From the denial that radiation causes cancer by Atomic
I love at about 2:30, where Gundersen says that drinking beer is fine. Never mind that it is an alcoholic drink. Alcohol is a carcinogen. Beer also contains about 14 Bq/kg of radioactive K-40. Beer is much heavier than dried grasshoppers.
At about 4 minutes, Gundersen assumes that just because an exposure rate in an area could lead to absorbed doses of 20 mSv, that it will. But that's not true. A person has to actually remain in those specific areas all year long, which is unlikely. People don't sit by a gutter, or a field, or on a street all year long. The contamination is not uniformly distributed.
Regardless, the average cancer incidence in Japan is about 30%, so even if someone received 20 mSv, the risk would increase to 30.2% which is trivial (of course, one adds 2% for each 20 mSv/yr, so it could possibly become non-trivial over time. But decontamination is planned, so the length of time is only on the order of years at most, not decades). And even though Gundersen tries to hype the risk to young females, it's still trivial compared to other risks.
At about 5:30, Gundersen says that since BEIR only considers cancer, the risk to the folks is even worse. But Gundersen fails to state that BEIR only considers cancer, because that is the only known risk. So, no, Arnie, it isn't worse than that. You just made that up! Hot particles are included in the BEIR report, because dose is dose, whether received from an internal emitter or an external one.
We then get to see Ian Goddard's video, which fails to mention that the 20 mSv limit was only in place for a month!!!! (I posted on this video before.) It was lowered back to 1 mSv. The nuclear worker study mentioned was in error. The statistical driver for the increased risk was primarily due to the country of Canada. Why would Canadian radiation workers' risk be so much higher than workers in other country's? It isn't. There was a data error. And the original authors concluded (as the video says) that the risk estimates are consistent with BEIR VII when Canada is excluded.
The Goddard video states that the BEIR report said that there is "no safe dose of radiation". No, the BEIR report doesn't state that. The report states that the LNT model is the best model which fits the data. "Safety" is a matter of great subjectivity. What is safe to one person, may not be perceived as safe by someone else. Most people would find that these low doses are relatively safe.
Regarding the media's take on radiation...they suck. I can agree with the Goddard video there. But not in the manner he might expect. Obviously, the data is publicly available (Goddard read BEIR for free). And the risks are relatively low (read BEIR).
Regarding the Jacobs, et al study, notice the statistical spread of the "red dots" compared to the "blue dots". There is much greater uncertainty with the red dots compared to the blue dots, though the red tend to be right-shifted more. However, there is no mechanism provided which would suggest that low dose rate is more damaging than a rapid dose rate. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary, which is why we've "assumed" that low dose rates present less risk. BEIR VII uses a Dose and Dose Rate Effectiveness Factor to equate a fast dose rate to a slow dose rate based on evidence which shows slower dose rates are less effective in causing damage.
The "Hypothetical Syllogism" was a good chuckle. It ignores the discussion of BEIR VII, which was proffered originally. The ability for cells to repair chromosomal aberrations is also enhanced at slow dose rates. What we see is that cancer induction is linearly related to dose at slow dose rates. Otherwise, the curve would NOT be linear. Goddard needs to make up his logical mind.
Thanks, Arnie, but "keeping you informed" is not what you're doing.
And you know it.
No comments:
Post a Comment