Another DeNiAr at Forbes...Shocking Not

Under the seemingly innocent title, "Can Nuclear Medicine Rehabilitate Nuclear Power?", the author seems to think the nuclear power industry has never attempted to link itself to the beneficial uses of radioactive materials in medicine.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/llewellynking/2020/08/03/can-nuclear-medicine-rehabilitate-nuclear-power/#55b9bf3db989

Of course, the nuclear industry has been doing this for decades.  It usually follows the repetitive, "did you know bananas are radioactive?".

But also in the propaganda piece is the real message...some people don't believe in the LNT model.

Deny, deny, deny....

Anyway, to answer his last question,  "Nuclear power could use a little therapy.  Is that at hand?"

No.

P.S.  The physician named in the propaganda is also a SARI member.

https://radiationeffects.org/members/

Shocking.  Not.

The LNT:MDA Analogy

When a laboratory analyzes a sample for radioactivity, it has to compare the instrument's sample results with the instrument's background results.

A one time measurement of the radiation background may or may not represent the true background, there is variability.  Same with the sample.

If you've ever read the results from a laboratory, when the sample and background counts are the same, what do they record as the sample's radioactivity?

Hint:  It's not zero!

More Pseudo-Health Physics

Courtesy of the blog,  Atomic Ideologies Insights.

Same, tired old people (Cuttler, Rockwell, Adams) spreading the same tired, old nonsense.

LNT - Common Misunderstandings

I was discussing LNT with a couple of folks on a website, and they presented two common misunderstandings.

LNT - A Hypothesis, Model Or Theory?

The "Linear No Threshold" is often followed by one of these three words "Hypothesis", "Model", "Theory" when the discussion is regarding radiation cancer risk.  In an informal sense it doesn't really matter which word is used as long as the people engaged in the discussion are sharing a common understanding.

But what about in a more formal sense?  Or what if someone is intentionally using one of those words to demean our scientific understanding?

So let's dig in.

Fairewinds Associates Buffoonery

Was it a fool moon last night or what (just kidding)??? 

From the denial that radiation causes cancer by Atomic Ideologies Insights in my earlier post, to Flatulentwinds Fairewinds Associates exaggerating the radiation risks to Japanese children as a result of Fukushima.

Atomic Ideologies Buffoonery

The blog Atomic Insights (which is more ideology than insight) has a post which is a discussion about whether or not radiation causes cancer.  It's quite stunning to read the first paragraph where a Dr. George presents anecdotal evidence as scientific evidence.  And it continues to plunge downhill from there, with a Dr. Cuttler, who is claimed to have 15 years studying the health effects of radiation, yet quotes Dr. Wade Allison, who has said he has no expertise in the field.  And I have pointed out many of his scientific flaws in early posts which can be found in that last link.

Why The LNT Model Will Be With Us For Many New Years

Sorry, LNT-deniers. 

The LNT model of radiation carcinogenesis isn't likely to change anytime soon.  It is the best model of radiation risk of cancer versus dose.  LNT doesn't "assume" the risk from low doses is absolutely linearly extrapolated from higher doses, as many LNT deniers like to frame the model.  It is based on historical evidence, and it could also be called Linear-Quadratic (curved line instead of straight).  But just like one ignores the curvature of the Earth when measuring a room for carpet, we can ignore the L-Q curvature in the low dose domain.

KISS For LNT-Deniers

KISS - Keep It Simple Sparky!

Based on the barrage of feedback I've received by LNT deniers over the last few days, mostly on Atomic Insights, I thought I'd take the KISS approach, addressing many of the fallacies.

Let's avoid numbers and obscure molecular biology for now.  Let's remember that it's almost 2012.

-------------

A dose response curve looks something like: