User:Pat Palmer/sandbox/test20: Difference between revisions
Pat Palmer (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
Pat Palmer (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
= Linear No Threshold (LNT) Theory = | = Linear-No Threshold (LNT) Theory = | ||
Whatever subatomic particles an atom happens to | Whatever subatomic particles an atom happens to | ||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
mortality. The dashed “Theory” line shows the predicted increase of | mortality. The dashed “Theory” line shows the predicted increase of | ||
radon-induced cancer per the LNT model. The solid line shows real- | radon-induced cancer per the LNT model. The solid line shows real- | ||
world cancer rates trending lower with increasing levels of radon.''<ref>[http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/LNT-1995.PDF | world cancer rates trending lower with increasing levels of radon.''<ref>[http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/LNT-1995.PDF Test of the Linear-No Threshold Theory of Radiation Carcinogenesis for Inhaled Radon Decay Products] by Bernard L. Cohen (University of Pittsburgh) in "Health Physics" 68(2):157-174, 1995 (source for Figure 1)</ref> | ||
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
Revision as of 09:45, 27 May 2024
Linear-No Threshold (LNT) Theory
Whatever subatomic particles an atom happens to emit—protons, neutrons, electrons, or gamma rays—the atom is classified as radioactive because it’s actively radiating “zoomies.” Even if it only ejects one weak zoomie every hundred years, it’s still considered radioactive.
A popular bogeyman, radon-222 contributes to nearly half the average background radiation we humans typically receive on this nuclear planet. The linear no-threshold (LNT) model, which claims there is no safe dose of radiation, is flatly contradicted by the real-world data on radon.
The graph below summarizes a 1995 study by Bernard Cohen of 1,729 US counties, comprising 90% of the American population at that time. Increasing radon levels are shown on the x-axis (horizontal), and increasing cancer rates are shown on the y-axis (vertical). The graph is corrected for smoking.
Figure 1 to be added here
Caption: The x-axis shows radon exposure, and the y-axis shows lung cancer mortality. The dashed “Theory” line shows the predicted increase of radon-induced cancer per the LNT model. The solid line shows real- world cancer rates trending lower with increasing levels of radon.[1]
When the data is objectively examined, it becomes clear that the low-dose radon levels typically found in our homes do not correlate with increased rates of cancer. In fact, quite the opposite: Lung cancer mortalities are actually lower in households with higher-than-average radon levels.
In certain places, such as underground mines, radon can be much higher than average, and if it poses a risk it should of course be mitigated. But just like the mitigation of any potentially hazardous substance, the question is: To what degree?
Science, not science fiction, should be our guide.
Indeed, real-world data strongly suggests that low-dose radiation may confer a “hormetic” health benefit—not homeopathy, but hormesis. (Big difference; google it.) The paradoxical effect of low-dose radiation was evident as far back as the 1950s, when the Life-Span Study (LSS) in postwar Japan found distinctly lower rates of leukemia in some Hiroshima and Nagasaki blast survivors.
People who were 2–3,000 meters from the blasts received a dose of about 20 mSv. Ten years later, they had distinctly lower rates of leukemia compared to those who were closer to the blasts and received more radiation, as well as those who were farther away and received virtually no radiation at all. A 1958 report by UNSCEAR published the LSS findings:
Figure 2 to be added here[2]
Here’s a graphical view of the same data:
Figure 3 to be added here no source or caption
This is completely contrary to LNT orthodoxy, which claims that there is no safe dose of radiation.
Notes
- ↑ Test of the Linear-No Threshold Theory of Radiation Carcinogenesis for Inhaled Radon Decay Products by Bernard L. Cohen (University of Pittsburgh) in "Health Physics" 68(2):157-174, 1995 (source for Figure 1)
- ↑ Report of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation at the General Assembly, Thirteenth Session, Supplement No. 17 (A/3838), New York, 1958 (source for Figure 2)