Sciencemadness Discussion Board

radioactivity reconsideration??

Fantasma4500 - 7-2-2016 at 20:16

somewhere down the rabbit hole someone hinted me that there are some loose ends in regards of hiroshima, talking to a few others i was prompty linked this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEXG7h6kBOQ&feature=yout...

the guy comes across as pretty legitimate, he claims that radioactivity safety measures are nothing but hypocrisy having had hands on experience with the materials for many years before the safety precautions were invented

so how does the scientific community react to an such amount of information conflicting with our common idea of radioactivity and the like?

careysub - 7-2-2016 at 22:09

Quote: Originally posted by Antiswat  
somewhere down the rabbit hole someone hinted me that there are some loose ends in regards of hiroshima, talking to a few others i was prompty linked this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEXG7h6kBOQ&feature=yout...

the guy comes across as pretty legitimate, he claims that radioactivity safety measures are nothing but hypocrisy having had hands on experience with the materials for many years before the safety precautions were invented

so how does the scientific community react to an such amount of information conflicting with our common idea of radioactivity and the like?


Is there a transcript available I can scan through and review?

I am not sitting through a 47 minute lecture on this, especially since his Bayesian crack-pot prior probability is very high.

Detonationology - 7-2-2016 at 22:18

Quote: Originally posted by careysub  
Quote: Originally posted by Antiswat  
somewhere down the rabbit hole someone hinted me that there are some loose ends in regards of hiroshima, talking to a few others i was prompty linked this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEXG7h6kBOQ&feature=yout...

the guy comes across as pretty legitimate, he claims that radioactivity safety measures are nothing but hypocrisy having had hands on experience with the materials for many years before the safety precautions were invented

so how does the scientific community react to an such amount of information conflicting with our common idea of radioactivity and the like?


Is there a transcript available I can scan through and review?

I am not sitting through a 47 minute lecture on this, especially since his Bayesian crack-pot prior probability is very high.

Annotated Transcript

Fulmen - 8-2-2016 at 01:01

*Kook alert* *Kook alert* *Kook alert*

Marvin - 8-2-2016 at 03:05

The writer of the critique comes off as nutty as GW does and appears to not know much physics. He makes a lot of assumptions, takes things literally and shoots them down on technicalities.

GW is wrong about safety, but he's speaking as the guy that kicked the fuel rods and lived to tell the tale. If a cancerous lump had cost him his foot and chemo had failed he'd be preaching a different story for as long as he had left.

His lecture reads like a guy who worked at the coal face of nuclear reprocessing until the political and legal climate changed and his gung-ho uranium licking attitude to safety wasn't acceptable any more. This is his truth, from a 'what I saw and touched' point of view and with a heavy right wing lean.

It doesn't make him right, but it doesn't make him a liar either.

Fulmen - 8-2-2016 at 03:48

No, just a kook. I'm assuming that these claims are correct:

- He claims that the Three Mile Island nuclear accident was no accident, but done on purpose as part of a movie-scripted operation to keep people fearful about radioactivity; as well as trick rate payers into paying more;
This is classic conspiracy theory.

- The radioactive waste disposal system exists primarily for the benefit of ‘organized crime’: so it can dispose of all its piles of dead bodies, weapons, etc. without ever getting detected.
If you say so... (Slowly backing away, looking for an emergency exit or window to jump out of).

- His answer boils down to his belief that “using it beneficially” threatens a number of powerful interests, most notably an alleged “federal energy cartel” which controls the price and availability of energy.
This one is actually not entirely wrong. We know that major oil companies did finance (and possibly instigated) the anti-nuclear movement. Not really that surprising, they had clear economical motives and a proven moral backbone limper than an overcooked jellyfish.

Marvin - 8-2-2016 at 05:23

Quote: Originally posted by Fulmen  
I'm assuming that these claims are correct


Weirdly, I read the whole thing before making up my mind and will watch the video when I'm at a PC that can.

Fulmen - 8-2-2016 at 05:32

I started by googling his name, it was enough for me. You can easily judge a man by his followers, and his are nuttier than squirrel turds.

A much more sensible read would be wade Allison's "Radiation and Reason" where he questions the current linear-no-threshold model.

j_sum1 - 8-2-2016 at 05:49

Quote: Originally posted by Antiswat  
so how does the scientific community react to an such amount of information conflicting with our common idea of radioactivity and the like?

The same as anything. The one making the claims has a burden of proof to supply the supporting evidence and reasoning to back up those claims. This is particularly true if those claims are at odds with accepted scientific understanding. He does not do this. Therefore his claims are unfounded and essentially worthless.

