Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  You seem to be about the only (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raoul78, LookingUp, Eirene, worldlotus, Mcrab

    one who has interpreted this diary in a way that is meant to minimize the impact of what's happening in Japan right now . . . . .

    To me it simply seemed to be an attempt to counter some of the ridiculous truisms that are (seemingly endlessly) being spouted in the other diaries (e.g., "the effects of radiation are cumulative" - sure, they can be but hardly ever are  OR "humans aren't equipped to deal with radiation from nuclear power plants because it is not "natural" " - actually, human cells are fully equipped to deal with it . . .

    •  The diarist said.... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      b00g13p0p, Lura

      and I quote: (Yet again)

      What are the risks at the moment for civilians in Japan?  Based on the LNT model, the increased radiation exposure will lead to a very slight increase in the number of cancers if the radiation remains elevated for long.  Based on the other models, there might be no increase in cancer at all, or perhaps even a slight benefit.  

      And, that is the most incredible piece of bullshit I've read here since this whole tragedy began to unfold.

      There is a difference in educating people that the plant is not going to explode into a mushroom cloud and trying to baffle them with information to try to convince them that what is happening in Japan can somehow be BENEFICIAL for human beings.

      •  Based on extant understanding (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        raoul78, worldlotus, Mcrab

        of radiation, there indeed might be a slight benefit.  However, there was a much stronger statement immediately preceding that one that said there'd be an increase in cancer.

        And as far as I could ascertain, the statement was not made gleefully (like yay! I support cancer, let's release more radioisotopes!) - it was simply a rational analysis of the situation.

        •  Why not just stop obfuscating... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          b00g13p0p, Lura, Picot verde

          While there will be no mushroom cloud, many people are going to die because of this, people who did not have to die.

          They are going to die from radiation poisoning.

          Others are going to die horrible deaths from cancers that they would not have gotten from eating a bananna or being exposed to sunlight.

          They are going to die because of a nuclear disaster, not caused principally by a Tsunami and an Earthquake, but by poor human engineering.

          Add to that that high levels of radiation are going to poison the ecosystem at varying levels around these reactors for a period longer than any of us will be alive.

          That is the truth.  Plain and simple.  So stop trying to say otherwise.

          •  Based on the information that is (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            raoul78, LookingUp, worldlotus, Mcrab

            avaialable right now, it is impossible to say how many people will die.

            While I think it's irresponsible to claim that zero people will die (which you seemed to have interpreted this diary as saying), it's equally irresponsible to say that "many" people will.  

            The only "truth" that's out there right now is that not enough is known about the situation to say one way or the other.

          •  What are you basing this on? (5+ / 0-)

            That you're scared of radiation and radioactivity?  We can have an open and reasonable discussion, but it seems to me that you are pulling a disaster out of a hat based on nothing.  Could it get much worse?  Yes.  I hope it doesn't.  

            At the moment though, you are arguing as much against the known science as someone who believes the earth is 6000 years old and evolution does not happen.  

            I'm not making these conclusions based upon any of my personal scientific background, its based on what I've read in the scientific literature and the reports I've linked above.  Its also based on the best numbers I had available when I wrote it.

            •  "Pulling a disaster out of a hat"... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              b00g13p0p, Picot verde

              And, herein lies the problem.

              To you, it's only a potential disaster.

              For most people it already IS a disaster.

              We have a fundamental disagreement caused by our perspectives.

              You think microscopically and I think macroscopically.

              Sorry that you feel the need to insult my intelligence.

              I happen to not only believe in evolution, but I know how it works.

              •  I'd also like to apologize (0+ / 0-)

                you're looking at it from a different persepctive, and I do not mean to insult your intelligence.

                The issue for me is the following statement

                many people are going to die because of this

                And perhaps, because the "many" lacks a number I don't understand what you mean.  Do you think more people will die than were killed directly by earthquake and tsunami?  

                Based on the LNT model, some people will contract cancer and die of this.  I don't believe there are going to be people, outside of possibly the workers at Fukushima, who will develop radiation sickness - the doses being reported simply aren't high enough.

                For me, the language we use is important, and I guess for you as well.  Perhaps for you, the issue with me is that mine isn't strong enough.

      •  Comprehension fail. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        raoul78, worldlotus

        And I quote:

        What are the risks at the moment for civilians in Japan?  Based on the LNT model, the increased radiation exposure will lead to a very slight increase in the number of cancers if the radiation remains elevated for long. Based on the other models, there might be no increase in cancer at all, or perhaps even a slight benefit.

        The diarist is trying to explain that, based on years of research, we have a few proposed models of how radiation affects people.  He then enumerates what those models would predict for those who are exposed to the stated doses (note that the diarist never claims that every person will be exposed only to those doses)

        No one is saying that the Japanese reactor situation is a good thing.  The diarist is just explaining how bad (for human health) it is predicted to be at this point.

        This isn't hard.

        •  Nothing but arrogance... (0+ / 0-)

          "This isn't hard"

          I'm not a fucking nuclear microbiologist.  And, I don't need to be one to understand what you and the diarist are trying to achieve.

          Since this event occurred, we've been bombarded by people trying to dazzle us with their bullshit.

          We're not talking about "small amounts" of radiation being released from these spent fuel rods anymore.

          But, please do carry on.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site