% chance of an injury in an accident, vs 21%) I would take that extra risk. I might do a little study and find out exactly what the problem is with the car I like, and take steps to avoid that problem.

So on the nuclear power question, if I was considering buying a home I really liked near a nuclear plant or spent fuel storage site, I might do a little study and assure myself that the chances of an accident are small, and then the chances of a radiation leak are even smaller, and then the chances of that leak giving me an exposure like the Japanese bomb survivors are so small that I would better spend my time worrying about getting hit by a meteor. David MacQuigg (talk) 12:06, 22 July 2023 (CDT)

External links are not allowed to exist within articles themselves

External links (to sites outside Citizendium) may go in the reference, and they should definitely go on the External Links tab, but they may NOT exist within the article body itself. Thus, there is a need to revise the Further Reading section. I suggest putting the links in the reference (between <ref></ref> tags) and just the description within the article itself. I know this may be different than you are used to, but it's how online encyclopedias have traditionally done this, including Wikipedia. Let's stick with it.Pat Palmer (talk) 13:41, 27 December 2022 (CST)

I fixed the first of several links for you, as an example.Pat Palmer (talk) 13:50, 27 December 2022 (CST)

I agree. Putting the link details in the footnotes makes the text more readable. I fixed the rest of the links. David MacQuigg (talk) 21:12, 27 December 2022 (CST)

a question about LNT

The discussion of LNT has left me scratching my head. Am I right in understanding that the Linear No Threshold (LNT) model is comparable to the conventional wisdom on bee sting reactions, which goes like something like this: "Every time a bee stings you, the venom you get accumulates in your system. A day may come when you get a bee sting that puts you over the threshold for safety and then you'll start having dangerous reactions to bee stings. So every single bee sting is a really really bad thing because you body cannot really eliminate the venom." So is it like, with LNT, "Every little bit of radiation that hits your body accumulates in your body over time", whereas in reality, the body eliminates most radioactive substances (like it eliminates almost everything unneeded) and can usually repair any damage from moderate amounts of radiation, and so it only matters that you not get too much ALL AT ONCE? Instead of worrying about a lifetime of slow accumulation?" As far as I'm concerned, the existing discussions of LNT need to be made more accessible to normal humans who are not scientists. I can't be the only one who just doesn't understand this stuff.Pat Palmer (talk) 10:51, 3 January 2023 (CST)

The best simple explanation I have found is in Robert Hargraves' lecture slides, linked in our Further Reading section. Maybe we should include more of this in the article. David MacQuigg (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2023 (CST)

LNT and radon, Controversy over Figure 4

There seems to be ongoing debate on the question - Is radon an exception to the studies proving that exposures less than 100 mSv do NOT follow LNT, and in fact, show no measurable harm? Until this question is resolved, we might want to remove Figure 4 from the article. It is not essential to showing that LNT is invalid as a basis for regulation of nuclear power. David MacQuigg (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2023 (CDT)

On the other hand, Figure 4 makes an important point about the cost of over-reliance on LNT. I remember spending money and having great concern about radon in my home in Florida in the 1980's. These worries seem to have abated since then, but I am still hearing strong opinions, without evidence, in discussions on the Internet. So let's keep the figure, but add a section on our Debate Guide page, something like:
Read it on the Internet:
"If you had posted that graphic to Wikipedia I would have edited it already but as it is some kind of alternative to Wikipedia I’m not going to spend my Friday evening getting verified just to take down misleading information." [1]

Counties with higher radon have less lung cancer.

The question is - Does radon, unlike other sources of radiation, pose a special threat at low levels typically found in buildings (50 to 100 Bq/m3). Some (WHO and EPA) are saying yes, the risk is a simple linear extrapolation of the risk measured at higher doses. Others are saying this assumption is leading to costly and unnecessary remediation of old buildings. The data seems to support the latter. See section 7 "Lung cancer rates decrease with increasing residential radon levels" in https://www.x-lnt.org/evidence-for-radiation-hormesis It seems to me that any kind of smoke, or even dust in the air, might trap some radon daughters and cause them to stay in the lungs longer. This would amplify the effect of low concentrations of radon, but not change the conclusion that low concentrations of radon actually DECREASE the risk of lung cancer. David MacQuigg (talk) 06:47, 1 August 2023 (CDT)