Now. If he actually presented some evidence beyond personal anecdote on what he had or had not handled then it might be a start. But I didn't see any of it.

Dr.Bob - 8-2-2016 at 07:49

There are plenty of good books that look at radioactivity and safety from a scientific stand point. Most show that nuclear power is safer than most other forms of power due to simple math, there have been perhaps 100's of deaths from nuclear screwups, but thousands from coal mining accidents alone. If you believe in global warming being a real and fixable threat, then nuclear is clearly part of the solution for now. For an example, see Energy Myths and Realities: Bringing Science to the Energy Policy Debate by Vaclav Smil as well as most of his books, they are very well written.

http://www.amazon.com/Energy-Myths-Realities-Bringing-Scienc...

For nuclear safety, there is a great video explaining the measurement and risk of radiation, but I can't find the link right now. I'll look for it, but it is nicely done.

careysub - 8-2-2016 at 08:14

Quote: Originally posted by Fulmen  
I started by googling his name, it was enough for me. You can easily judge a man by his followers, and his are nuttier than squirrel turds.

A much more sensible read would be wade Allison's "Radiation and Reason" where he questions the current linear-no-threshold model.


More sensible, I'll grant - but that is a low bar. And the fact that it was written but physics professor, rather than giving the book authority, should be a source of embarrassment for said professor.

The most fundamental problem with the attack on LNT is its key assertion that, like most poisons* (note the most), there should be a zero risk threshold, and that it seems unreasonable to think that the risk remains constant even to very small doses.

The problem with this argument is that even if it true, it is irrelevant. Everyone is exposed to at least 0.25 cSv of radiation every year. Everybody. Most people receive more than that - the average in the U.S. is 0.62 cSv.

So what the LNT model is really dealing with is the incremental risk on top of a substantial annual dose already being received. We have direct evidence in humans that the LNT model is valid down to the limit where it can be detected through available epidemiological models, with is something like 3 cSv. The ratio between 3 cSv and 0.6 cSv is only a factor of 5.

It would be remarkable for the biology to change dramatically over such a small range of exposure, and LNT attackers have no defensible evidence to support such a surprising assertion. The usual approach take is to look at radiation exposure risks in poorly controlled epidemiological studies, where confounding factors dominate. Allison relies heavily on analogies, which provide no support.

And there is excellent cellular biology evidence to show that at the molecular level, in this exposure regime, LNT really is the appropriate model.

OTOH, the magnitude of risk - even given the LNT - is not huge. Radiation is a rather weak carcinogen overall. People tend to greatly overestimate the risks of moderate radiation exposure. A case can be made that the safety factors written into law are excessive, and out of line with risks we routinely accept in other areas. But that is an entirely different discussion.

*Risks from exposures to certain heavy metals, like lead, have not been shown to have zero risk thresholds to the general population. Instead, epidemiological studies lose the power to detect harm at some exposure level, but there is harm shown all the way down to that study limit.

{Shouldn't this thread be in Radiochemistry?]

[Edited on 8-2-2016 by careysub]

blogfast25 - 8-2-2016 at 08:43

Quote: Originally posted by Fulmen  


- His answer boils down to his belief that “using it beneficially” threatens a number of powerful interests, most notably an alleged “federal energy cartel” which controls the price and availability of energy.
This one is actually not entirely wrong. We know that major oil companies did finance (and possibly instigated) the anti-nuclear movement. Not really that surprising, they had clear economical motives and a proven moral backbone limper than an overcooked jellyfish.


Then maybe you should look at a country like France, which has a powerful oil industry and has the highest proportion of energy produced by nuclear of any country in the world.

This chap is a kook through and through and SM members like 'Antiswat' should know better than to lend credibility to crackpots like him. It belongs on kook-sites about 'FREE quantum energy' and such like. Not here, please.

[Edited on 8-2-2016 by blogfast25]

careysub - 8-2-2016 at 08:47

Okay, I read the transcript (in a lot less than 47 minutes) and I am so glad I did not listen to this drivel (I could call it other things, but I'll let it go at that).

OMG. This is guy was - quite literally - a danger to himself and others. Occupation injury, and even fatal industrial accidents, are no big deal to him, just part of doing the job. Because: America!

He should have been canned well before he left the career, as he was politically opposed to safety regulation and worked to subvert it.

Fulmen - 8-2-2016 at 09:00

Quote: Originally posted by careysub  
The problem with this argument is that even if it true, it is irrelevant. Everyone is exposed to at least 0.25 cSv of radiation every year.
...
So what the LNT model is really dealing with is the incremental risk on top of a substantial annual dose already being received


I fail to see your argument. There are two factors here, linearity and threshold (if any). If the threshold is above the average background dose it's relevant, and there could still be non-linear effects above this.

