On 20/12/16 15:31, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 11:32:03 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:
It amazes me that people still use LNT for predictions when there
is copious evidence that its hopelessly inaccurate.
I have a sneaking idea that the NRPB still uses it as a guiding
principle when setting radiation exposure limits, BICBW.
well yes, that's the whole point.
The industry is held to unbeleivably tight emissions, but they are
totally unnecessary.
And lead to serous public misunderstanding and fear in the face of
radiation levels that are simply not an issue at all.
http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/P...ear_Energy.pdf
"Radiotherapy of deep cancers would not be possible if LNT was applicable."
"At Hiroshima and Nagasaki these (bombs) promptly killed at least a
quarter of the population of 429,000. In 1950 when reliable records were
compiled, only 283,000 survivors could be traced, and their medical
health has been followed ever since.
Individual doses have been reconstructed for 86,955, knowing
where they were when the bomb detonated and checked with their
radiation history as recorded by chromosome abnormalities and
unpaired electron densities (ESR) in their teeth. The average whole
body dose was 160mSv from the acute X-ray and neutron flux.
An unknown number of citizens succumbed to ARS and some will have died
of cancer before 1950, but most cancers would be expected in the period
1950-2000 and these data are available. Similar data for inhabitants of
other Japanese cities have been analysed for comparison.
Of those with a reconstructed dose 10,127 died of solid cancers compared
to 9,647 expected from data on other cities; for leukaemia the numbers
are 296 and 203. These numbers mean that overall cancer rates increased
by 1 in 15 due to the radiation. For the 67,794 survivors with doses
less than 100mSv the numbers are 7,657 and 7,595, and for leukaemia 161
and 157. The extra deaths (measure as 62 and 4) are smaller than the
typical random error to be expected statistically (90 and 13), and so
cannot be considered significant measurements at all.
So for these 67,794 people all that we can say is that the cancer risk
is not much more than 1 in 1000. For comparison, the chance of dying in
a road accident in a lifetime varies between 3 and 6 in 1000. So for all
practical purposes there is a threshold of risk at 100mSv - what happens
at lower doses is unmeasurable, even when nuclear bombs are dropped on
two major cities and the health of the survivors is followed for 50 years. "
"The accident at Chernobyl was more than 25 years ago and what happened,
who suffered and how, has been extensively reported in publications by
the World Health Organisation, the United Nations and the International
Atomic Energy Authority. The known loss of life as a result
of radiation exposure includes the 28 firefighters who died of ARS
and 15 children who died from thyroid cancer. They report that there is
no firm evidence for any other loss of life due to radiation, either
individually identified or statistically shown.
"The higher numbers sometimes reported are based on paper calculations
simply multiplying risk coefficients (eg 5% risk of death per Sv) with
low doses rates near natural levels accumulated by many people and added
up over many years. Such coefficients are a feature of the discredited
LNT model. But *even the International Commission for Radiological
Protection (ICRP) that still champions LNT* has cautioned that such
calculations €śshould be avoided€ť."