Big Nuclear’s Big Mistake - Linear No-Threshold

Submitted ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩ by ⁨turdas@suppo.fi⁩ to ⁨energy@slrpnk.net⁩

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzdLdNRaPKc

A long and detailed YouTube video by Kyle Hill about how an outdated principle of “there is no safe level of ionizing radiation” still pervades nuclear and radiation policy in spite of continuously mounting scientific evidence to the contrary, contributing to unnecessarily great caution with things like medical imaging, and to negative public perception and panic.

The TL;DW is that there is a mountain of evidence that small doses of radiation are harmless due to the body’s natural defenses and self-repair mechanisms, and in fact according to many studies small doses may in fact reduce the risk of cancer compared to baseline rather than increase it (a phenomenon known as hormesis).

source

Comments

Sort:hotnew top

recklessengagement@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
There are more concerns with radiation than just cancer risk.

And until we better understand this self-repair mechanism, we shouldn’t assume everyone has the same risk curve.

source
Dogyote@slrpnk.net ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
Perhaps this is true, however it’s a slippery slope. “Don’t mind my leaky reactor. If anything it’s good for you, a little bit of extra radiation reduces your risk of cancer.”

Honestly OP this is such a weird message to be pushing. Are you heavily invested in nuclear or something?

source
- turdas@suppo.fi ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  That’s not the message here at all. The message is that this overly cautious policy contributes to the public’s poor understanding of the risks of radiation, which in turn causes harm e.g. in the form of overreactions when things go wrong (see the section from 20:50 onwards). For example, with the benefit of hindsight, evacuating Fukushima likely did much more harm than good, and the actual health effects of Chernobyl are to this date widely grossly overestimated.
  
  Honestly OP this is such a weird message to be pushing. Are you heavily invested in nuclear or something?
  
  What is so weird about pro-nuclear messaging on a green energy forum? Dispelling myths about nuclear is just as important as dispelling myths about renewables. And while I am not monetarily invested in nuclear, I policy-wise I am heavily invested – like anyone who cares about sustainability should be.
  
  source
  - Dogyote@slrpnk.net ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    
    That’s not the message here at all.
    
    It’s the downstream effects of your message that I’m worried about. We shouldn’t get sloppy with nuclear material. Suggesting that a little radiation exposure isn’t bad or a little water contamination isn’t bad, while perhaps technically correct, can lead to sloppiness and eroding standards. People should be afraid of radiation so they respect it.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
That is at least very disputable.

Look up “epigenetic effects of ionizing radiation” on scholar.google.com (that is a google service for searching academic papers).

There are also effects for which the current theories have no good explanation. For example, in Germany, several careful studies found that near nuclear plants, there is a larger risk for childs to develop leukemia. Similar results have emerged in other places of the world.

source
solo@slrpnk.net ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
The scientific community is not a unified body, so having scientists questioning any scientific model does not seem like a “wow” moment. But, when the discourse starts including strong vocabulary, admittedly I start questioning/researching claims. And I appreciate it when studies conclude by saying things like: cautious of interpretation is needed, or further studies are warranted, etc.

Apart from that, sure, maybe the LNT model needs some re-evaluation, maybe not - I dunno, time will tell. Still, to my understanding, one problem with ionising radiation is that the dosage received by people is not always as tightly controlled as needed for it to be safe, despite all efforts. Not even in work environments.

For example:
This recent meta-analysis about occupational radiation exposure and risk of thyroid cancer from 2024 saying: > A total of six studies (covering 3,409,717 individuals), which were published between 2006 and 2021 from 4 countries met the inclusion criteria. (…) Pooled analyses indicated that occupational radiation exposure was associated with a 67% higher risk of thyroid cancer - And this article from 2024 from Lancet, called: New study provides crucial insights into radiation exposure’s impact on cancer risk - Updated findings to a long-term international study on workers in the nuclear sector. > The researchers assembled a cohort of more than 300,000 radiation-monitored workers from France, the United Kingdom and the United States, employed at nuclear facilities between 1944 and 2016. (…) The study revealed a positive association between prolonged low-dose exposure to ionizing radiation and mortality from these hematological cancers. The study concluded that health risk remains low at low exposure levels. Nevertheless, the evidence of associations between total radiation exposure and multiple myeloma and myelodysplastic syndromes signals the necessity for future radiation studies to expand the discussion on radiation protection and occupational safety measures on a global scale.

source