If you say the evidence supports LNT I just have to take your word for it, I'm not well versed in epidemiology. But I found one of Allison's arguments interesting, the fact that radiology doesn't follow LNT. Could you explain where this argument fails?

Quote:
OTOH, the magnitude of risk - even given the LNT - is not huge. Radiation is a rather weak carcinogen overall. People tend to greatly overestimate the risks of moderate radiation exposure


I must admit that this was the most interesting part of Allison's book. The fact that it's so hard to detect the effects of even large radioactive incidents was surprising to me.
I'm not trying to brush off the real risks of radiation, but I do believe we've become somewhat hysterical about it.

careysub - 8-2-2016 at 09:35

Quote: Originally posted by Fulmen  
Quote: Originally posted by careysub  
The problem with this argument is that even if it true, it is irrelevant. Everyone is exposed to at least 0.25 cSv of radiation every year.
...
So what the LNT model is really dealing with is the incremental risk on top of a substantial annual dose already being received


I fail to see your argument. There are two factors here, linearity and threshold (if any). If the threshold is above the average background dose it's relevant, and there could still be non-linear effects above this.


Two aspects of the argument.

First, linearity holds for human populations all the way down to the limit of the ability of epidemiological studies to detect it. There is no evidence of a threshold in the range of 3 to 0.6 cSv for any human study (studies claimed to show this do not have the power to detect it even if it existed).

Thus the claim that there is a threshold in this range hinges on the assertion that there is a sudden change in radiobiology here - and there is no evidence of this whatsoever. Indeed using rodent models we can detect LNT working down to about 0.1 cSv, well below the level of relevance to humans (since we already get 0.25 cSv or more).

Now you can find papers quite easily that cite a whole bunch of radiobiological factors limiting and fixing radiation damage that, it is asserted, invalidate LNT. Here is one:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2663584/
(it comes to the top in Google searches).

But these papers are more-or-less the scientific equivalent of the "Gish Gallop", throwing out a whole bunch of statements at once, without actually showing that they bear on the central argument.

Which is this:
Do these (real, undisputed) factors start having a dominating effect at 1 cSv that they do not have at 3 cSv?

And none of these papers even try to make that argument (from the many I have read).

Asserting that it is plausible that a threshold in the relevant range may exist is entirely different from showing that one does.

I have been following this discussion for 30 year now, and always I look to see what evidence the no-LNT proponents have to actually support their case, and still nothing that stands up.

BTW: The reason that I focused on the importance of considering the relevant exposure range is that there are a gazillion sophists at work in this area, and a common comparison made is to threshold poisoning effects for things that we do not have any inescapable exposure, and thus thresholds at extremely low levels are not a relevant comparison.

A poison that is a relevant model is cyanide. This is ubiquitous in plant food sources, and thus any animal that eats plant derived foods needs protection from it. And such a protection mechanism exists, and it does create a true zero-harm poisoning rate threshold for cyanide.

Radiation is ubiquitous and we do have multiple mechanisms for dealing with the damage. The question is, does a zero-harm (or perhaps radically reduced harm), threshold exist in the range 0.61 cSv and 3 cSv? Proponents have to make a solid scientific case that this is true, and to date they have failed to do so.

Fulmen - 8-2-2016 at 11:37

Quote: Originally posted by careysub  
Proponents have to make a solid scientific case that this is true, and to date they have failed to do so.

This part I'm totally down with, evidence is required. The arguments for a threshold sounds reasonable to me, but if the evidence isn't there it's just another hypothesis.

But back to the radiation therapy argument. Isn't it true that they don't use LNT when administering this? Doesn't this support the non-linearity theory?

careysub - 8-2-2016 at 14:05

Quote: Originally posted by Fulmen  
Quote: Originally posted by careysub  
Proponents have to make a solid scientific case that this is true, and to date they have failed to do so.

This part I'm totally down with, evidence is required. The arguments for a threshold sounds reasonable to me, but if the evidence isn't there it's just another hypothesis.

But back to the radiation therapy argument. Isn't it true that they don't use LNT when administering this? Doesn't this support the non-linearity theory?


I should have mentioned this at the outset is the current standard model is not a simple linear model for all doses and dose rates.

The actual model currently used includes a dose-rate effectiveness factor (DREF or DDREF), which roughly halves the risk per unit dose at low doses or low dose rates (or both) compared to the risk given by a linear extrapolation from high doses. So there is a generally accepted reduction in harm per dose unit for low dose rates compared to high ones.

