Skip to main content

View Diary: Radiation, Cancer, and the Linear No-Threshold Model (143 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Hope you found this informational (21+ / 0-)

    I have to go to bed now (live in Europe and all) but will try and answers questions tomorrow.

    Lets hope for the best.

    •  Very informational, thanks (5+ / 0-)

      On damned statistics...

      Based on the current numbers as of this writing, if the radiation levels remained as elevated as they are for the next 1000 hours in Ibaraki, the highest measured prefecture, the increased risk of cancer would be 0.003%, or 1 additional cancer per 36,000 people.

      I realize more people will die in car wrecks this year, than will die from radiation.  But that's still 1 person in 36k suffering a horrific, certainly preventable death- probably a child.  

      Based on the other models, there might be no increase in cancer at all, or perhaps even a slight benefit.  

      Definitely difficult to prove, given the risks. I did research "radiation hormesis"...  I'll pass on radioactive homeopathy.

      What doesn't kill ya, doesn't kill ya.

      We all take risks, but when radiation is a risk others are willing to take for me, and without my consent,  that just doesn't sit right with me.

      I will be keeping an eye on this interesting diary. Thank you again for sharing.

      “The most important trip you may take in life is meeting people halfway” ~ Henry Boye~

      by Terranova0 on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 07:35:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  In perspective, (0+ / 0-)

      say you start smoking a pack of cigarettes a day at age eighteen.  How much will that increase your chances of getting cancer?  

      Never meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer.--Bruce Graham

      by Ice Blue on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 08:45:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, Wish I Had an Old Scientific Article (5+ / 0-)

      Read the same in a scientific journal back in the mid 90's.

      It cast doubts on using the linear model to correlate cancer risk with radiation levels using Hiroshima and/or Nagasaki.  The closer to the blast where the heaviest radiation levels were showed a much higher incidence of cancers.  But in a band where the radiation levels were lower, there was a measurable DECREASE in the incidence of cancer which gradually approached the general population level of cancer farther away.

      I for one would never want to be part of that experiment or rely a determination of an 'ideal' level of exposure though.  I even remember there was an apalling nut-bag in Oregon running for congress last election who thought it would be a good idea to expose the population to some level of radiation.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site