Familiarity breeds understanding and acceptance of radiation

12 Comments

1. Bionerd23 is very good for a student. She should have said the radiation she was receiving is relatively safe, not absolutely safe, though.

   (Will this comment be censored too?)

   1. @Bob – you have earned the status of requiring moderation for each of your comments. If you behave, and stop accusing others of being denialists or creationists because their professional judgement and evaluation of data leads them to conclusions that conflict with yours, you may contribute to the discussion. Otherwise, I will make the censorship complete.

      1. Respectfully, I try to be scientific in looking at the data and coming to reasonable conclusions, and am a creationist (in the sense of Pope Pius XII’s encyclical, Humani Generis). One can be scientific, honest with the facts, and pro-nuclear power while still having a life of faith. I wish people wouldn’t give all creationists a bad name because some creationists act like a donkey’s hind end (I’ll wager some on the other end of the spectrum are equally guilty, and I accuse no one here.) I promise to make my comments relevant to the subject of nuclear energy and won’t therefore denigrate my evolutionist friends who disagree with me about things not germane to the area of nuclear energy. At least we can agree about that. Indeed, I am much too interested in seeing nuclear power succeed in this country and throughout the world, for everyone’s benefit and that won’t happen until people start looking at radiation soundly and intelligently, and without all the fear-mongering and hysteria that the popular media stirs up. Surely we can work together on that. Personally, I like this young lady’s attempt to put perspective on something that most in the public are afraid of. 😉

   2. In direct response to your question, breathing is not absolutely safe either, but most of us think that the risk is worth the reward.

2. Rod:

   Breathing is essential to human life

   I am criticizing people whose professional judgement and evalutation of the data leads them to conclusions that conflict with the scientific consensus (which I share).

   If those people had professional ethics, they would understand they are free to present evidence to change the scientific consensus. If they don’t have that evidence (they can’t convince the experts), they shouldn’t try to convince the less informed general public.

   That is unethical.

   It is also narcisstic (“I’m better than the experts”). It is short circuiting science and an insult to the thousands of those who play by the rules.

   You are aiding and abetting that behavior.

   Make the censorship complete if you want, I have an ethical obligation to submit my comments:

   “Professional statements made by members shall have sound scientific basis”

   http://hps.org/aboutthesociety/codeofethics.html

   1. @Bob

      Your criticism of by-passing scientific review to directly approach the public does not apply. Dr. Cuttler’s paper has been published by a publication aimed at professionals as well as being released for discussion in this more accessible location. People who want to offer rebuttals to the work are free to do so. However, simply claiming that it is not in line with the accepted hypothesis is not a very convincing argument.

   2. Bob,

      I find you to be somewhat in violation of the following statement of the cited code of ethics:

      “•No employment or consultation shall be undertaken which is contrary to law or the public welfare.”
      (Emphasis added)

      The overall public welfare is decreased by the stoking of fear of very low levels of radiation, via multiple avenues, greatly increased air pollution is one of the most significant of these avenues. If you get a few minutes, check out my most recent post.
      http://entreprenuclear.blogspot.com/2013/04/31-risk-vs-benefit-and-best-of.html

      -EntrepreNuke

3. Rod:

   Cuttler offers no new evidence in this paper. The ideas he offers have been heard before, and discarded by the scientific consensus.

   In this particular instance, Cuttler’s paper is a commentary which is not a direct approach to the public. That is obviously true. Whether or not someone will take the time to refute what has already been much refuted will have to be seen.

   However, he has directly approached the public before, like here:

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFr_Dam1kJQ

   What made Einstein, Darwin, and others great is that they changed the scientific consensus with evidence. Not by repeating, over and over again, their reluctance to accept the scientific consensus.

   There’s a difference.

   1. When asked, every single one of the experts (professors and ass. professors of nuclear physics and engineering at Delft Technical University, my alma mater) has told me that a radiation dose sustained instantly, versus a dose sustained over the course of a year, will yield a different cancer risk. when recieving a dose over a longer term, the danger is much reduced.

      So all of these experts are not agreeing with strict LNT hypothesis. So where is this scientific concensus you talk about? While learning about this subject by speaking to my friendly local experts, I am getting the impression more and more that all radiation health professionals realise that LNT is simply a convenient hypothesis that is useful in certain practical appllications, but not to be taken to extremes. I have not found anyone in that group who agrees with the notion that LNT is correct down to the very last becquerrel. You are the only one it seems, Mr. Applebaum. Not much of a concensus, it seems. It seems more like pathological science! 😉

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science

4. There were scientists at the time that went to their grave denouncing Darwin, as there were those that would not accept Pasteur’s germ theory. I believe that you Mr. Applebaum will be the same over LNT. No amount of evidence will ever convince you, and like those that have rejected changes in the past you will be seen as reactionary and in the end, irrelevant. The amusing thing is that every time you post you dig the hole a bit deeper for yourself.

5. The chances of my wife living a respectful length so she can see her young boys growing up is improved by the use of nuclear medicine and radiotherapy. You need to experience it or be close to it to really see the benefit …

6. This morning, in contemplating this blog post, I recalled the vast sums of amount of money that a former place of employment spent on radiation monitor upgrades (I was the radiation monitoring system engineer and had to defend the upgrades because of the Regulation). Some of the process radiation monitors we upgraded went down to 1.0E-11 uCi/ml in measuring radioactivity, and some area monitors went lower than 1.0E-01 mR/hr. There were a number of monitors installed for post accident monitoring per Regulatory Guide 1.97 that went some 10 or 20 decades of measurement. And since the upgrades were all digital, we had to implement all the software QA requirements of Regulatory Guides 1.152 and 1.168 through 1.173. Just so that everyone can put this in perspective, there are few things more expensive than doing SQA for digital I&C at a nuclear power plant; cable and conduit is one of these. So based on all this, I have to wonder if all this paranoia over radiation doesn’t help to enrich some companies whose only interest may be a profit, not that there’s anything wrong with making an honest dollar for a good product, but if anyone here has has to do software V&V for a safety-related post accident radiation monitor that is never used during normal plant operation at power, then you can understanding the amount of mind-numbing myopia (and frustration) that goes into the analysis and requirements traceability.

   Again, I am not suggesting we don’t follow Regulation, but if we measured SOx, NOx and COx emissions from a coal fired power plant the way we measure radioactivity at a nuclear power plant, then not a single coal fired plant would be economical. BTW, coal releases far more radiation / radioactivity from the naturally occuring uranium, thorium and radium in coal than is released from a nuclear power plant of equivalent power output. So why does coal get a free pass in not monitoring for and sequestering such radiative emissions? That’s a rhetoric question not requiring an answer.

Comments are closed.