But people talking about thresholds, or even hormesis (radiation making you healthier) are talking about something very different (though they often confuse the discussion by conflating the high-to-low dose issue).

I am not sure what you are referring to as the "radiation therapy argument" about not using LNT.

Are you talking about calculating the cancer killing dose?
Or do you mean the "second cancer" risk in cancer patients receiving radiation treatment? In this case the "second cancer" risk is actually much greater than can be attributed to the radiation effect alone, and is presumably due to underlying cancer biology in the patient.

The nature of the epidemiology of low dose radiation means that the exact parametric nature of the effects of radiation in this regime will never be precisely determined. Even the evidence for the DDREF is not strong, and has been criticized. But some model must be adopted to provide safety standards.

In terms of risk modeling and regulation the exact parametric nature of the risk model is much less important than where you peg "acceptable risk". Pegging it at "one cancer per million" is an arbitrary and extremely stringent criterion that is difficult to enforce. Still, you must always make the distinction between risks that are imposed on other people and risks that people are informed about and voluntarily accept, perceiving some benefit for doing so. The former must always be more stringent than the latter, and is a pitfall when comparing risks of various types not to respect this distinction.

Fulmen - 8-2-2016 at 14:29

The radiation-therapy argument is based on how large doses are portioned out and the patient is given recovery time between treatments. This suggests that there isn't only a non-linearity involved but that recuperation time is also a factor.

careysub - 8-2-2016 at 15:30

Quote: Originally posted by Fulmen  
The radiation-therapy argument is based on how large doses are portioned out and the patient is given recovery time between treatments. This suggests that there isn't only a non-linearity involved but that recuperation time is also a factor.


You are talking about acute radiation syndrome (ARS). That is entirely different. That is due to the acute effects of high radiation doses and has nothing to do with the chronic statistical cancer risk that is what the low dose radiation regulations address. They operate by biological different mechanisms.

You have no doubt heard about the "quality factor" (QF) that treats radiation energy delivered by neutrons as being 2-10 times more harmful than gamma rays or x-rays? This only applies to chronic cancer risk. As far as ARS is concerned it is all the same.

It is well known that high doses affect the body through different mechanisms and have a variety of threshold effects. Cataracts for example are a threshold dosage effect, below a certain level of exposure they do not occur at all.

Different mechanisms, different effects.

Anyone who drags ARS into a discussion of chronic low dose radiation, attempting to discredit the current risk model, is definitely a crack-pot. It is similar to confusing the acute effects of high level arsenic poisoning, and the chronic carcinogenicity of low levels of arsenic. Studying acute arsenic poisoning tells you little or nothing about chronic low level exposure.

Fulmen - 9-2-2016 at 00:04

*facepalm*

Well, when you put it like that it makes perfect sense. The acute effects are entirely different, and massive cell death is in it self toxic to the body if I'm not mistaken. Maybe I misunderstood the argument, it's been a long time since I heard it.

Anyways, thanks for the clarification. It's been quite educational.

[Edited on 9-2-16 by Fulmen]

Fantasma4500 - 9-2-2016 at 07:13

interesting responses, i would say however the link (seen below) draws some fallacy "boils down to"
you cant do that.. its called pulling a strawman reformulating what is said, its a fallacy, it is as illegal as it gets when it comes to processing information or discussing something -- and it points fingers at you having some difficulties attaching yourself to the information

(https://allegedlyapparent.wordpress.com/2014/04/30/nuclear-n...)

also.. if the devil appeared in front of your door, and you knew by chance your neighbour is a satanist who also by chance dislikes your favorite football team, does that mean everything the devil says is incorrect?
sounds like another fallacy, sorry for using this word so much, but in this case i cant at standing foot name the fallacy, but its just flat out empty logic to disregard what a person says because of his followers, in a world of that logic this would mean eminem is black!

i think the link really have some troubles, such as appaling to authority and using news headlines, and correct me if im wrong.. but seeing high cancer rates by chance in people who work with nuclear materials, that is not scientific evidence..? could very well be entirely off on this not having seen the article itself, but it sounds like guesswork
something just appears as to me that the writer of the article has something against this guy, and thats not how to remain objective, and if you arent objective you are heading towards belief -- where really deeprooted cognitive dysfunctions may affect what you say and how you react to anything within the situation

i do recall he mentioned a lot that he had hands on experience with nuclear materials before they introduced the safety measures, and if he really did handle it like that, well then he is a professional in the game

now i havent dealt much with radioactive materials, but if one lad comes in with a briefcase one day at my workplace and tells me iron is acutely toxic on contact, i would tell him to turn around, walk back out and never come back